To the Editor:
This is an open letter to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.
I felt I had to share my concerns regarding yesterday’s hearing by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission Land Use Planning Committee regarding a proposed boatyard referred to as a development of regional impact, DRI -764. While I appreciate the deliberations that took place, the thoughtful dialogue that extended for more than two hours was erased in a matter of minutes with the final vote. In the end, I couldn’t help but reflect on our initial conversation with the commission’s executive director, who told me that I needed to realize that the Martha’s Vineyard Commission is a “political organization.”
I guess that explains how six commissioners voted in favor of approving the boatyard with rationale including:
One commissioner stating seriously that clear-cutting could be considered positive for fire risk, since there would be no trees to burn.
Another having the audacity to compare our beautiful residential lots that have been sensitively developed to create appealing properties to a boatyard that will clear-cut and level the entire lot, resulting in an ugly maintenance building and concrete pad that need to be hidden behind a stockade fence.
Another struggling to understand how risks associated with a boatyard and maintenance operation using and storing a wide range of hazardous materials and conducting operations that have been identified as a fire risk could be greater than for a residential home.
Discussing climate resilience with only one board member referencing the Vineyard Conservation Society’s letter, which spoke directly to that issue and concluded, “We believe that a boatyard is an ideal example of what is appropriate for a working waterfront, both historically and, despite the rising water, in the future.”
One commissioner who throughout the hearing proclaimed multiple times that this hearing was a waste of time.
And so in retrospect, in spite of the number of identified detriments, given the apparent political nature of the commission, I guess it should not have been surprising to hear the vote for approval in the name of economic benefit for a project that has not identified one single new job that would be created.
While I expect it is too late to change the outcome for this proposed project, I felt the issue of relying on the commission to find the right balance between protection of the Island’s natural resources with the need for economic growth deserves greater attention.
Nick DeRose
Vineyard Haven
