BEAT's Blog

In my last post, I told the story of how the City of Pittsfield decided that instead of having Jim Bouton and Chip Elitzer fund the reconstruction of a renovated Wahconah Park, the City should do it themselves with taxpayer money. My impression is that this allows the money involved in the project to go to the “right” people. The City waited for Jim and Chip to spend lots of money on plans and designs, waited for them to get the necessary permits, and then usurped the project without so much as removing the name of Jim’s and Chip’s business from the plans. When Chip sent the City a cease-and-desist notice forbidding them from using the plans that had been funded privately, Pittsfield said it wasn’t using the plans or permits. But the City had just filed for an amendment to the permit (Jim’s and Chip’s permit) which uses Jim’s and Chip’s plans and designs as its basis.

One of BEAT’s environmental complaints regarding this project began when we noticed piles of fill in Wahconah Park’s parking lot, right near the stadium’s chain link fence. Anyone who knows the area knows that this parking lot floods every year, because the parking lot is actually part of the Housatonic River from time to time. In fact, the piles of fill were soon under water. This is a violation of wetlands laws. The City was required to obtain a wetlands permit to put those piles there, because at least some of the fill could easily end up in the Housatonic River. Did the City get a permit that allowed them to put piles of fill in the river? Well, it depends on when you ask them and which answer they think the situation calls for.

When BEAT notified the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection of the fill, Caleb Mitchell assured DEP, “There is no non-compliance.” Alright, there are two possibilities here. Possibility number one is that the work was permitted and Mr. Mitchell doesn’t feel like elaborating on that. But putting fill in the floodplain isn’t permittable without some very elaborate erosion controls to prevent runoff into the river. Since those controls were not in place, the work would have been in violation even with a permit. Besides, I’m sure that a Conservation Agent and Conservation Commissioner such as Mr. Mitchell would have insisted on looking into the matter when we showed him the photos of the unprotected piles of fill.

Possibility number two is that the placement of fill in the floodplain was not permitted and that it was therefore in violation. But I’m sure that a Conservation Agent and Conservation Commissioner such as Mr. Mitchell would have insisted on looking into the matter when we showed him the photos of the unprotected piles of fill. I’m trying to come up with a third possibility or some other explanation. Any ideas?

By the way. The piles of fill appear to have been spread on the area around the stadium. Remnants of the piles of fill are still in place in the parking lot.

One of the interesting points for BEAT is that this really brings into focus an issue we have been complaining about for some time. The permitting process in this case is overseen by the Pittsfield Conservation Commission. This Commission is entirely appointed by the Mayor and has as its technical advisor Caleb Mitchell who is also a voting member of the Commission. So we have the curious situation of Caleb’s boss submitting a project to Caleb, Caleb making a recommendation to the Mayor’s Commissioners, and then Caleb joining the others in a vote. We have even seen this scenario played out in a case in which Caleb Mitchell’s name was on the application as the applicant. Even in this situation he didn’t see the need to recuse himself.

But at one Pittsfield Conservation Commission meeting BEAT requested that Caleb Mitchell, the conservation agent for the city, recuse himself since the applicant for the project being considered was his employer, the city of Pittsfield. Amazingly, he did recuse himself, but when there was a motion to move the matter forward and nobody on the commission would second that motion, Caleb seconded the motion himself.* Apparently he was only willing to stay recused if it didn’t matter.

BEAT has said time and time again that all we ask is that the laws be followed. It’s difficult when the party that is refusing to follow the law is the regulatory agency whose primary function is to enforce the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act.

* Video documentation of this incident will be added soon.

2 Responses to “Rules? What Rules?”

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website