Select Board Rejects Pitch to Back Petitioners’ Article — 3/13/24
There are many reasons why this news item was a disappointment. First of all, because it reported on a Select Board meeting that had taken place two weeks earlier. The timing of publication so much closer to Town Meeting seemed strategic.
Michael Seibert, the petition’s spokesperson, stated a number of times during his pitch that the purpose of the article was to “kick-start” an important process. But none of his specific findings were quoted. Neither was the conclusion of his detailed and eye-opening presentation, which suggested: “The more we know…the better our plan.”
The Select Board didn’t seem to have much interest in a better plan or in being proactive. They saw no value in a two-month commitment where residents could study the issues and then share their insight with the Select Board. The Board members’ comments all seemed to belittle the notion that citizens are qualified to evaluate the big picture and didn’t seem to appreciate the gravity of the problem.
Expert opinion has a place, but experts can be found supporting the competing sides of many issues. That’s where common sense comes in. How best to protect the lives of townspeople who are statistically underserved when lives, not property, are at stake and minutes and seconds truly matter?
Mr. Seibert signed the petition and volunteered to be its spokesman because he recognizes the critical nature of the problem. He told the Select Board the article is not challenging the headquarters or advocating for a substation but is about addressing whether having a good response time to 80% of the town justifies tolerating a poor response time to the rest of the town. That is a question for everyone to consider.
And yet the first thing Ms. Mitchell thought important to discuss was not the findings, but why the Board should take the article seriously since the person who wrote it was anonymous! Putting up with backlash is just “part of the gig,” she said. Really? What an un-serious way to approach a very serious topic…
Bedford Historic District Commission Favors New Fire Station with Conditional Vote — 2/22/24
After explaining at the HDC’s February 7th hearing that the proposed footprint of the new fire station is “way out of scale” with its surroundings and that he believed the project would disrupt the “landscaping character” that defines the entire block, and would create a “gap in the pedestrian fabric,” Commissioner Canciello changed his vote. There were no changes to the fire station design after the 7th that had addressed those concerns and no reason given for the reversal. But the commentary he gave on the 7th — when he detailed how a professional site selection study would have established if the property really was the only feasible site and that the lack of that information had left them feeling that they had “a gun to their head[s]” — was telltale. If the decision had been appealed, those circumstances would have been scrutinized to determine how the deciding vote was supported by the evidence.
Decision time at the HDC: For the public interest or the public welfare? — 2/12/24
This opinion was based on a basic misunderstanding of the Act. In pointing out that the debate centered around a single section of the original Act of 1964, which stipulated that an exception to a finding of “inappropriateness” for so-called hardship could be made, the writer did not include the information that the exception was only possible if it would not undermine the purposes and intent of the law, which it clearly would do.
Efforts to force the HDC to make an exception have been a matter of the ends justifying the means from the start. When Matt Hanson cautioned that the size and scale of the building was not something they could change without giving up critical needs for the station and Commissioner McClain said that perfection is the enemy of the good enough, they didn’t take into account that the sketchy selection process was the culprit, not the law preserving the town’s historic heart.
The letter’s conclusion that “it will take an expensive and time-consuming appeal to the Middlesex Superior Court to make a final determination” seems to assume that the Court would find that the Town conducted a proper site selection search. Based upon the 2022 ruling denying a preliminary injunction, people may assume that the facts in the matter have been tried, but they have not been. And when they are, the outcome may be a shock.
As Commissioner Canciello explained: “…as an architect, I’ve done lots of site selection, feasibility studies… And [if] there was a true study done, it would have made our job a lot easier if it said, this really is the only site that’s feasible. I just wish that effort had been done before it got this far along that we had that kind of study with a professional planning firm actually doing that… and have a matrix and say, here are the sites, which ones work, which ones don’t work, and score them and know the pros and cons, because it would have made our job not feeling like we have a gun to our head…”
Letter to the Editor: In Support of a Fire Substation — 2/8/24
There are so many moving parts to the overall matter and no inherent disrespect in differing with the Select Board’s findings and conclusions on the subject. The video of the HDC hearing is very informative, but Lt. Mark Daly’s short statement put it all in perspective. There were excerpts of his remarks in The Bedford Citizen’s report but his delivery is well worth watching. This statement and others that he has stepped up to make (see below) deserve to be heard.
