At the Oct. 30 meeting of the Joint Boards of Selectmen, planners Bob Biagi and John Hume and Executive Director Glen Eaton from the Montachusett Regional Planning Commission presented a draft report on the community forum held in Harvard Sept. 27 at which residents were asked to help refine the Devens success criteria being developed by Harvard’s selectmen.
MRPC representative Bob Biagi reported on the dynamics of the forum, pointing out that overall attendance was a factor in the depth of discussions. MRPC had expected more citizens to attend. Despite sandwich boards on the Common and notices in the press, MRPC reported that “about 40 citizens attended;” they said they were “ready for 100.” Eaton recommended the use of telephone trees and e-mail lists for future forums.
Comments from forum
In the draft report, MRPC summarized the basic concepts participants emphasized including that “types of governance for Devens need to be analyzed and that the pros and cons of each require analysis and a professional summary.” Participants said further that “any effect upon Harvard’s administration and delivery of services requires forethought, examination, identification of the appropriate strategies and methods of implementation.”
Many were also concerned about the final number of homes to be constructed”at Devens. They said that there appears to be a difference of opinion about the total housing to be constructed at Devens as well as how long the existing ‘housing cap’ will remain in effect.
Participants commented that housing and education are directly related, something recognized as a priority issue by Harvard selectmen. They also said that the impact of housing on the local school system should be quantified.
Participant input on finances related to a transition of the Devens Regional Enterprise Zone (DREZ), request the sharing of this financial data, requesting a realistic timeline concerning the analysis of this disposition issue, educating the public, and making decisions about the disposition of Devens. The draft report also recommended that the success criteria state that contamination issues must be solved prior to disposition.
Discussion of report
Eaton emphasized that the draft “is a working document for use by community,” and advised the community to build on it.
Phil Crosby of the Devens Committee asked, “What can we do about the perception that the process is going too fast? I’ve been working on this for over 10 years,” he said.
Eaton replied that “people haven’t been informed. It might be their fault; maybe they are not paying attention. Other people are interested,” he said. “If they are new to it,” continued Eaton, referring to the Devens disposition process, “then it’s always going to seem too fast.”
Tom Kinch of the Devens Committee added “at end of day, it’s the electorate that has to vote on acceptance. Getting people engaged is the biggest challenge.”
Larry Finnegan of Tahanto Trail asked Biagi whether he was familiar with 498, referring to Chapter 498, the legal basis for Devens disposition. When Biagi replied that he had not read the law completely, Finnegan advised him to become familiar with it. Eaton commented that “Chapter 498 is the driving force,” referring to the disposition process.
Jared Wollaston of Elm Street pointed out that Chapter 498 never envisioned a town of Devens.
Carolyn McCready, chairman of the Ayer Board of Selectmen, commented that “the boards need to be unified. Board members need to agree on a scenario and then lead constituencies. The Joint Boards need to move to consensus solution,” she said, and “those with minor problems negotiate through it.”
