Surplus Lands and Community Rights: A Look at Proposed Changes to Land Disposition Laws

1
Surplus Lands and Community RightsA Look at
Proposed Changes to Land Disposition Laws
Revised September 812 2005
2
Introduction
On June 30, 2005, the states controversial fast
track auction law was allowed to expire. The
previous Chapter 7 safeguards were restored. In
July 2005, new legislation was unveiled that
would sweep away Chapter 7 provisions and
radically change the rules for suplus land and
for many other properties. These slides are
intended to help you understand both the proposed
new law (H4278) and the current laws that would
be replaced.

• Revision 50816a

3
H4278 A Surplus Land Privatization Bill?
Chief Concerns

• As we shall see, this bill has three main goals
• Privatize public lands
• Disempower communities
• Liquidate state assets

4
Background and Definitions
Total state lands 601,185 acres
EOEA 558,347 acres (313,000
acres DEM) Current surplus properties 2000
acres (DCAM) DCAM Department under EOAF, David
Pirini, Commissioner Chapter 7 State laws
governing disposal of state lands Reuse
Committee appointed local group charged with
writing reuse plan for surplus property.
MassDevelopment quasi-state agency for
promoting private economic development projects
(Has been criticized for inadequate planning,
public input and civic oversight).

5


Surplus Land

• Surplus Chp. 7 common sense
• Current and foreseeable state and local needs
  (local housing
• authorities, etc.)
• Local legislator, accountable to affected
  community, sponsors
• specific transfer legislation, approved by
  legislature.
• Surplus H4278 - convoluted
• Surplus to current and foreseeable state needs
  only.
• DCAM, AF, SLCC (governors appointees) decide.
• Excludes property disposed of through
  MassDevelopment.
• If MDFA declines-gtSLCC (governors appointees).

6
Current Chapter 7
Checks and balances State agency process,
community involvement, legislative approval (key
role of local legislator) Accountability
Legislative and local Transparency - Local re-use
committee planning process, local hearings,
transfer legislation Community rights respected
Consideration of local plans, local legislator is
gate-keeper
7
Merits of Chapter 7
(Chapter 7) was more democratic and it preserved
the local towns' and cities' rights to provide
input as to the potential uses of public land. .
. That's the crux of the issue It's local rights
for public land." - Waltham
City Councilor George Darcy, Boston Globe, 4/11/05
"Under the old system, every sale had to go
through the Legislature, so that gave local
communities leverage. - Rep. Thomas M.
Stanley, 4/11/05
8
Motivations for H4278
"The process for disposing of state assets is
badly broken . . . Special legislation is drafted
that dictates what can and can't be done. You end
up with a master plan that the local community
drives. - Michael Hogan, president of
MassDevelopment, quoted in Boston Globe, 12/23/02
'We have all this state surplus land that we can
zone ourselves without interference of local
municipalities. We'll do that, give them a
five-year tax break, and all theyve got to do is
promise to create at least 100 jobs and grow by 5
percent a year. - Rep.
Salvatore DiMasi, 3/18/05
Why should we sell off state land for a quick
cash infusion when you can leverage these
properties for long-term sustainable investment
by the private sector? - Rep. Salvatore
DiMasi, Boston Globe, 1/05
9
Many Possible Reuse Goals

• housing
• - affordable
• - demographic needs
• - lifelong residency
• environment
• - clean air, water
• - greenspace
• - natural resources
• - noise
• - good land use
• transportation
• - congestion relief
• - public transportation
• - noise/pollution reduction

economic - expansion of large corporations -
community-based economic development -
agricultural preservation infrastructure
services - municipal services (schools, trash,
cemeteries, recreation) - access to health
care - sewers - property tax revenues
cultural - democratic empowerment - historic
preservation - diversity
top priority under 4278
10
H4278 (Jones-Stanley)
Privatize public lands Disempower
communities Liquidate state assets
11
Viewpoints on H4278
Concerns
Supporters
"One of the concerns (of lawmakers) was should
the Legislature essentially give its authority on
the matter of state land over to the governor
through the state agencies." - Rep. James
Eldridge, D-Acton, Daily News-Tribune, 7/22/05
The Stanley-Jones bill, H3840, now referred to
as H4278, addresses the needs of all interested
parties and is a much better land disposition
process than either M.G.L. Ch. 7 or 548.
- Rep. Thomas Stanley, letter, August 2005
"I am against it. . . (MassDevelopment) can
develop with a third party and the cities and
towns would have no say. - Mayor Jeanette
McCarthy of Waltham, 7/22/05
I urge the committee to support the
Jones/Stanley bill. - DCAM Commissioner
David Perini, State House hearing, 5/11/05
12
Compliance with local plans and state policies
Chapter 7 vs. H4278
Chapter 7
H4278

