Hey, there! Log in / Register
Gas pipeline won't come into West Roxbury without a fight
By adamg on Sun, 09/27/2015 - 6:27pm
Protesters carry inflatable simulation of a pipeline across Lagrange Street.
Some 200 protesters, joined by several city councilors and a state representative, vowed today to continue their fight against the proposed Westwood-to-West-Roxbury natural-gas pipeline down Washington and Grove streets.
Organizer Chuck Collins said at a rally at Billings Field that 160 people have already received civil-disobedience training to put themselves in the way of Spectra Energy construction equipment once it gets to the West Roxbury line on Washington Street. Another 400 people have signed up as witnesses to any civil-disobedience actions. In June, Dedham Selectman Mike Butler was arrested at a pipeline construction site.
Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled that Algonquin Algonquin Gas Transmission had the right to seize the right of way it needs so that contractor Spectra Energy can build a high-pressure gas pipeline that will end in a transfer station across the street from the West Roxbury quarry.
Protest organizer Seamus Whalen announced, to boos, that Mayor Walsh had decided not to appeal that ruling. Walsh did not attend today's rally.
City Councilor Matt O'Malley (West Roxbury, Jamaica Plain) told protesters he will continue to support residents in their fight, that the pipeline is a public-safety and public-health menace and that the country should be trying to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. "This pipeline is bad for the neighborhood, this pipeline is bad for the city, this pipeline is bad for the Commonwealth and this pipeline is bad for the United States of America!" he said to applause.
At-large city councilors Ayanna Pressley, Steve Murphy, Michelle Wu and Michael Flaherty all also pledged their support, as did Councilor Tim McCarthy from neighboring Hyde Park.
"It's a beautiful day to raise hell!" Pressley said. Wu, whose mother lives near the pipeline route, said "people should come before pipelines."
This being a Boston rally, state Rep. Ed Coppinger (D-West Roxbury) naturally invoked Tom Brady.
"As my T-shirt says, 'Tom Brady is free at last,' " Coppinger said. "Now we must make sure that West Roxbury is free at last."
Later, an organizer paused for a moment to give the crowd an update on the Patriots score.
Speakers alternated with protest songs, many accompanied by the JP Honk band. Protesters said the pipeline wouldn't be needed if the local gas companies fixed all the leaks in their existing pipes, said the West Roxbury pipeline was really just a feint to let the gas transmission companies ship fracked gas from Pennsylvania overseas and that the country should be turning to renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.
The rally concluded with a march - featuring an inflated replica of a pipeline - down Centre Street to the transfer-station site.
Michelle Wu speaks against the pipeline as Michael Flaherty holds her son, Blaise:
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Where does one
purchase a large, inflatable, mock gas pipeline?
Looks like
it was purchased at the commonwealth's first Amazing XXXL store; most likely located on route 1 in Dedham.
I have two suggestions
for these self-centered "me only" people:
First. PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the proposed pipeline will indeed explode and cause great carnage, dogs and cats living together, etc. if built.
Second - provide a specific ALTERNATIVE that addresses the issue this pipeline is being built to address. Then demonstrate how this alternative is less than or equal to the cost of the current propsal.
Then I might be willing to listen to your concerns. Until then, I'm not impressed with your NIMBY whining.
I have two suggestions for you
1. Look up what "burden of proof" means and do some investigation as to who has the burden of proof of safety in this situation
2. Check out the Bhopal Investigation - specifically, the risk assessments conducted when the facility was designed that estimated the probability of a disaster as astronomically low (because of the assumptions about or failure to incorporate maintenance and staffing variables). Also, check out the CSB's investigation of the facility in Danvers and how that exploded.
Science only sees what it looks at, dear. Risk assessment only assesses those risks that the risk assessors choose to incorporate in their assessment. In this case, they are ignoring the blasting that goes on. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency, in scoping risk for relicensing elderly facilities, chose to ignore fuel pool drain risks and terrorism risks, despite technologies for making storage far safer. Both are scientific assessments, and both carefully ignore what they don't want to see.
WIth respect
the system of "burden of proof" is bass-ackaward.
"We know best because we have NO expertise in the matters being discussed. Prove that we're wrong". In other words, disprove a negative - which is extremely hard to do.
But let's continue to waste everybody's time and money and unecessarily delay a needed project which has ALREADY been studied to death because of NIMBYism and baseless fears.
It's no wonder we can't do anything purposeful around these parts any more.
And perhaps you can address my second point - What ALTERNATIVE are the people opposed to this pipeline proposing. And stating "we don't need it" or "as long as it runs elsewhere" are not acceptable options.
Studies
One study by the pipeline owners, no other firm would do a study. A number of engineering firms were asked for an independent study and all refused? wonder why???
2 Suggestions
The pipeline is bad enough but why does that transfer station need to be within 100 yards of an active quarry, you know earth shaking blasting stuff? Makes no sense. Second if this was so above board why was there no public notice until after the pipeline was approved? All BS...
Hi roadman,
Hi roadman,
This really is a disaster of biblical proportions.
I generally am not one to "feed the trolls" but you seemed to be operating from some misinformation.
We're not NIMBY'ers. Most of us are concerned as much about what further committing the commonwealth to fossil fuel infrastructure means for our possibility to meet our carbon emission goals in the future (It makes that an impossibility) and what that means for our planet's changing climate. I can't prove here for you that investment in pipeline infrastructure means committing to continue paying for fossil fuel infrastructure rather than investing in solar and wind energy, but it makes logical sense and you're welcome to do the research yourself.
We want the commonwealth to insist that we fix the gas leaks we have (3,400 just in Boston) before building another pipeline.
The cost is less or equal because it means that we might have fewer catastrophic storms, and less extreme weather. It means that the commonwealth will be more self-reliant when it comes to our energy. It's less because we don't need the gas from the pipeline... the WRL pipeline is unnecessary and dressing up a larger pipeline that is bound to export fracked gas overseas. No unnecessary infrastructure is definitely cheaper.
You've come to the party late
This is totally a NIMBY thing, and not being from the area, I agree with them.
You might not want to admit this, but if the pipeline were going up VFW Parkway instead, West Roxbury would not be up in arms. Roadman might not get it, but even outsiders see issues with running a high pressure natural gas line by an active blasting zone.
Sometimes it makes sense to ask not to put something in your backyard (or front yard) and sometimes you are going a NIMBY. I go with the former on this.
Once Pilgrim shuts down, what do you think we will be using to power our computers and electronic devices?
How needs to prove what?
We have been asking Spectra and FERC to prove that it WON'T explode...They can't do it.
We have asked Spectra and FERC to provide examples of where a pipeline like exists in a city right in front of an actively working quarry without incident...They can't do it.
The burden of proof should be on t he multi-billion dollar gas company, not on the residence of this neighborhood. We have suggested alternatives, requested health and safety assessments, and posed many questions and concerns that have been unaddressed.
If you don't think its a concern, move to our neighborhood. We'd love to have you. There is a beautiful, brand new home 100 yards from the proposed Metering station location and the entrance to the quarry. (2417 Centre St, Boston, MA 02132).
They should be careful what they wish for......
The state could always seize their owns by eminent domain for this infrastructure project and relocate them with just compensation.
Better not protest anything
Better not protest anything then. You could get the state angry, and there goes your house.