HDC Agrees to New Hearing on Revised Fire Station Plan — 2/8/24
The designer will spend the next two weeks integrating the commissioners’ feedback into the design. The HDC will then take a new vote on whether or not to approve going forward with demolition. Even though the revised design was much improved, it is hard to see how the overpowering scale of the project can satisfy both the commissioners’ statutory duty and the functional integrity of the station.
Mitchell Shares Research Refuting Petitioners’ Fire Station Issues — 1/25/24
The petitioners’ article calls for a better understanding of where a substation fits into the public safety and capital expenditures big picture. If, as this report claims, Emily Mitchell is well along in her preparations to refute the article’s logic, why was there not one mention of EMS statistics? Where is that research? Anecdotal references, cost assumptions, and Ms. Mitchell’s opinions are not data points.
Sprinkler systems do not prevent heart attacks. Shouldn’t efforts to refute the petitioners’ article start by explaining why an ad hoc committee to address the town’s overall public safety facility needs — while the current project is in limbo — would not be a good thing?
Letter to the Editor: Consider Current Fire Station Location as Viable Plan B — 1/17/24
There could be thirty million reasons why alternative ideas should be examined at this point. This is the right time to explore missed opportunities and new options. Nothing is moving forward until the HDC decision is resolved or Select Board members consider whether the denial was really a blessing in disguise.
The critical needs of Bedford’s first responders have not changed. They include decontamination facilities and a firehouse that makes recruiting and retention easy. But while a substation has been called for repeatedly by firefighters, and dismissed repeatedly by officials, there are no objective findings or inquiries into the matter. A Public Records request is pending, but it’s safe to say that if the issue had been adequately addressed it would be found on the BFD website.
The 55 Great Road proposal in the letter above, in both construction and operational phases, is best seen in the context of a substation. Planning a firehouse without factoring in a sooner or later substation makes overbuilding and overspending a real possibility. So while the Bacon property is in limbo, it would be very constructive for the Town to pre-empt the ATM Petitioners’ Article and now authorize an ad hoc committee to look at the pros and cons of a substation.
Petitioners’ Article Calls for Another Committee to Assess Need for Fire Department Substation — 1/9/24
Bedford Firefighters have been making a public case for how important a substation is to their rescue mission since at least the 2022 ATM. Residents need to consider if this matter should be part of an overall solution before any project is set in stone. It should also [be considered] whether addressing the town’s safety outlook comprehensively would be more or less cost-effective than pursuing the substation issue separately. Finally, given that EMS response times to underserved parts of the community are critical, and since the need is acknowledged but always deferred, the potential for Town liability should be looked into at this time. A collaborative response from the Select Board would help to unify residents behind the Town’s fire station policy going forward. — Description of the Article
The needs of the firefighters have been cited as the driving force behind the new station, so why is it not worth taking a couple of months while the HDC ruling is sorted out to get to the bottom the the feasibility of a substation? Who would that hurt? Saving time and money were central to the purchase of 139 The Great Road. Why spend $30 million building a station without first looking into whether giving the firefighters what they have repeatedly called for (see aggregated firefighter comments below) might not actually be the best option for the public’s safety and the public’s purse?
Select Board Alleges HDC Disregarded Law in Ruling That Derailed Firehouse — 1/9/24
After meeting in executive session with the town counsel the Select Board issued a memo citing three sections of the 1964 law that allegedly weren’t fulfilled by the Commission. The chief complaint was that the HDC should consider whether “failure to approve an application will involve a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the applicant and whether such application may be approved without substantial detriment to the public” — but an exception could only be considered if the “inappropriateness” would not affect “the historic district generally.” In other words, who is disregarding the law?
The other defect in the Town’s line of reasoning is that the contention that the property is uniquely suited as the location for the new fire station and therefore no other location will do is absurd on the face of it. The denial of a preliminary injunction in May of 2022 was based on the Town’s prerogative to make that determination — but the HDC can’t wear blinders when it comes to the existence of other feasible sites.