• The Commissioner shall identify restrictions,
  if any, on the property's use and development
  necessary to comply with established state and
  local plans and policies.

provision deleted
40F
H4278 does not acknowledge need to comply with
local plans or state policies.
13
Reuse Committees
Chapter 7 vs. H4278
Chapter 7
H4278

• The commissioner may convene an advisory
  committee to advise him on reuses and to
  recommend reuse restrictions for property
  declared surplus. If an advisory committee is
  convened, the commissioner shall invite the
  representatives to the general court from the
  city or town in which the property is located to
  serve on the committee. The commissioner shall
  prepare a preliminary report on his findings,
  which shall include both his recommendation, and
  those of the advisory committee if established,
  for reuse restrictions for the property.

Surplus real property. . . excluding real
property for which there is an established local
reuse plan
40F
H4278 accepts existing reuse plans, but does not
acknowledge reuse committees.
14
Non-State Public Agencies
Chapter 7 vs. H4278
H4278
Chapter 7

• If he determines that such property is surplus
  to both the current and foreseeable needs of
  state agencies, the commissioner shall determine
  whether any other public agency has a current or
  foreseeable direct public use for the property. .
  . does include lease of the property by local
  housing authorities to public housing tenants.

provision deleted
40F
Non-state public agencies lose their right to
propose a reuse.
15
Purchase by Municipality
Chapter 7 vs. H4278
H4278
Chapter 7

• Offer from municipality accepted at discretion
  of DCAM, presumably at fair market value.

