Senate Bill No. 1613 is sponsored by Senator Robert E. Travaglini, Stephen F. Lynch, Frederick E. Berry, Kevin G. Honan and other members of the General Court. The bill authorizes the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance to lease a parcel of land in the city of Boston for sailing, boating and related purposes.

A full review of the issues behind the BU proposal follows below. We urge you to consider this matter carefully. In the absence of a clearly defined review process and a broad-based public constituency in support of the Esplanade, we believe all of the Charles River Basin parklands are at risk.

Methods of contacting the bill's sponsors are listed at the end of this article.
 

BU Sails Into Stormy Waters With New Pavilion

by Renata von Tscharner

For those unfamiliar with its history, a few words about the Charles River Basin and its parklands are worth noting: they are sacred places. Salvaged by the 19th-century visionary Charles Eliot from the sewer vents and sinkpits of an industrial wasteland, the Basin parklands qualify as exalted space. In a time of frenetic development they are publicly owned, beautifully designed, expansive and accessible to all our citizens.

As might be expected, hotels, condominiums and commercial enterprises abutting the Basin have all paid exceptional premiums for the privilege of access to such beauty. This is consistent with Eliot's intentions for the areas surrounding his parklands: he viewed development and attendant property tax growth as a means of support for chronically underfunded municipalities. If Boston University were to have its way, however, it is not an abutting area, but a substantial piece of the Basin parkland itself, in this case the world-renowned Esplanade, that would be developed. At the discretion of a not-for-profit institution, public parkland would be mandated for private, recreational purposes.

What BU has proposed, and a host of environmental groups are actively opposing, is the construction of a sailing pavilion on the Boston side of the river near the BU campus. To expedite the process - opponents say to finesse it - BU has had State Senator Robert Travaglini file special interest legislation (SB #1613) on its behalf. In return for such public amenities as an exercise area, rest rooms and a snack bar, BU proposes to construct its new facility on the Esplanade under a 25-year lease. In other words, forever.

Larger than a football field

For those whose care is for the public interest, it is a time for vigilance: While the "footprint" of the proposed pavilion itself is said to be only six thousand square feet, the BU plan calls for the long-term use of 1.4 acres. Giving BU the benefit of the doubt that much of the land required will be devoted to public mitigation (exercise area, rest rooms, etc.), it is still worth noting the space called for is substantially larger than a football field.

The appropriateness of the BU plan - perhaps justice is a better word - needs to be taken in context. The site on which BU proposes to build is one of the highest-use parklands in the Basin. Joggers, strollers, bikers, sunbathers and folks who just want to sit and relax are a constant presence in the area.

To quote Michael Ross, who as a Boston City Councilor represents the Fenway and Back Bay, "Boston University's proposal for a new sailing pavilion is consistent with constructive use of the Esplanade. But it will only work if the community is given full and ample opportunity to participate in the process. More work is needed if we are to optimize public enjoyment of the Esplanade while maintaining the spirit in which it was built."

At the same time, BU has maintained and developed its Commonwealth Avenue campus adjacent to Storrow Drive and the Charles River for much of the last century. Indeed, it has made the case that part of its valuable river front campus was taken through eminent domain for the building of Storrow Drive and that therefore it is owed a quid pro quo. But law requires that takings for public use require compensation at market rate. One can assume such was the case in the 1950s when Storrow Drive was built.

Special consideration?

By the same token, BU, like Harvard and MIT, with whom it shares a presence on the river, is a not-for-profit institution with a world class reputation. Surely it deserves special consideration in light of the contribution it makes to higher education and the local economy. Sailing has long been a staple of collegiate recreation and sport on the river and the current BU sailing facility, located in the shadow of the cottage Farm Bridge, is undersized and poorly located.

Such considerations must have influenced the thinking of various boards in the city of Cambridge, which along with the Metropolitan District Commission granted BU liberal terms in permitting construction of a rowing pavilion just across from the BU campus on the Cambridge side of the river. In return for an annual rent of $6 thousand dollars, in other words about the lease cost of an indoor parking space in downtown Boston, BU was allowed to construct a handsome facility.

One other condition was attached to the deal: that BU would create unrestricted pedestrian access around its new boathouse. Specifically, the Cambridge Board of Appeals, the authority with jurisdiction over building permits in the city, stated:

"That construction of the proposed boathouse shall take place in a way which would facilitate pedestrian access along the riverbank, onto the dock, across it and back or to the far side of the site for pedestrians, provided that the Petitioner (BU) shall not be required to create paths along the river front but the construction of the proposed boathouse shall fit with any pedestrian paths which do or will exist along the river and that the petitioner allow public access to the extent possible to its dock when the University or public boating programs are not operating."

By taking a generous position with BU, Cambridge still wished to preserve river access for its citizens. So how did BU respond to this simple requirement? It built a large fence, barring all pedestrian access to the site.

Mindful of this action, and the potential for both environmental damage and impairment of public access, a number of organizations dedicated to the Basin and its park lands have stood in opposition to the Travaglini bill and BU's attempt to gain virtually unrestricted access to an area on the Boston side of the river equidistant between the Boston University and Harvard Bridges. Among those calling for a comprehensive review process and consideration of equities are the Charles River Conservancy and the Charles River Watershed Association, with the latter moving energetically to raise the issue in the public press.

Complete review process

Other groups seeking a complete public review process, an alternative site analysis and commensurate mitigation to the public for loss of land use include the Beacon Hill Civic Association, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental League of Massachusetts, Esplanade Association, Massachusetts Audubon Society, and Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay.

