The Chelsea City Council voted Monday night to tell the state that its plan for the Mary O’Malley State Park pier is not good enough and that the public engagement behind it should be reopened. The resolution passed with seven in favor, one opposed and three absent. The one opposed was District 1 Councillor Todd Taylor, and his reason had nothing to do with the pier.
What the resolution asks for
Resolution 26R25, introduced by Councillor-at-Large Kelly Garcia, runs to four paragraphs of findings and two of demands. It urges the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation to reopen the public engagement process for the pier restoration project before final design decisions are made, and then lists what it wants built into the design:
- Evaluate elevating the pier, the seawall and related waterfront structures to address high tide flooding and projected sea level rise, and do it where feasible.
- Restore the public boat ramp and floating dock, or provide an equivalent facility that restores meaningful public boating, kayaking and fishing access.
- Preserve and enhance safe, accessible public fishing throughout the project area.
- Design the waterfront to accommodate future recreational and commercial docking.
- Evaluate the feasibility of a Boston Harbor water taxi, ferry or other passenger water transportation connection.
- Coordinate with the city and its residents, and provide a written response or a public presentation explaining how the feedback will be addressed in the final design.
The city manager is directed to send the resolution to the DCR commissioner, to the secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, and to Chelsea’s state legislative delegation.
The grievance underneath it
The findings say residents raised concerns that the state’s public meeting on the project “appeared to present decisions that had already been made without a meaningful opportunity for the community to influence the design, scope or long-term vision.” They also say the proposed work would not raise the historic pier, the gazebo area, the fishing pier or the seawall to deal with high tide flooding.
Garcia kept her own remarks short. “What I constantly hear from the residents of that area is that they have felt unheard and not a part of the conversation,” she said. “Now that we have a chance to be a part of the conversation to restore that area, our people should be included.”
District 5 Councillor Lisa Anne Santagate filled in the history. The state’s outreach, she said, took the form of a Zoom meeting, and the people who attended “felt it to be not a good process and they were extremely disappointed.” She said she had seen the reaction herself.
Councillor-at-Large Leo Robinson said he had already spoken with the state representative and the state senator, and that both had written to the state asking that the process be reopened.
Taylor’s standing rule
Taylor did not argue against the pier, the boat ramp or the water taxi. He argued that the council should not be passing the resolution at all.
“I have a rule that I vote no on all political resolutions,” he said. “This is a state matter. The proper thing to do, as I’ve said time and time again, is to contact our state representative, Judith Garcia, and our state senator, Sal DiDomenico, and have them advocate with the governor to reopen it. This has really nothing to do with the city council.” He then encouraged those legislators to do exactly that.
Three colleagues answered him directly. Recupero said he understood Taylor’s position and was voting yes anyway, because a resolution lets residents see that the council is trying. District 2 Councillor Deron Hines put it as a question of who normally gets to speak: “There are a lot of decisions that are made on behalf of our community that have historically been made on behalf of our community.” Santagate was blunter. “Even if we can’t make the final decision, I think we should advocate for our residents.”
Council Vice President Norieliz DeJesus used her time to credit Garcia’s work on waterfront access generally, including a recent tour of the Forbes site with Hines and Tanairi Garcia.
What a resolution is worth
A city council resolution does not bind the DCR. The pier belongs to the state, the money is the state’s, and the design schedule is the state’s. Taylor is right about the mechanics. What the resolution does is create a document the state has to receive, put a written response on the record as an ask, and give the two legislators something from the city to carry.
The council took the same view of its own leverage twice in one night, here and on the Forbes site, where it can only invite the new owners to come and explain themselves. Chelsea’s waterfront is largely owned by somebody else.
Two questions now sit with the DCR: whether it will reopen public engagement, and whether raising the pier and the seawall is still on the table. The resolution asks for a written response. If one arrives, it belongs in public.