The Bedford Minuteman
Thursday, August 30, 2001

Massport tried to pull a fast one

The following is a reaction to a story that ran in last week's Concord
Journal. The story is on Page 1 of the Minuteman this week.

To the editor:

Your report, "Activist group criticizes timing of airport reports" (Aug.
23), on Massport's public hearing schedule for the Hanscom vegetation
management plan (VMP) omits a key fact. The time it takes to prepare a VMP
is not, as Massport's Richard Walsh claims, the reason the VMP hearings are
being held at the same time as the Environmental Status and Planning Report
(ESPR) scope hearings. The true reason is that Massport never intended to
hold public hearings on the draft VMP at all.

As late as the July 17th HFAC meeting, Massport was insisting that that it
would submit the final VMP - prepared with no public input whatsoever - to
the four Conservation Commissions, together with Notices of Intent, starting
with an Aug.1st filing in Bedford. At that same HFAC meeting, Bedford
Conservation Commission administrator Elizabeth Bagdonas gave a detailed
presentation, conclusively proving that an extensive public review of the
draft VMP is legally mandated. As a direct result of that presentation,
Massport backed down and agreed to hold public hearings on the draft VMP.
Mr. Walsh has admitted that Massport altered its course because of Ms.
Bagdonas' presentation. ("HATS: Added time is good," Aug 2.)

The point is, if Massport had originally intended to obey its clear legal
obligation to provide a public process for the draft VMP, it could easily
have done so months ago. (Contrary to Mr. Walsh's assertion, I never argued
that draft VMP hearings should have been held a year ago - only that they
should have been held before now.) The only reason the VMP and ESPR hearings
are being crunched together in September is because Massport intended to
slip the VMP through without any public hearings. But for the vigilance and
expertise of the Conservation Commissions, that is exactly what would have
happened - proving once again that the only way to get Massport to obey the
law is to maintain a constant watch.

As Mr. Walsh says, "preparing complex documents like this takes time."
Reviewing them and commenting on them takes time, too. It is absurd for
Massport to require the HATS environmental subcommittee, and concerned
citizens in general, to review and comment on two sets of complex
documents - the draft VMP and the draft ESPR scope - in the same month.
Massport must, at minimum, extend the deadline for comments on the VMP to
mid-October, so that the public will have a reasonable amount of time to
submit comments on both documents.

Marty Pepper Aisenberg
Projects Director, Save Our Heritage
Concord


© Copyright 1995-2001 - Town Online - All Rights Reserved
==========
**NOTICE:  In accordance with 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.**
==========