Public response, while still somewhat muted, appears to be growing, spurred on in part by a Boston Globe editorial of March 31st, which notes..."As presently configured, this project isn't a great deal for the public...The best course would be if BU agreed, voluntarily and up front, to undergo a complete environmental analysis of its proposed sailing pavilion. Any bill that impedes the public's access to open space should not be allowed to sail through the legislature."

Commenting for purposes of this article, two civic leaders in the Back Bay and Fenway communities have been unequivocal in their calls for an open and thoroughgoing process. Linda M. Cox of the Esplanade Association has said: "We must focus on the issue of getting the (BU sailing pavilion) site reviewed before it is locked in by legislation. That's the ball we need to keep our eye on! Appropriate mitigation requires a lot of thought and a properly constituted citizen advisory committee could make really useful recommendations."

Lisa Soli, president of the Fenway Community Development Corporation, is outspoken in her consideration of the sailing pavilion issue. "Taking scarce public park land for private purposes merits serious review. BU seems intent on by-passing any public process in this case and we find that troubling. BU itself has long neglected its current sailing pavilion, allowing it to deteriorate into its current sorry state. In terms of its past practices, BU has not provided the community much reason to believe that their stewardship will improve should they gain control of even more of the riverfront."

These issues all noted, a number of other points must be considered in discussing the BU proposal. One, for instance, is BU's insistence that the pavilion be located within a short walk of its main campus, which is separated from the Esplanade by Storrow Drive. This would make sense were it not for the fact that the river is relatively narrow at this point. Docks, floats and accompanying boat traffic will demand skillful helmsmanship from young sailors attempting to navigate among the passing stream of rowers, pleasure craft and tour boats that have been a regular feature of river life for over a century.

Moving BU's proposed boathouse further down river toward the Harvard Bridge (which carries Massachusetts Avenue between Boston and Cambridge) makes access less convenient for members of the BU community, but makes tacking and mooring infinitely more practical given the dramatic widening of the Basin at that point. In making this change, however, a new issue emerges.

Sad history of neglect

For those familiar with the long, sad history of neglect of the Charles River, the tantalizing prospect of renewed Basin parklands has suddenly come into sight. The recent announcement of a master plan by the MDC calls for the expenditure of over $30 million to renew or enhance over 30 key parkland sites in locations stretching from the Science Museum to the Watertown dam. Part of the plan is an imaginative approach for creating pedestrian access from the Fenway to the Esplanade.

Blocked by the imposition of the Bowker overpass at Charlesgate, which is viewed by urban planners worldwide as an environmental abomination of the first order, the magnificent progression of the Fenway into the Basin parklands was one of Frederick Law Olmsted's great visual triumphs until stomped into concrete oblivion in the name of vehicular access to another grand abomination - Storrow Drive. These dual monstrosities have for half a century gone far to debase the Basin parklands, and in the case of Storrow Drive will go even further once it becomes the "off ramp for the Big Dig."

Should BU prevail in its attempt to place a new sailing pavilion on the Esplanade, in itself an understandable and even commendable goal, first among the requirements should be linkage between lease rent and creation of pedestrian access from the Fenway area. There, close to 30 thousand residents, many of them BU students, must pursue a long and tenuous path across heavily trafficked streets and aging bridges to reach the Esplanade.

Through spokesmen, BU claims that concerns about public benefits and equitable mitigating measures will be addressed at a later time. But in view of BU's action on the Cambridge side of the river, the limited compensation involved and the scale of its proposal in Boston, interested groups feel a more exhaustive and well elaborated process needs to be undertaken. In particular, the location, scale and compensatory elements of the proposal need clarification. When BU students launch their sailboats into the Charles from their new pavilion, they should be propelled by the fair wind of social equity rather than public rancor. A role for the Conservation Law Foundation in the process is called for; public interest will best be served with enforceable contracts.

Orderly public process

Rather than trying to force the Travaglini bill through a Senate hearing called in haste for April 23rd, we recommend that BU address the concerns raised here in an orderly public process overseen by the MDC and the Charles River Conservancy, the latter formed as a citizen advocacy group to expedite and enhance the MDC master plan.

If you agree with our perspective and wish to help Senator Travaglini and BU to understand the wisdom of this approach, please consider expressing your opposition to the bill via letter or e-mail to:

The Joint Committee on State Administration
Att. Senator Diane Wilkerson
State House, Room 312C
Boston, MA 02133
Dwilkers@senate.state.ma.us

A note to Representative Geoffrey Hall is also recommended:

Representative Geoffrey Hall
State House, Room 34
Boston, MA 02133
repgeoffreyhall@hou.state.ma.us

The sponsors of this bill can also be reached as follows:

Senator Robert E. Travaglini
State House, Boston MA 02133
RTravagl@senate.state.ma.us

Representative Stephen F. Lynch
State House, Boston MA 02133

Representative Frederick E. Berry
State House, Boston MA 02133

Representative Kevin G. Honan
State House, Boston MA 02133
Rep.KevinHonan@hou.state.ma.us

Ongoing information on this and other important matters relating to the Basin parklands can be found on this Charles River Conservancy web site. Use the messaging facility on the site to express your support for an orderly process. BU needs to recognize that in order to launch a new sailing program on the Charles, all hands must be piped happily aboard.

Renata von Tscharner is the president of the Charles River Conservancy, a not-for-profit citizen advocacy group dedicated to the renewal of the Charles River Basin parklands.