Council Updates, Ceasefire Resolution, And More

Message on Jerry’s Pond and full statement below:
The background to the proposal is important to understand. The policy order to ask the city to convene groups to consider a change was not something I ended up supporting. For full transparency, this email explains my reasoning and includes my full statement from last night’s meeting below. First, the groups named in the policy order to be consulted already meet regularly and have met many times. No group other than Friends of Jerry’s Pond (FoJP), including groups I respect, Alewife Study Group, Audubon, and Alewife Neighbors, IQHQ, and many residents, had been involved in discussions before the policy order was offered, and none support the FoJP request. That lapse is a key reason I could not support the policy order.

The current plan is very conscious of and sensitive to concerns of environmental justice, localized pollution, site contamination, and adverse public health impacts. Having reviewed the information provided, I also realized that there is not a consensus opinion that the proposed FoJP plan would lead to less ground level pollution on Rindge Avenue, a key rationale presented for the plan. The most extensive public outreach done showed that residents in the neighborhood, including in Fresh pond Apartments right across the street, wanted places to sit and a nice way to enjoy the pond vistas, which the current plan gives. And the city and IQHQ have committed to working on an improved sidewalk along Rindge Avenue, in line with environmental best practice.

I deeply respect FoJP. I supported Jerry’s Pond considerations, studies, and improvements several times and advocated for the city to dedicate ARPA funding in the first round, and for IQHQ to work with the community and to explore and take seriously the idea of an expanded vision of the pond area. I co-sponsored two policy orders related to Jerry’s Pond and advocated for a robust community process and a broad vision for the area.

A lot of time, effort, and money was spent over the last three years exploring visions, plans, and ideas. The end result was that technical, environmental, and engineering recommendations led the city and the property owner, with the community process and every group except FoJP, to accept a revised plan that is now in the process of being permitted. The current plan, which has been vetted and shared in a collaborative inclusive community process, is quite good. Implementation of that plan would be delayed had the policy order passed.

I hope you’ll understand my rationale, even if you don’t agree, and please reach out if you’d like to discuss in more detail. Always open to thoughts and comments.

January 8, 2024 Statement by Councillor Nolan on Policy Order Directing City to Try to Change Jerry’s Pond Plans:
The work around redeveloping Jerry’s Pond has been an incredible example of coordination and collaboration between the owner, a number of neighborhood groups, and government agencies. The work that has been done to date has been collaborative and transformative. It’s important to remember how much the current plan has improved over the last several years – due in large part to the great work of community members, and groups including Friends of Jerry’s Pond, ASG, ANI in collaboration with the property owner, IQHQ, and the city administration. This effort has led to plans that promise to transform the area for everyone in the city. Those plans address environmental justice and have incorporated feedback from the whole neighborhood, including Fresh Pond Apartments. More trees and a dramatically improved pond area and opportunities to sit and enjoy the vistas are already in the plan. And the community asked for some changes – a view of the pond from the sidewalk, a place to sit. Those changes were incorporated and are part of the plan now. And the plan has been submitted for permitting, and this type of major change would require a whole new set of plans, and delay in permitting.

The issue of this policy order is a question of what the council and the city can do above what has already been done to improve upon the project. The most recent IQHQ plan will have a positive impact for the community and fits in with many of the goals cited in the policy order. Many of those speaking up for the FoJP plan may not understand that there have been over 100 community meetings to date. And the process was collaborative and inclusive. More importantly, the proposed new compromise was already considered by the owner of the land, IQHQ, and they do not believe that the newly modified plan now being proposed is feasible, appropriate, or reasonable. And they have no interest in revisiting decisions made.

To frame the issue as an either/or does little to recognize the enormous community input and improvements to the existing plan. Changes have been made to save mature trees, preserve conservation areas, and improve pedestrian and bike access. This project has been an exemplary community-based process. In addition to all the important work by the property owner and neighborhood groups, the council has had three public meetings dedicated to discussing this issue in detail – including roundtable meetings with the property owners, neighborhood groups, and city officials. We are finally in a place where we have found the limits of the agreement. The city has been active and involved, although we don’t own the land and therefore anything to happen will have to be approved and accepted by the property owner.

I am sensitive to the concerns of the city administration and the community groups who have spent hundreds of hours in a collaborative process which they assumed would be the way decisions would be made. It is disrespectful to not follow the process. The groups the policy order asks the city to convene have been meeting for two years. And none of them were involved in the writing of this PO. The passing of this PO and taking those steps could lead to delays with the end result being the same: that the property owner is still committed to their design plan and the city administration still recommends the IQHQ plan.

I also worry about the message that this policy order sends – I don’t want to pass an order that sends a message to community groups and residents that after an inclusive process with over 100 meetings, the city council would ignore the work and ask for an intervention not coming out of the community process. The city and the property owner have been very clear in the most recent meetings that they believe they have landed on the best possible design plan based on their research. There have been complicated and scientifically informed conversations about wind patterns, soil quality, and sightlines, and I believe the city administration and the consultants at the council meetings when they say that this design is in the best interest of the city and the community including a vibrant tree canopy and addressing heat island impacts.

I appreciate all the outreach from dedicated community members around this issue – it’s an issue I’ve been grappling with for a long time. We are in a much better place now than two years ago, because of hard conversations like these. It is time now to respect the work of the groups and thank IQHQ for providing so many community benefits by encouraging them to move forward with the current plans. In light of these issues, I will be voting no on the policy order.