McCavitt belongs to/formed the Citizens Chapter 91 Committee, a watchdog group that attempts to make sure waterfront development complies with state DEP guidelines that protect public waterways.
Chuck Lagasse has his say:
Lagasse is partnering with Stephen Karp's New England Development to one day develop 8 acres of the city's waterfront. He feels McCavitt's committee is unproductive.
"Instead of working along with us, they tend to want to be adversaries, while we welcome working with anybody upfront," he said. "It's going to be a very public process when it takes place."
ha ha ha ha ... oops, sorry ... McCavitt has fought a few of Lagasse's plans for the waterfront, which he and wife Ann used to own most of before they sold it to Stephen Karp. You know, like the hotel without room for the number of parking spaces required under city law.
Lagasse feels much of it is unnecessary, saying that any time his company's waterfront projects have been challenged by McCavitt, the state has sided with New England Development.
"I think there's a lot of public agencies that basically offer many, many guidelines for waterfront activities and development, and we tend to follow those guidelines very rigidly," Lagasse said.
"The state's oversight, as well as the city's oversight, has thrown out most of the claims he's ever had with us. In our case, we tend to go by the book, so his oversight doesn't matter. If the state wants us to change it, then we would do it."
ha ha ha ha
But we all love the DEP, right? An agency that is so good at enforcing its own rules, right? What's that word ... gee I'm still groggy from sleep ... language ... Lancome ... er ... landfill? Yep, that's the one!
And how about Plum Island, where DEP has allowed a good portion of the island to be covered by paving and immense homes?
This all fits in nicely with my previous post about the relationship our city has with the state - and by 'the state' I mean the DEP.
And note that Lagasse's last comment is the same as McCavitt made at Monday's City Council meeting - if the state thought we were doing something wrong, they'd say so. He was referring to the sewer plant's permit to discharge treated water into the river.
ha ha ha ha
Seriously, though - I know DEP has many divisions and the waterfront, Plum Island and the landfill are all handled through different parts of the agency. But I have seen Lagasse's DEP permit for The Black Cow, and he has fought it through appeals and ignored the parts he does not like ... and thus has thumbed his nose at this city since day 1, as far as I can tell.
DEP does nothing about violations of licenses issued under Chapter 91 until some citizen or citizen's group complains. Did you know that?
10 comments:
It looks like someone had too much sake with their sushi....
"McCavitt belongs to/formed the Citizens Chapter 91 Committee, a watchdog group that attempts to make sure waterfront development complies with state DEP guidelines that protect public waterways."
I think you mean "complies with their interpretation of DEP guidelines."
Dwelling size does not fall under DEP purview.
"DEP does nothing about violations of licenses issued under Chapter 91 until some citizen or citizen's group complains. Did you know that? "
Do you find this unusual ? It's a regulatory agency and this is generally how regulatory infractions are discovered. At least you'll be happy to know they monitor satellite images for cutting and/or fillng of wetlands.
How many peope are actually on this "committee"? A few years ago, the speculation was it was just McCavitt and his wife.
Le Conquerant, The point I was making - which I'm sure you got - was that there needs to be a citizens committee in order to complain. I don't see any others, so McCavitt's will have to do ...
Anon, Isn't Carl Panall also on it? I seem to remember him speaking before the Harbor Commission once, on behalf of the committee, when McCavitt couldn't make it ... but I could be wrong! It might have been Bill Harris.
Actually, you don't need a committee - anyone can report a violation. However, you do need a gang of 10 to gum up the works and challenge a permit after it has been granted.
Didn't I say that? I did, but I also meant one person isn't going to do it alone, are they? And I don't think they were challenging the permit - they were saying the permitee was violating the permit. And who knows when they are even applying for a permit? The committee ...
Maybe you're right - perhaps the Environmental police can begin patrolling the waterfront -conducting Ch 91 license and permit checks - maybe set up some stakeouts at Home Depot and follow people home to make sure they have the proper permits. Then we can upgrade Calderwood's truck with lights and a siren so he can patrol the city looking for unpermitted alterations.
Well - it is the LAW! We've got people patrolling the river and ocean to check that people aren't exceeding their permitted limits on fish and lobbies & etc.
What's the point of having a law if you're not going to enforce it?
Are you against all watchdog groups, LeC, or just this one, because it's McCavitt?
Again, there are lots of things that are the LAW that don't get routinely checked for compliance.
I'm not against any watchdog group unless it is being used as a front to further an anti-development agenda or other self-interest - at which point it's no longer a watchdog.
Again, Le Compromisor, if the development violates the Chapter 91law, why shouldn't it be challenged?
Nearly if not all of that 8 acres was filled in and as such falls under Ch. 91 regulations. Do you see open public access to the river from down there, or do you see a private boat club with private docks?
I think last year they put in one small public dock, but only because we (the paper) were breathing down their neck.
What self-interest is there with McCavitt and the waterfront? The only self interest I see is on the part of New England Development and before that, Lagasse.
He's supposed to have I think a 10-ft. paved sidewalk along the waterfront or along buildings on the landward side all along there, according to his permits.
Not to mention the parking (city law). They are supposed to provide parking there - alleged parking is filled with boats all winter. It's nearly impossible to go to PI Roasters in the winter now, if you're driving.
Of course violations should be reported. In the case of the Water St garage, McCavitt was just being a NIMBY since it abutts (private) Hale Park of which he is a trustee. It's hard for us non zealots to tell when he's acting in self vs public interest.
Post a Comment