And so it begins: Suffolk Downs owner wants to skip pesky environmental reviews to make Amazon happy

The Globe reports HYM, which is co-owned by a guy who used to run the BRA, has asked the Baker administration to let it begin construction on two buildings in its proposed mega-development tout suite, which means without requiring it to do any of those annoying environmental reviews normally required of large projects along waterways, in this case Chelsea Creek, as a way to signal to Amazon that Boston is willing to do whatever it takes to bring it here short of, perhaps, human sacrifice. And if Amazon doesn't pick Suffolk Downs? Well, que sera sera.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

What's wrong with human sacrifice?

By on

To make the gears of the capitalist (or really any economic method) economy move quickly and produce the fastest growth human blood is the best lubricant. If not for the thousands who died to create the industrial revolution where would humanity be today?

up
17

Pretty sure Amazon

By on

Would rather spend a few extra bucks (heaven knows they've got it) to make sure they aren't poisoning their workers. The positive press of a clean up would be good publicity/marketing and an olive branch to skeptics.
This is a dumb idea.
Also, I respect Charlie Baker and have no dohbts regarding his moral compass on this issue. Never gonna happen.

Environmental Reviews Overrated

By on

California has a state law mandating reviews for significant projects.

When the City of San Francisco produced a plan to shrink roadways all over and replace them with bike paths and exclusive bus lanes, they got rightly sued for not producing an Environmental Review, and courts agreed.

So the state legislature make an exclusion to the law for any bicycling infrastructure.

Problem solved. No environmental impact, because, well, we say so!

Wow, I think this is a new

By on

Wow, I think this is a new UHub record for longest reach to turn a topic into an excuse to complain about bikes!

up
27

I'm sure we've seen it quicker

By on

But man, that was a sharp turn. Somehow we went from environmental impacts of the redevelopment of Suffolk Downs to California environmental law right quick.

well

By on

Bikes are easier to turn on a dime than cars ...

up
13

Yes

Because making a non-carbon-using transportation form better and a carbon-using form less desirable is so clearly good for the environment that any "environmental review" of such is a immoral and stupid delaying tactic.

I hope that was satire

Because making a non-carbon-using transportation form better and a carbon-using form less desirable is so clearly good for the environment that any "environmental review" of such is a immoral and stupid delaying tactic.

Just off the top of my head....

  • Fill in a wetland to make a bike path.
  • Dam a creek to build a causeway for bikes
  • Replace a 10 mile x 20 foot strip of natural vegetation cover (which absorbs rainwater into the ground) with a 10 mile x 20 foot strip of asphalt, graded, with storm drains that divert rainwater into the sewer system.

I'm confused

Which of those are existing roads with existing impermeable tarmacadam and concrete where there is a reallocation of space to various modes of travel?

I.e. which of those is a road diet? I've searched, I've used ctrl-F on your post, can't find it anywhere.

Silly me.

Do you disagree with my fundamental point?

Which is that :

  1. No projects should automatically be exempt from environmental review
  2. It is conceivable that bike path infrastructure projects might have a negative environmental impact worth considering and mitigating?