THE MALDEN ADVOCATE–Friday, March 31, 2023 ~ Letter to the Editor ~ Page 13 Northeast Officials are Tone Deaf to Request I ’m writing in response to a recent article published in local papers containing Northeast Metro Tech officials’ rebuttal to opponents claims regarding the school building project. 1. Claim (by Northeast officials): “In January 2022, voters in the 12 communities served by Northeast Metro Tech voted overwhelmingly, with 82.6% in favor, to authorize construction…” Reality: The following words did not appear on any ballot, nor were they a part of any public presentation about what it would entail to build the new vocational school up on the forested hilltop site (site C3). These words should have been on our ballots: “Mass tree-clearing and blasting operation.” 2. Claim: “The construction site in Wakefield was deemed…to be the only feasible site for the new building…” Reality: All three drafted designs (options C1, C2, and C3) were designed to accommodate 1600 students in a 383,000 square foot building space. The two options not chosen – C1 and C2 – are on land that will NOT require clear cutting of 13.5 acres of virgin forest. C2 is a completely feasible option using existing open space where there are currently football and baseball fields. It would entail the lowest new construction costs, shortest building construction schedule, and least environmental impact. The current hilltop site chosen, site C3, was chosen NOT for the lowest new construction costs, shortest building construction schedule, or least environmental impact. Rather, it was chosen to not disrupt the current athletic fields during construction, and to allow for a future hockey rink. (Note there are already two hockey rinks within a 10-minute drive, including the Kasabuski Memorial Rink, recently renovated and managed by the Department of Conservation & Recreation.) The hilltop Relocate Project to Save the Forest AND Build the Voke site will require more than $40 MILLION just for site prep. “The location of the new school allows construction to occur with the least amount of disruption to the existing school of any option. The district gains additional athletic fields with this option and maintains the potential of reserving the current football field/track for future development as a hockey rink.” Source: Preferred Schematic Report - 3.3.1 Final Evaluation of Alternatives – Dec 21, 2020. The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) noted in their February 11, 2021 meeting minutes (p. 7) that site C2 (baseball/football field location) was acceptable but had been removed from consideration by the Project team and not by the MSBA. 3. Claim: “…a small group of residents opposed to the project has taken to typical ‘not in my backyard’ tactics…” Reality: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” –Margaret Mead This “small” group is actually not so small; nearly 6000 people signed the change.org petition to save OUR back yard – the NEMT forest. 4. Claim: “…this group has posted egregious falsehoods and misrepresentations about the project and has resorted to a little known tactic called Reverse Greenwashing.” Reality: All information is backed by credible sources, including meeting notes and information from the Northeast Metro Tech Building Committee’s own website https://northeastbuildingproject.com/ 5. Claim: “Northeast Metro Tech is a responsible steward of our environment” Reality: It is very clear that environmental impact was never considered when choosing the site. Although we have minimal and dwindling natural resources left, avoiding clear-cutting a mature, virgin forest was NEVER prioritized by the committee. The special election took place in January 2022 to vote for the new school, but as of April 14, 2022 the New School Building Committee had not even walked the hilltop site. The “Questions and Answers” section on NortheastBuildingProject.com contained the following response to the question “How/why was the new school construction option chosen?”: “Options were evaluated by the SBC for their ability to satisfy the following key criteria: • Ability to accommodate educational delivery plan • Cost versus MBSA reimbursement and long-term value • Disruption to existing school’s operations • Flexibility of design to allow for change in the future / expansion potential • Final site layout: site access, vehicular circulation, safety & REQUEST | SEE PAGE 18
14 Publizr Home