Letter to the Editor: HDC Member Explains Why She Voted to Support Fire Station — 1/9/24
Ms. McClain’s carefully reasoned letter depends on all of her stipulations being true. It would have been helpful if she had made her comments during the hearing so that her interpretation of the text and intent of the Act could have been debated by the commissioners in public.
An act of the legislature is a law and respect for the law is the highest public good. So, if the Town decides to pursue the Act’s remedy by appealing the decision to Middlesex Superior Court, that would have the benefit of sorting out the bedrock facts from the swirl of assumptions.
In the meantime, it would be good for people to withhold judgment and give all concerned the benefit of the doubt that those on both sides of the issue are motivated by honest efforts to promote public safety and the public good.
Historic Commission Vote Halts Fire Station Plans — 1/4/24
When three conscientious commissioners upheld the oath each had taken to protect the Historic District, they put the firefighters closer to, not farther from, a new home. Objections that “public safety” is taking a backseat to silly, irrelevant concerns and that the decision is a disservice to the town’s firefighters need to be examined. It is no wonder that some people feel there was an abuse of power and want to take it out on the Historic District. Appealing the decision to Middlesex Superior Court will make the underlying facts clear once and for all. That will do much to solve the urgent fire station problem.
Town Hopes for Firehouse Decision on Jan. 3 Commission Agenda — 12/7/23
The design team did a fabulous job but the end product is quite clearly out of place. For the HDC to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness would require nullifying the terms of the Act. What would be handsome elsewhere appears ersatz in this block. That was inevitable and it is a shame that Town officials went to such lengths to impose an equally ersatz solution when the need for a true solution is so urgent. But it is not too late to do the right thing:
Letter to the Editor: Additional Comments on Fire Station Site — 12/5/23
The Historic District Commission decision on whether or not 139 The Great Road is an appropriate location for a fire station complex is at least a month away, and Eversource and Verizon have yet to announce their intentions regarding the poles, but Bedford’s need for a substation could not be clearer.
Overbuilding at the current site, with a price tag that has almost doubled since the ATM vote, and turning a charming stretch of road into a cement lawn, will do nothing to improve response times to an increasingly underserved part of town. How long does the Town think it can ignore that and not be held liable for the foreseeable consequences? Who believes that after spending $30 million on the headquarters there will be momentum left for building a substation any time soon? But overbuilding and overspending is a choice.
The pennywise mindset that was the original rationale for the project has been exposed. The good sense behind the push to renovate the current station and build a substation on Town property would save time and money if embraced soon. Converting the western addition to the current station into a large bay for the ladder truck and dividing the living space between the two locations would be a win-win. The point is that there is a lot of misinformation surrounding the issue and a public forum with the firefighters would be in the best interests of the public good.
O’Brien Rebukes ‘Leadership,’ Resigns from Finance Committee — 11/7/23
A video of Ron O’Brien’s resignation from the Finance Committee is not available because the routine recording of FinCom meetings did not take place. But the amazing statement that he made at the August 24, 2023 meeting, which was followed by Elizabeth McClung’s equally amazing resignation were recorded. The link is provided because it sheds light on the recurring charges of intolerance for diverse opinions and evidence of an autocratic Town government.
Bedford Voters Reject Proposal for Another Firehouse Site Search — 11/7/23
Article 7 was voted down but not defeated in the sense that it accomplished its purpose. It informed citizens of potentially significant risks to the viability of the project. At the same time, it presented Town Management with options that they chose to brush aside. Voting against the article did nothing to reduce the risks that were discussed in some depth. But it could still spur a reevaluation of the serious need for a substation and make people realize that it is an essential part of a much more cost-effective, time-saving, and rewarding solution for Bedford’s Firefighters/Emergency Rescuers and the town they protect.
