October 26, 2019
On Monday, September 23, I attended a public hearing of Bridgewater’s Planning Board about a proposal for a major mixed-use development project on the site of the property vacated by Sanofi-Aventis on Route 202/206 South, after the company moved its research and development activities to Cambridge, Massachusetts, upon the acquisition of Genzyme, a major leader in the biotech industry.
This plan is highly contentious and disruptive to the character, demographics, and traffic issues of the area, while also disregarding the impact upon the small, historic village of Pluckemin, our neighbor very close by to the north on Route 202/206.
As a result, it has spawned a flood of opposition from a Bridgewater community that feels itself largely, if not wholly left out of the process.
I concur with the logic and claims of Preserve Bridgewater, a large, significantly meaningful group of Bridgewater Township citizens which has banded together to make its case against what it perceives as runaway development.
The Process: The procedures in place at the October 23 Planning Board meeting were heavily skewed in favor of the site’s owner, Advance Properties which pushed its agenda forward on steroids that evening.
A backup team of well-heeled attorneys supported by a group of “expert” witnesses dutifully testified in favor of the firm’s agenda for a revision to the site’s current parking ordinance.
(Advance Properties’ proposal for revisions to the number of parking spaces, though seemingly innocuous, is merely one slice off its salami roll until all of them are off the loaf and on the pizza, ready for baking.)
Glaringly absent that evening was any serious attention being afforded to concerns of the large group of Bridgewater residents who, for a long time have opposed these plans.
The result is a complete shutdown of public opinion:
After each “expert” finished providing sworn testimony, Bridgewater residents brave enough to advance to the podium were instructed by the Planning Board attorney to restrict questioning only to the testimony just heard.
As a token allowance, the public was advised that at the end of “expert” testimony that evening, residents would be allowed to come to the podium and to ask questions of their choice on this matter.
That never happened. At approximately 10:18 pm, the hearing was called to a close. Advance Properties had sucked up all the oxygen, and the public was stifled.
Stonewalling in motion!! The result of this process is that future public hearings will have no recorded memory of what the public’s unanswered questions were; who the “expert” was at the time of the question; or how the next “expert” will have any background knowledge of the specific question previously asked, let alone be able to establish any linkage to the topic.
(Advance Properties’ attorneys frequently cut off citizens in the middle of their queries, stating that another more-informed “expert” would address the inquiry at another meeting.)
That is an example of how stifling the public takes place.
Very legal. Very effective. Very wrong.
No judicious suspension of the rules was ever proposed by the Planning Board to accommodate the timely inquiries of Bridgewater residents.
Hear this well, Bridgewater: This process is not working for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment