The Globe reports HYM, which is co-owned by a guy who used to run the BRA, has asked the Baker administration to let it begin construction on two buildings in its proposed mega-development tout suite, which means without requiring it to do any of those annoying environmental reviews normally required of large projects along waterways, in this case Chelsea Creek, as a way to signal to Amazon that Boston is willing to do whatever it takes to bring it here short of, perhaps, human sacrifice. And if Amazon doesn't pick Suffolk Downs? Well, que sera sera.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Amazon is not coming
By Brian Riccio
Tue, 12/05/2017 - 5:29pm
Get used to it.
Dear Tom O'Brien
By perruptor
Tue, 12/05/2017 - 5:35pm
No. Play by the same rules as everybody else, or go play somewhere else.
You must have missed the parts
By ChrisInEastie
Tue, 12/05/2017 - 6:15pm
that said
and
If even the developer
By cw in boston
Tue, 12/05/2017 - 7:28pm
notes that Rumney and Belle Isle marshes "could" be affected by the development--believe them. And don't allow a waiver.
What's wrong with human sacrifice?
By Daan
Tue, 12/05/2017 - 7:39pm
To make the gears of the capitalist (or really any economic method) economy move quickly and produce the fastest growth human blood is the best lubricant. If not for the thousands who died to create the industrial revolution where would humanity be today?
Pretty sure Amazon
By anon
Tue, 12/05/2017 - 9:43pm
Would rather spend a few extra bucks (heaven knows they've got it) to make sure they aren't poisoning their workers. The positive press of a clean up would be good publicity/marketing and an olive branch to skeptics.
This is a dumb idea.
Also, I respect Charlie Baker and have no dohbts regarding his moral compass on this issue. Never gonna happen.
Amazon? Environment? Is
By anon
Tue, 12/05/2017 - 9:45pm
Amazon? Environment? Is there some irony here?
Environmental Reviews Overrated
By anon
Wed, 12/06/2017 - 1:47am
California has a state law mandating reviews for significant projects.
When the City of San Francisco produced a plan to shrink roadways all over and replace them with bike paths and exclusive bus lanes, they got rightly sued for not producing an Environmental Review, and courts agreed.
So the state legislature make an exclusion to the law for any bicycling infrastructure.
Problem solved. No environmental impact, because, well, we say so!
Wow, I think this is a new
By DTP
Wed, 12/06/2017 - 8:55am
Wow, I think this is a new UHub record for longest reach to turn a topic into an excuse to complain about bikes!
I'm sure we've seen it quicker
By Waquiot
Wed, 12/06/2017 - 9:37am
But man, that was a sharp turn. Somehow we went from environmental impacts of the redevelopment of Suffolk Downs to California environmental law right quick.
well
By ElizaLeila
Wed, 12/06/2017 - 10:21am
Bikes are easier to turn on a dime than cars ...
Yes
By blues_lead
Wed, 12/06/2017 - 10:44am
Because making a non-carbon-using transportation form better and a carbon-using form less desirable is so clearly good for the environment that any "environmental review" of such is a immoral and stupid delaying tactic.
I hope that was satire
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 12/06/2017 - 3:55pm
Just off the top of my head....
I'm confused
By blues_lead
Wed, 12/06/2017 - 10:10pm
Which of those are existing roads with existing impermeable tarmacadam and concrete where there is a reallocation of space to various modes of travel?
I.e. which of those is a road diet? I've searched, I've used ctrl-F on your post, can't find it anywhere.
Silly me.
Do you disagree with my fundamental point?
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 12/07/2017 - 11:35am
Which is that :
Add comment