The host municipality shall have the right of
first refusal to purchase the surplus property
for a direct public use at 85 per cent of the
fair market value of the property. . . must be
exercised, if at all, by the host municipality
within 90 days. . . . . . if said failure to
close on the purchase of the property was in bad
faith, the commonwealth shall not be required to
share proceeds of the sale with the host
municipality . . .
H4278 guarantees municipality opportunity to
purchase before any sale. However, there are
penalties for failure to close the sale.
5a
16
State Surplus Land Coordinating Committee
Membership
SSLCC is dominated by gubernatorial
appointees. Most appointees are from agencies
promoting development or fiscal objectives.
1) Executive Office of Administration and
Finance 2) Executive Office of Transportation
and Construction 3) Mass. Office of Business
Development 4) Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs 5) Department of Housing
and Community Development 6) Division of
Capital Asset Management 7) Mass. Municipal
Association 8) Commonwealth Development
Coordinating Council 9) Mass. Development
Finance Authority 10) Mass. Association of
Regional Planning Agencies 11) Mass. Association
of Community Development Corporations.
Ref H4278, July 21, 2005
17
Key Reuse Decision-makers (H4278)
No Explicit Decision Role
Under H4278
Development of Proposals Executive Office
of Administration and Finance Division of
Capital Asset Management Mass. Development
Finance Authority Regional Planning
Agency If sold, veto can be cast by House of
Representatives Senate
Local Planning Board Local Conservation
Commission Local Fair Housing Commission
Local Agricultural Commission Local
Transportation Committee Local Mayor/Board of
Selectmen Community Preservation Act Comm.
Local land trusts Local state rep Local state
senator
18
One-stop Permitting
Notwithstanding any other general or special law
to the contrary, each public or state agency in
the commonwealth involved in the permitting,
development or financing of economic development
projects is hereby authorized and directed to
develop a coordinated one-stop program for
businesses, institutions and private parties that
may intend to locate in the real property in
order to enable development activities within
such real property to be more effectively
promoted by the commonwealth.
Ref H4278, Section 4(b)
One-stop permitting has been described by real
estate lobbyists as a way of bypassing normal
review and permitting processes and giving a
single pro-development bureaucrat an ability to
issue all necessary permits. The specifics of any
such proposal deserve careful discussion.
19
Special Permits
Zoning ordinances or by-laws shall also provide
that research and development uses, whether or
not such uses are currently permitted as a matter
of right, may be permitted in any non-residential
zoning district upon the issuance of a special
permit provided the granting authority finds that
such uses do not substantially derogate from the
public good. Research and development uses
shall include any 1 or more of investigation,
development, laboratory and similar research uses
and any related office uses and, subject to the
following limitations limited manufacturing uses
and uses accessory to any of the foregoing in any
field of science. Limited manufacturing shall,
subject to the issuance of such special permit,
be an allowed use provided that the following
requirements are satisfied (1) such
manufacturing activity is related to research
uses (2) no manufacturing activity customarily
occurs within 50 feet of a residential district
and (3) substantially all manufacturing activity
customarily occurs inside of buildings with any
manufacturing activities customarily occurring
outside of buildings subject to such conditions
as may be imposed in the special permit.
Ref H4278,
Section 11
This provision weakens the zoning process for all
non-residential land, not just state surplus land.
20
H4278 (Jones-Stanley)
Overiding reuse priority privatization -
Right of first refusal to MassDevelopment -
MassDevelopment plans automatically qualify for
state aid - State agencies required to provide
one-stop permitting - Municipalities required
to weaken zoning. Affects may extend far
beyond state surplus lands - Zoning process
weakened and made less democratic - Opens door
to One-stop permitting that weakens scrutiny
and controls Local planners and affected
citizens marginalized - Gubernatorial appointees
control the process - No role for local reuse
committees - No requirement for compatibility
with local planning - Only one or two public
hearings required, and they are merely
advisory - Ineffective provision to allow local
purchase of property - Penalties imposed if
community does not cooperate with state
(continued)
21
H4278 (Jones-Stanley)
(continued)
Elimination of Chapter 7 rights and
protections. - No need to consider established
local plans - No right of acquisition by
non-state public agencies - No right to transfer
under legislation subject to amendment
Community right to purchase is problematic -
Purchase usually infeasible due to high land
costs and fiscal crises of communities - Not
possible for less wealthy communities for whom
public lands are most important - H4278 imposes
penalties on communities that try but fail to
raise the cash - Purchase bypasses the smart
growth process Lack of accountability invites
insider deal-making - Key decisions made by
gubernatorial appointees - Safeguards against
influence-peddling weakened - Legislative
approval can be obtained automatically (without a
vote) - Expedited process facilitates wiring the
transfer
22
Highest and Best Use
Highest and best use is defined as "The
reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land
or an improved property that is physically
possible, appropriately supported, and
financially feasible and that results in the
highest value.
Ref The Appraisal of Real Estate, twelfth
edition, p. 305
Highest and Best Use is the highest and most
profitable use for which a property is adaptable
and needed, or likely to be needed, in the near
future. Only that use which is physically
possible, legally permissible, financially
feasible, and maximally productive shall be
considered in the analysis of highest and best
use (UASFLA, 1992, p. 8). A non-economic highest
and best use is not a proper basis for the
estimate of market value and, accordingly, a
highest and best use of conservation,
preservation, or other use that requires the
property to be withheld from economic production
in perpetuity, is not a valid use upon which to
estimate market value.
Ref Reclamation Manual, US Bureau of
Reclamation
The emphasis upon so-called highest and best
use in H4278 biases the disposition process
toward intense private development rather than
public-interest uses.
23
Issues Specific tothe City of Waltham
24
Section 16
Most importantly, the two-thirds legislative
vote requirement will provide Waltham and
Lexington with the greatest protection available
from unwanted development on all state- owned
land within their borders.
- Rep. Thomas Stanley, letter, August 2005
SECTION 16. Notwithstanding the provisions of
this chapter, or any other general or special law
to the contrary, any state owned real property in
the city of Waltham, including but not limited
to, the Fernald state school, so-called, and any
state owed real property in the city of Waltham
and the town of Lexington, including, but not
limited to, the former Middlesex state hospital,
so-called, shall not be conveyed, leased or
otherwise disposed of except by laws enacted by a
two thirds vote, taken by the yeas and nays, of
each branch of the general court.
25
Waltham/Lexington Considerations
Section 16 requires that land that is wholly
within Waltham or partly within Lexington and
Waltham be transferred only by legislation
approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.
(Waltham is the home of Rep. Thomas Stanley, a
key sponsor of the bill. A minority part of his
district lies in Lexington.) What are the
implications? All provisions of H4278 that
encourage development still apply to Waltham and
Lexington. The 2/3 requirement does not apply
to lands in Lexington that do not lie at least
partially in Waltham. The requirement for a 2/3
vote is not effective protection. Article 97
open space, which should be more difficult to
transfer than mere surplus land, is also
protected by a 2/3 vote requirement. According
to MASSPIRG The last three decades have
demonstrated, however, that a two-thirds majority
has not been difficult to obtain. Since 1989, the
Legislature has approved 280 land transfers.
Fifty five percent of those transfers have
converted publicly owned open space into
privately developed land and the road and water
infrastructure to support it.2 People in other
communities have complained at the attempt to
shield the municipality of the bills sponsor the
effects of the bill. If this provision is
removed, Lexington and Waltham will be treated
the same as other municipalities.
26
Community-Based Smart GrowthAn Alternative
Approach
27
Community-Based Smart Growth
CBSG
Public lands to address public needs.
H4278
Privatize public lands Disempower
communities Liquidate state assets
Tap community expertise. Empower affected
citizens
Full cost accounting Fair taxes, not one-time
liquidations
28
Community-Based Smart Growth

