September 5, 2000

My name is Tom Goodwin. I am a resident of South Weymouth at 462 Union St.,which runs south from the Liberty St. intersection and along the East perimeter of the former NAS So. Weymouth. I am the president of Citizens Opposing the Megamall and Proposed Access Road and Extensions Inc. I attended and spoke at the Aug. 22 MEPA Scoping session held on the base ,and would like here to submit to you further comments in objection to the ENF filed by SSTDC, the proponent.

RE: The request that you establish a Special Review Procedure for the mixed use project, and the transportation improvements..

>The delineation of wetlands on the Base has yet to be completed. Access to the base has only recently been allowed to the volunteers necessary to complete this work. SSTDC fig 3-1 is most probably not an accurate map of the wetlands, since the USGS map didn’t show adjacent wetlands ,and in at least one instance indicates as "dry" a known wetland. Ten acres along Rte. 18 that is zoned B-1 W, is actually wetland.

>There is a ‘First Phase" elderly housing development zoned in a virtually pristine wetland on the base

that cannot possibly be referred to as a minimal impact. Mr. Cunningham of the Weymouth Council on Aging asked SSTDC why they proposed that site to build on, and Mr Goff replied that you build it where they zone it.

>We were told all through the NASPC process that the runways were " hazardous" waste and had to be removed from the site. WE are now told SSTDC intends to grind them up "on site" and bury this material "on site". What protection does the community have from airborne contamination, the leaching of concentrated buried contaminants into the known aquifers? Th e Golf course this is to be buried under is proposed to be built on wetland areas, and this is purported to be of "minimal Impact!

>The access road project will have profound impacts on every aspect of that which we refer to as our "environment". We feel that under no circumstances should this project be separated in the evaluation of potential detrimental impacts from the "on site " project. This road as proposed is only required by the Mills Mall portion of the project. It was designed to provide "access" to this site for the 40 to 50 thousand cars daily that this "sprawl’ generator will require in order to turn a profit. Mr. Pippin of Mass. Highway commented at the Hingham Selectmens meeting that without the Mall the road may not even be necessary. We concur. As stated by your office" sprawl is responsible for some of our most intractable environmental problems";from"The State of our Environment" EOEA. A survey of the Mass Highway traffic projections for these densely populated neighborhoods will paint for you a very bleak picture of what the quality of life will be in these neighborhoods. Wilbur Smith Assoc. the consultants to Mass. Highway concluded that Rte 3, the main feeder of this scenario is presently rated an "F" and after all of the recommended improvements will still be an "F". This means that there is no question that there will be gridlock daily on this proposed road system. The only question to be answered is "for how many hours".The "Field of Dreams theorem" does hold true,and when these "desgn" roads grind to a halt the the air pollution will rise as fast as the level of frustration in these congestion snarled vehicles. Then the traffic flow on the tertiary streets that were not even considered in the "traffic" study will rise to the thousands! Randolph St. in Weymouth, Pond , and Thicket , streets will become impossible to use for local traffic. Pleasant St., Union, Liberty, Ralph Talbot, Park, Columbian, and Middle, will be filled with volumes that were not even concieved of by the Mall proponents, or Mass. Highway in their rush to satisfy their lobbyist stoked masters. I would like to note for you that NOT ONE of their 14 or so "family of plans EVER received the support of the people in any community they were presented in, and the "final solution" was presented in Rockland before over 200 citizens who OPPOSED it! The reuse plan can be implemented without the Mall component, and without the road as proposed. This effectively removes the "sprawl" factor, greatly reduces the traffic impact on local streets, the construction impacts on pristine wood and wetlands, the air and water pollution factors that would otherwise skyrocket far above any present levels. It has been clearly demonstrated that the PEOPLE of these affected towns want the SSTDC to consider a less intrusive component in the Reuse Plan than the Mills Megamall complex.

On more than one occasion the SSTDC has expressed their scorn for the concerns and opinions of the people affected by their Plan. They have continually distorted figures, and quoted false numbers to try to fool the citizens of these three towns into believing they were altering the plan to improve the impacts. It is for this reason that we have learned to distrust the SSTDC facts and figures. Couple this with their disdain for, public opinion, and "bug and bunny squeezers", and you can see why we don’t trust them to protect our natural environmental assets. WE will NEVER trust them to protect our CHILDREN!!!!!

