On the evening of September 8, in a decision likely to go down in Stockbridge history as the worst ever, and one that may haunt the town mightily in years to come, the three sitting members of the town Board of Selectmen (BOS), acting as the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA), gave permission to Front Yard LLC to proceed with their plans to drop a huge commercial resort into the middle of an existing residential neighborhood. For fee payments and tax income that may well turn out to be illusory, the BOS thereby sold out the longstanding residents of Old Stockbridge Road, some of whom have been there for decades, and many of whom actually bought their lots from previous owners of Elm Court.
One young citizen who attended the meeting told us that he was so disturbed by what he had witnessed that he was questioning whether he wanted to continue to live in the Berkshires. Others told us they thought the entire process had been a sham. Though equally shocked by the refusal of the SPGA to carefully weigh and consider relevant factual evidence, all of the evidence, through rational deliberations, we were not at all surprised by what transpired over the course of the hearing. We had facts that strongly suggested that the decision to approve had already been made, way back in 2012. But don’t take our word for it; here are their own minutes.
For the BOS meeting of June 13, 2012, we find the following, with red highlighting added for emphasis; the “Chris” mentioned is Chris Manning, the now-departed former President of Travaasa: Mr. Shatz knew that he would eventually preside over the hearing for a special permit as the Chair of the SPGA, yet there he was back in 2012 actively coaching the applicant as to how they could slide a bylaw amendment designed to facilitate the approval of this one property through an unpredictable Special Town Meeting on zoning issues that was eventually scheduled for February 19, 2013. Even though that meeting was subsequently presented with an incomplete and inaccurate description of the project, and even with all that preparation and help from the Selectmen, the amendment still did not pass. What to do?
Here we are on March 6, 2013:
Owner Bob Berle and his attorney, David Hellman, who would subsequently become the attorney for Front Yard LLC, then went away and did what they were told: they crafted a freshly worded amendment, tailor made for Elm Court.
They return on March 27:
At the regular 2013 Town Meeting to follow, the BOS gave a ringing endorsement to this amendment, written by the owner’s attorney in consultation with the BOS; Amstar once again presented a partial and significantly smaller version of their plan; a few emotional pleas were made to “save Elm Court”; and the amendment finally passed.
Then came the time for those same three members of the BOS – Mr. Gillette, Ms. McMenamy and Mr. Shatz – to put on their hats as the SPGA, a role in which they are supposed to have open minds throughout an objective and impartial process. Not easy for them to do, having been such eager and supportive Berle/Amstar cheerleaders for the previous two years!
Mr. Gillette, for example, thought that the Town Meeting vote on a bylaw amendment was an indication of unambiguous support for the project, and that his thinking cap could thus be placed on a high shelf somewhere; at least, such was the crux of his statement following the decision on Monday night. As for the Chairman Mr. Shatz, despite strong and relevant new information and analysis entered into the record, he was so convinced of the gratuitous irrelevance of his own SPGA hearing that he had already written up his findings before the evening had even begun!
We leave it up to each reader to reach their own conclusion regarding the ethics of all this, but we can comfortably assert that such behavior is highly irregular for an SPGA, and should raise serious questions, for all concerned residents of Stockbridge.
Do you want the same people who serve as boosters and political consultants for commercial developers to then preside over the permitting process? Is this good for the town and in the public interest, over the long term? Should not the members of the Stockbridge BOS, deeply involved in enabling this project through the bylaw amendment, have recused themselves as the SPGA, and deferred to their Zoning Board of Appeals? Again, we leave each reader to reach their own conclusion.
We close with Article XXIX of the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that expresses a noble, fundamental principle for the rule of law reaching all the way back to Magna Carta:
To all those who witnessed this process, and to all those who have duly examined the above three excerpts from the Stockbridge BOS minutes: do you believe this properly high ethical standard has been met?