• ? Through a locally-based reuse committee, local
  residents and officials become the key
  decision-makers.
• ? Use regional guidelines to promote open space
  protection, affordable housing and local economic
  development.
• ? Safeguards protect against insider deals and
  conflicts of interest.
• ? Sufficient time and transparency allow public
  participation and the development of the best
  reuse alternatives.
• ? Recorded votes required when key decisions
  are made.
• ? State-level oversight provided by smart growth
  planners, not a fiscal or budgetary agency.
• ? Land transferred to municipality at no cost
  if a compelling public need will be served.
• ? Municipalities are not forced to raise
  property taxes in order to keep public land in
  public hands.
• Reuse must be compatible with local planning
  and consider critical local needs.
• Long-term leases are treated as permanent
  dispositions, subject to full scrutiny and
  community-based planning.
• ? Community-based redevelopment authorities can
  be established to enable development that meets
  community needs.

29
MCHC Urges the Public to Speak Up
30
Speak Up Now
On July21, 2003, the text of H4278 was
released 24 hours before it was to be voted upon.
It contained numerous new, far-reaching
provisions that had been written in secret.
H4278 was approved by legislative committee in
one day without public hearings. H4278 would
now be the law if it were not for quick protests
by citizens statewide and by certain concerned
legislators. If you are concerned about this
bill, we urge you to speak up now. Experience
indicates that for measures such as H4278, the
public may well be denied adequate notice, public
hearings, open debate, or an opportunity for
affected people to express their concerns to
their legislators. Secrecy regarding the text of
these bills is a technique employed to avoid
scrutiny and frustrate the democratic process.
If your community would be hurt by H4278, you
must speak up now.
31


Please Ask Your Legislators to
Stop the rush to lock in H4278 or other
new,  poorly scrutinized surplusing laws that
disempower communities. These bills take away
community-planning rights and allow the
Department of Capital Asset Management to sell
off surplus lands without legislative or local
accountability.  Allow ample time for
statewide hearings and local input to develop
new community-based surplusing legislation.
Such legislation should respect local planning
rights and expertise, while providing guidelines
for open space protection and the creation of
affordable housing.