> Therefore, we feel compelled to insist that this entire project must be subjected to a thorough scrutiny that can only be realised by the public when viewed as a total picture. To break this critically important analysis into a piecemeal patch work of disembodied studies will only serve to confuse the people who have, in fact, employed you to protect them. The only entities that can benefit from such a disjointed series of studies , done at the whim of the proponent, are those that would seek make a profit at the expense of our neighborhoods, woods, wetlands, and wild life. It seems ludicrous to even consider a project that jeopardizes the wetlands feeding our childrens water supply, that jeopardizes the air our children must breathe, that will make the streets our children must walk as deadly as any jungle ambush, just waiting for the unfortunate victim. The things we value are priceless, beyond any material conception, our childrens’ future, our neighborhoods, our quality of life, the very essence of "our" towns. We are entrusting this, "our environment", to you.

Re: The SSTDC suggestion that their Citizens Advisory board be used as the CAC, if you should choose to have one...

>Seven of these people are former NASPC members. These are the very same people who orchestrated and signed the Letter of Intent with Mill$ Corp. They have been dancing to the tune Mills has piped since before the Reuse plan was finalized in 1997! The seven former members are: Mary McElroy, Jackie Ranous, John Ward, Bill Koplovsky, Dick Cooke, Dave Chandler, and Eugene Blanchard.The other five were Governors appointees. The only interest they would represent would be the interest of the developer and can not be considered to be representative of any of the communities involved. Keep in mind that the purpose of the Letter of Intent was to insure that NO alternatives to this prearranged plan of development would be exposed to the scrutiny of the populace of the four towns mostly affected by this project. They were all key players in the charade that was designed to convince our former Town meeting members that they had to approve this plan, exactly as written, or TIME would run out! Haste was the by-word! Everything had to be decided quickly... None of this, of course ,was true. Those who should have asked for the answers to the serious impacts of this plan , BEFORE they would decide on it, fell into the ruse. Approving a plan, that involved a mall and road component whose true scope and devastating impacts were never intimated or explained to them, proved to be the kiss of death to the oldest town meeting government in the country. The people of Weymouth made their displeasure known at the polls, and subsequently, in a poll taken by the major local paper, the Patriot Ledger. The survey revealed that the local population rejected the Mall development/ high traffic impacts by a margin of 2 to 1.Having walked myself through many local neighborhoods, local squares, local stores and shops, talking to the people face to face and hearing firsthand their objection to this corruptive design, I can say that these former NASPC members may be the only people in these towns that support this plan that would destroy forever the very essence of our neighborhoods. It is our earnest hope that you would not even consider the wholesale acceptance the proponents suggestion.

RE; The SSTDC asserts that the project will ease the pressure of traffic congestion.......

> The MILL$ Corp. claimed on their website that their "Destination Malls" average 18 to 22 million visitors a year! How can you even concieve of mitigating the kind of traffic involved when the proposed volume is equivalent to running over three times the population of Massachusetts through our towns yearly!!

> The projection of 66,000 vehicle trips per day MUST be considered conservative at best. In this light, congestion must necessarily be expected to extend beyond any" presently" traffic encumbered roadways. I would submit that the ONLY logical conclusion is that this project can only exacerbate the traffic congestion we already experience.

There are a myriad of other points in this ENF that can be challenged, and other members of COMPARE .are addressing them in their comments, therefore I will not belabor you with a rehash of all of them.

Let me conclude then with these thoughts;

• Given; that the" purpose" of the connector road is to provide access to the Mall for tens of thousands of cars daily.
• Given; that the purpose of the Mall is to set up their "Shoppertainment" carnival and relieve the clientele of their money , thereby enriching the Mill$ Corp. of Virginia.
• Given; that the price to be paid for this will be borne by the woodlands , the wetlands , the flora and fauna that abide in them, our most vital resources of air and water, the quality of life for ourselves and for our children.

Therefore; It is the opinion of the members of COMPARE that the Mall, and proposed access road components of this plan represent destructive impacts on our communities environs that are unmitigatible under any circumstances. The repercussions from these impacts will fall far into the future of our childrens’ lives. The price is too high!

There is plenty of time to consider the Reuse Plan without the Mall/Road, as an alternative. There is no doubt that other far less destructive uses can be found and implemented. There is no good reason to rush to decisions that will alter these ecosystems until we have ALL the information possible. WE invite you to walk our neighborhoods, our woods, and fields. In your survey, talk to us..............in the end, even our childrens’ children will be living with your decision.

I thank you for your time,