STM ARTICLE 7 PRESENTATION AND COMMENTS — 11/6/23
The focus of Michael Seibert’s presentation was risk management of the fire station building project. While acknowledging the apparent risks that the HDC process and utility poles could present to the timely completion of building the new station, his focus was on the funding risk at the 2024 Annual Town Meeting. He expanded on the effort Don Corey made in his presentation of the petitioners’ articles at the 2022 STM regarding the inevitable need for a substation as part of any plan. Efforts to minimize the issue are irresponsible and ignore the liability exposure that could undermine the case for funding.
Letter to the Editor: Petitioners’ Article Seeks Risk Mitigation for New Fire Station — 10/10/23
Speculation that Article 7 could add further expense to the beleaguered project should be clarified by reading this letter by sponsor Michael Seibert. None of the alternate sites is being promoted over any other. The only thing that is being promoted is the common sense of a back-up plan, in case needed. How could identifying a contingency site fail to be in the public interest?
Commission Consensus: Firehouse Doors Should Face the Street — 10/6/23
The question to ask is not CAN it be done, but SHOULD it be done.
It is clear from the various quotes in this article that the HDC Commissioners are trying to make peace with some disturbing trade-offs that would have to be made in order to accommodate the new firehouse at this location. But the Legislative Act of 1964, which defines the “mays” and the “shalls” of the HDC’s mandated purpose, does not allow for trade-offs. The words are the words and the circumstances do not fit the requirements for an exemption to be made.
Town Manager, Select Board Cite Concerns over Wording of Petitioners’ Fire Station Article — 9/26/23
Article 7 was worded by a knowledgeable town resident, but if necessary can be amended from the floor of Town Meeting. The intent of the Petitioners’ Article is to provide residents of Bedford with the same opportunity: To amend a plan that, for a variety of reasons may not succeed in achieving its goal of delivering the urgently needed new fire station. If an amended article is passed, it would be up to the Select Board to identify the most suitable “Plan B” for the project. The article will be presented at the November 6th Special Town Meeting by resident Michael Seibert.
Petitioners’ Article will be #7 on the 11/6/23 Special Town Meeting Warrant — 9/25/23
“This article would provide a path to a viable alternative location in the event that the Historic District Commission determines the exterior architectural features of buildings and structures to be erected within the historic district, which are subject to view from the public street, and/or the proposed alteration of the land and streetscape would be detrimental to the character of the Historic District and to the public interest, contrary therefore to the purpose and mandate of the Acts of 1964 as amended, or in the event of any other impediment(s) that could cause such a delay at the current location as to put the vital project in jeopardy.” In other words, in the event that the current plan proves to be fatally flawed, the Town should have a “Plan B” ready to go.
This comment was attached to the article just below this one but it applies to the whole project: “Recently, when I walked into the remodelled Dunkin Donuts on Great Road, I mentioned how great the new layout looked. The manager sighed. ‘Sure it looks nice, but it takes 2x as many steps for us to complete the same order. It’s awful. No one asked us – we could have told them.’ This should not be political. Listen to the Firefighters Local 2310.”
Petitioners’ Articles Intended to Derail Fire Station Project — 9/21/23
As I commented on The Bedford Citizen: I don’t think that trying to reroute a runaway train before it goes over a cliff qualifies as derailing it. The Bedford Citizen article on Sunday explained that HDC approval is not a “slam dunk” — and it never was. So why wasn’t there a Plan B from the start? The statement of Bedford’s Professional Firefighters Local 2310 is a stunning testimony that Bedford needs to rethink the current agenda for many urgent reasons and fast. The upcoming Special Town Meeting is the best possible time to get this right. Isn’t getting it right what really matters?
Some Commission Members Still Skeptical about Firehouse Site — 9/15/23
The Bedford Citizen’s 9/17/23 “Week in Review” included a curious heading: “The Bedford Historic District Commission’s affirmation of plans for a fire station at 139 The Great Road is far from a slam dunk.” It linked to “Some Commission Members Still Skeptical about Firehouse Site.” I left a comment pointing out that: The HDC’s “affirmation” of the plans to locate a massive industrial building at the gateway to Bedford’s historic Center, changing the streetscape forever, was never a “slam dunk”. Why that should be a surprise deserves close attention. The underlying problems with the project will be examined this week on Save Our Block.