32
Thank You!
33
H4278 Decision to Surplus
(MCHC_E_4278_4b)
34
H4278 MDFA vs. Others
(MCHC_E_4278_4)
35
H4278 MDFA Development Process
(MCHC_E_4278_4)
36
H4278 Sale of Property (Part 1)
to Part 2
(MCHC_E_4278_4)
37
H4278 Sale of Property (Part 2)
from Part 1
(MCHC_E_4278_4)
38
H4278 Division of Proceeds
(MCHC_E_4278_4)
39
A 2/3 Vote is not Good Protection
Article 97, the Constitutional Amendment passed
almost thirty years ago, intended to protect open
space by requiring that a two-thirds majority in
both the House and Senate approve the land
transfer. The last three decades have
demonstrated, however, that a two-thirds majority
has not been difficult to obtain. Since 1989, the
Legislature has approved 280 land transfers.
Fifty five percent of those transfers have
converted publicly owned open space into
privately developed land and the road and water
infrastructure to support it. Simply put, we, the
people of Massachusetts are losing our land to
private commercial interests.
- This Land is Not Your Land The Loss of
Publicly Owned Open Space in Massachusetts ,
MASSPIRG, May 2002
40
Mentioned Players
Other
Executive Branch
Governor Exec. Office of Administration and
Finance Division of Capital Asset Management
(DCAM) MassDevelopment Regional Planning
Authorities (e.g. MAPC)
Mass. Municipal Association Mass. Assoc. of
CDCs
Legislative Branch
Senate House Committee on Bonding, State
Assets
Municipal
Host community
Ref H4278, July 21, 2005
41
More Development than the Market Would Yield
CenTech Park is a 121-acre technology park in
Grafton and Shrewsbury, occupying land WBDC
bought from the state in 1995. The method used to
create the project was typical of how the WBDC
operates. The area was dead in the water before
we came in, Mr. Forsberg recalled. We provided
a master plan, flagged all the wetlands, created
a development strategy, completed all the
infrastructure and permitting work, developed
five parcels and got some others sold. We dont
compete with private enterprise but move in when
we see something that has potential, but the
market is not interested. - WBDC
celebrating 40 years of success by Robert
Nemeth, Worcester Telegram and Gazette, Sunday,
June 12, 2005
42
Tilting Toward Privatization
Several provisions of H4278 tilt toward
development of property for use by private
corporations and away from public interest uses
such as open space, affordable housing,
agricultural preservation, etc.
MassDevelopment is given right of first
refusal. MassDevelopment automatically
qualifies for state economic development aid
Corporations can occupy the land with a 99-year
lease. Such leases are not offered to
municipalities (which must purchase the
property). Communities can be penalized
financially for not cooperating with state
objectives. Communities are penalized if they
attempt to exercise their right of first refusal
but then cannot raise the money.
One-stop permitting for corporate applicants
speeds development plans and decreases public
scrutiny. The speed of the process tilts it
away from communities and toward private
developers. Communities are required to weaken
their zoning and to allow manufacturing to within
50 feet of residential areas. Discouragement of
public interest reuse (both actively and through
neglect) favors insider deal-making and
acquisition of the property by well-financed
profit-making entities.
43
Penalty for Non-Cooperation
"If localities choose not to buy, but rezone the
land consistent with smart growth principles,
they should receive part of the sale
proceeds.' - March Draisen, Director,
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)
44
Major Laws/Proposals for Surplusing
NAME
YEAR
ORIGIN
STATUS
In effect, but bypassed by OS548.
Chapter 7
1984
Ward Commission
In effect, but sunsetting on 6/30/05.
OS548
2003
Romney/DCAM
Part of supplemental budget, withdrawn
OS17
Jan 05
Romney/DCAM
No action yet
Mar 05
FA790
Dem/Rep
No action yet.
FA1266
Mar 05
MAPC
Proposals for community-based smart growth
Apr 05
MCHC
CBSG
Note Special legislation affecting disposition
can be written to bypass the defined procedures.
Community-based Smart Growth
45
The Speed of Process Charge
"Under M.G.L. Ch. 7, the disposition process was
open ended and provided ample opportunity for any
interested party to delay the process endlessly.
Appropriate properties for development would
languish, becoming blighted and underutilized.
By and large, private builders refused to invest
their time and money into a process with no end
date. - Rep.
Thomas Stanley, letter, August 2005
46
Quotes on H4278
H4278 remedies past problems by providing
clarity, empowering local communities and
promoting smart growth. - Rep. Thomas
Stanley, letter, August 2005
47
The Process
Trust us! You dont have to pay attention -
well take care of it. Weve been fighting
for you. The bill could have been a lot
worse. Yes, our careers are totally dependent
upon donations from the real estate industry -
but please trust us that it doesnt influence us
at all. There wasnt anything we could do -
the leadership wouldnt allow any changes.
48
Local Inclusion
POSSIBLE CBSG PROVISIONS
OBJECTIVES
Locally-based reuse committees involving local
planners. Integration of pre-existing community
plans in reuse plan Public process

• Strengthen local planning processes.
• Empower people to control their own future.
• Bring local expertise and commitment to bear.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
PROBLEMS WITH JONES-STANEY
1) Composition of reuse committee 2) Chair of
reuse committee 3) Process for integration of
planning at state and local level. 4) Citizen
involvement (beyond elected officials)
Key decisions by state bureaucrats and agencies
unfriendly to communities No requirement to
consider prior planning. Local planners and
citizens are mere supplicants to committees of
Beacon Hill insiders.
49
Safeguards Against Corruptionand
Influence-Peddling
POSSIBLE CBSG PROVISIONS
OBJECTIVE
Multiple levels of oversight Separation of
policy setting from the decision to convey
property Conflict of interest requirements
Committees designed to make them difficult to
capture. Accountability to the affected
community

