The article in the Sept. 19 section of the Boston Sunday Globe‘s Globe West section presents a good summary of the area’s current and past views on discussions related to the future of Devens as a community. However, the controversy arising from the proposal for the redevelopment of Vicksburg Square should be considered as an extension of past efforts, namely, the two-year disposition study by the Devens Disposition Executive Board (DDEB), and the almost three-year study by the Joint Boards of Selectmen (JBOS)— that is five years of local study. In all cases, the developing of additional housing in Devens has raised protests, particularly from Ayer and Harvard officials.
Much of their opposition to Vicksburg Square housing has been related to how the additional Devens housing would infringe negatively on the markets for housing in their communities. The towns seem to overlook the existing potential housing market created by the 3,500 Devens employees; this huge market potential might well select Ayer or Harvard housing. However, they also might prefer to live where they work—thus the need for more housing on Devens.
The narrow and provincial viewpoints noted above ignore the needs of Devens resident investors, who want to see their community grow as originally planned. It parallels the same need that the three abutting towns have—the desire for new and innovative volunteers. Devens residents need new and innovative volunteers for the MassDevelopment Advisory committees, i.e., the Devens Committee and the Devens Education Advisory Committee, which are our equivalent of the boards of selectmen and school boards.
Just as the three abutting towns look to their own welfare primarily, Devens residents who invested here likewise look to their own welfare, and with concern. One comment in the Globe article referred to skepticism about Devens becoming an independent town. The future disposition of Devens was thoroughly investigated in detail for more than two years. The result was the DDEB “Scenario 2B” proposal, whereby each of the three abutting towns received direct benefits. Devens would become an independent town with its unique and sustainable industrial tax base, the envy of most small towns in the commonwealth. One does wonder now whether the two abutting towns regret having defeated the 2B opportunity to share in the bounty of Devens’ tax base.
After the 2B proposal was defeated, the JBOS, representing the three abutting towns, continued to study the disposition possibilities over a three-year period. Their efforts have completely ignored the results of the original DDEB detailed proposal. Instead, their efforts have wandered widely and lost both time and money, with little to show for their meeting efforts. Instead, they seem to have searched for how they might manage Devens individually, primarily for their individual benefit. The viewpoint of Devens residents has been virtually ignored. JBOS has completely ignored the complexity involved in managing the more-than-80 companies who have invested in Devens. There seems to be little realization of the time and money required to manage this industrial base, and how it could negatively affect their existing governing process.
At this point in time, it would seem wise for the JBOS to petition the legislature to consider the disposition matter, since five years of local effort has not or cannot devise an equitable solution. As a starting point, they could utilize the extensive legal and professional format of the final DDEB document and modify it over time to include innovative changes based on their public hearings. In all probability, 70 to 80 percent of it would remain the same.
Legislative hearings would allow all parties to plead their cases and provide documented suggestions. If the legislature did create a disposition solution creating a sustainable town of Devens, the original documentation could be retained. With reference to benefits for the three abutting towns, the original document would need some changes. A good example of what might be included could be the expansion of the current sharing of the capacity of the Devens Waste Water Treatment plant with Ayer, Shirley, and the state prison system in Shirley. Other innovative concepts arising from the public hearings could encourage the legislature to support a variety of regional sharing of services between Devens and the three abutting towns. Thus, all entities would have the opportunity to suggest other benefits that might arise. This approach could well bypass the current “impasse” that exists, with an open process utilizing the best thoughts from all entities.
Bob Eisengrein is a resident of Devens.