The article’s headline was also curious since it is the duty of every commissioner to be skeptical and withhold judgment until all of the facts have been presented. “Save Our Block” will again have a booth at Bedford Day to show that there are two sides to the issue.
*It is too bad that the public’s right to know what is going on in the official business related to this consequential project has not been respected. Meetings of the Fire Station Building Committee and The Historic District Commission have gone mostly unrecorded. Bedford TV routinely records certain meetings but these are not among them. For the people who want to be knowledgeable — and for the historical record — there is no reason for spotty coverage.
When I called Bedford TV to confirm that they were going to record the September 6th HDC hearing, they had received no request. So they asked for Town Manager permission and got it the next day. For many busy townspeople, The Bedford Citizen coverage that Mike Rosenburg faithfully provides gives them a good idea of what is unfolding. For others, observing what actually transpires is valuable.
In a town that cherishes open town meetings, firsthand knowledge is priceless. The Town is not limited to the requirements of the Open Meetings Law. A by-law requiring at least an audio recording of every Town meeting, including executive sessions (to be posted with the minutes — and redacted where that is required by law) would be in the vanguard of accountability and respect for the public’s right to know. The new Town Manager could really get off on the right foot by reforming the current haphazard protocols. That would give citizens the appetite and tools for greater and smarter engagement.
A pattern of intolerance for differing opinions in official Bedford has picked up speed over the last few years. The Town Manager and Select Board members set the tone for the community but their handbook pledge to “represent the entire community at all times” seems to have been replaced with “the ends justify the means.” The recent turnover in key positions is promising.
Siegenthaler Resigns as Town Moderator — 9/19/23
Letter to the Editor: Reader Challenges Characterization of Finance Committee — 8/31/23
Fiscal Conservative Abruptly Exits Finance Committee — 8/25/23
Panel Opts to Replace Two Finance Committee Members — 7/26/23
Letter to the Editor: Recent Treatment of Volunteers in Town — 7/19/23
Letter to the Editor: Are Town Volunteer Committee Members Being Targeted and Removed? — 7/18/23
Bedford Select Board Opts to Replace Longtime Housing Volunteer — 7/17/23
Select Board Declines to Appoint Moonan to Historic Panel — 6/15/23
Letter to the Editor: A Case for More Resident Participation in Fire Station Design — 3/10/23
Letter to the Editor: Town Followed Correct Process in Selecting Fire Station Building Committee — 3/2/23
Letter to the Editor: Concerns Expressed About the New Fire Station Design Process — 3/1/23
Steele Comment to the Town Select Board — 2/13/23
Donovan Letter to the Select Board — 2/8/23
Letter to the Editor: Build New Fire Station Farther East on Great Road,
Convert Existing Station to Sub-station — 2/10/23
See the “Discussions” page for links to related Bedford Citizen Facebook threads.
The failure of the Finance Committee to reach the number of votes required to recommend approval or disapproval of the
Petitioners Articles underscores the fact that there are indeed very good reasons to question the wisdom of the current course.
These excerpts from Select Board executive session minutes that were finally released shed light on the selection process.
See “Supporting Documents” page for the source documents.
In his third Letter to the Editor, Mr. Corey examined a number of other drawbacks to the current site for the new fire station that were not brought to citizens’ attention before the 3/29/22 vote. That letter seems to have fallen between the cracks at the Citizen. But his conclusion is repeated here:
Come to the Special Town Meeting on November 14th and hear why 139 The Great Road
is not the bargain it has been represented to be.
In his second of three Letters to the Editor, Don Corey explores why the need for a substation
must be factored into plans for a central fire station now.
In the first of a series of letters to The Bedford Citizen, Don Corey discusses
the reasons for bringing Articles 4 & 5 to Bedford’s voters.
The Bedford Citizen report on the Finance Committee’s October 6th meeting included a review of the Fire Station discussion, but we think a more detailed analysis of what transpired will provide much-needed insight into good-faith objections to the current plan and the process that produced it.