• Public good cannot be subverted to serve
  personal political or financial goals.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
PROBLEMS WITH JONES-STANEY
1) Composition of committees 2) Oversight
provisions 3) Conflict of interest requirements
Bypasses reuse committees Key decisions can
be wired by one or two politically powerful
persons. Lack of openness. Speed of process
facilitates wiring the bid Conflicts of
interest
50
Developing Alternatives
POSSIBLE CBSG PROVISIONS
OBJECTIVE
No irreversible decisions prior to putting all
options on the table. Openness in the decision
to exclude state agency reuse. Public interest
reuse options treated fairly (no bias toward
maximizing private profits) Full cost
accounting over longer time periods
Fiscally-acceptable provisions for

• The alternative that best serves the public
  interest is developed and adopted

PROBLEMS WITH JONES-STANEY
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
MassDevelopment-run privatization initiative is
assumed to be the top priority. Not clear how
multiple alternatives are ensured. Biased
toward options that maximize private profits from
reuse. Public subsidies to private uses.

• How to ensure multiple proposals from which to
  choose?
• How are reuse priorities established (local vs.
  regional, short-vs-long term)?
• How can public values be included in the
  assessment and in fiscal arrangements?

51
Furthering Policy Priorities
POSSIBLE CBSG PROVISIONS
OBJECTIVE
State agencies publish guidelines that
establish priorities for each locality. Reuse
plan is reviewed at state level to ensure that
priorities have been considered. Incentives
provided for making progress toward regional
policy priorities (e.g. discount on selling price
for each unit of affordable housing).

• Planning prioritizes to meet most critical
  local and regional needs.

SOME POSSIBLE PRIORITIES
affordable housing open space protection
water supply protection congestion mitigation
economic development tax base enhancement
agricultural preservation etc.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

• How are priorities established that are
  appropriate for a particular parcel?
• How are trade-offs made between competing
  priorities?
• What incentives should be provided for addressing
  the priorities?

PROBLEMS WITH JONES-STANEY
MassDevelopment-run privatization initiative is
assumed to be the top priority. Biased toward
options that maximize private profits from
reuse. No clear process for considering
critical local needs. Community purchase
short-circuits all planning.
52
Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures,
and State Assets
It shall be the duty of the committee on
Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets to
consider all matters concerning state lands,
state buildings, the review all legislation
providing for the giving, loaning or pledging of
the credit of the Commonwealth (see Article LXII
of the Amendments to the Constitution, as amended
by Article LXXXIV). Said committee shall be
responsible for evaluating such legislation and
determining the appropriateness of enacting new
legislation containing increased bond
authorizations for the Commonwealth and such
other matters as may be referred.
Other Joint Committees (bluesmart growth
connection)
Labor and Workforce Development Mental Health
and Substance Abuse Municipalities and Regional
Government Public Health Public Safety and
Homeland Security Public Service Revenue State
Administration and Regulatory Telecommunication,
Utilities and Energy Tourism, Arts and Cultural
Development Transportation Veterans and Federal
Affairs
Children and Families Community Development and
Small Business Consumer Protection and
Professional Licensure Economic Development and
Emerging Technologies Education Elder
Affairs Election Laws Environment, Natural
Resources and Agriculture Financial
Services Healthcare Financing Higher
Education Housing The Judiciary
53
Explanation of Coding for Regional Planning
Authority
The representative of the Regional Planning
Authority was coded as an executive branch
appointee, although special considerations may
apply to this appointment depending on the agency
involved. The following is true of the
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the
regional planning authority for the Greater
Boston area
The MAPC President is a gubernatorial
appointee. The MAPC President is also the chair
of the Central Artery Business Committee, a
business group formed to assert the interests of
for-profit businesses in the Big Dig. This
group has advocated greater control of for-profit
businesses over the greenspace associated with
the Big Dig project, which has caused clashes
with neighborhood advocates. The MAPC is the
chief advocate for Floor Amendment 1266 which
greatly disempowers local communities.
54
Chronology
The representative of the Regional Planning
Authority was coded as an executive branch
appointee, although special considerations may
apply to this appointment depending on the agency
involved. The following is true of the
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the
regional planning authority for the Greater
Boston area
55
xxxx
56
Corporate Empowerment in H4278
5-years of tax-free occupancy for larger
corporations 99-year leases allow corporations
to occupy without buying state aid for
corporate-oriented development discounts can be
awarded by the Commissioner MassDevelopment can
force DCAM into binding arbitration on terms of
sale One-stop permitting limits opportunities
for public scrutiny or involvement, and removes
checks-and-balances. privatization of the true
value via buy-then-rezone strategies
57
Surplus Landsas aCommunity Opportunity

• Revision 50816a