Manchester citizens have continually sought answers to many questions about the city's plans to develop an industrial park on the Hackett Hill property. In particular they would like to know:
1.Why were alternative "zero development" plans for the
property apparently never given consideration as "negotiations"
between the city and the EPA and DES proceeded?
Despite appeals from the public, Trustees of the University of New Hampshire chose to "walk away" from a possibility where the Hackett Hill property could be used for a biological research station, and UNH President Leitzel commented that she was sure the property would be treated in an "environmentally responsible" fashion by the city of Manchester. Clearly, attempts could have been made by the negotiating team to determine if other educational institutions, a coalition of educational institutions, or a partnership of educationally-oriented environmental groups could lease or purchase the property with a "zero development" understanding.
2.Why was the planned fragmentation of the "preserve" or
"protected" part of the property by development never disclosed to
the public as negotiations proceeded, although this information is
clearly apparent on a Preserve-Development
map of the area - a map that
was prepared well in advance of the date of the property sale and
signing of the CSO
Compliance Agreement on March 16, 1999?
The appearance of the "potential and special development areas" within the borders of a supposed preserve sent shock waves throughout the New Hampshire environmental community. The development arrangements could easily have been presented at a public forum prior to any formal city-EPA and DES agreement. The public could then have considered if they favored a promise of lowered property taxes by the city over the environmental decimation of the Hackett Hill urban forest.
3.Why has the Manchester Conservation Commission supported
the city's plans for development of the Hackett Hill property despite
the obvious damage that will be done to the the property's
biodiversity?
Conservation Chair Jane Beaulieu has received a number of oral and written requests from the public for the Conservation Commission to support a "zero development" approach, but these requests have been ignored. Statements such as, "This is not the business of the Conservation Commission" have been made by Beaulieu at meetings of the group. Moreover the Chair has not permitted a detailed discussion of the implications of the fragmentation of the "Preserve" to take place, at least at those Conservation Commission meetings which were open to the public.
4. Why can't the development planned for Hackett Hill be
located in downtown Manchester, where there is much empty office
space, or in the millyard, where there are numerous empty
buildings?
Actually, one answer to this question has already been given by a city official. City Planning Director Robert MacKenzie once responded to the question with the remark, "Manchester is growing. Manchester is no longer a "mill city"." This manner of thinking flies in the face of modern urban planning in which development is concentrated in centralized areas so that "urban sprawl" to outlying parts of the city will be eliminated. Furthermore, efforts to restore rail transportation to the Manchester area, including a commuter shunt to the millyard area, are currently receiving strong support from the public and environmental groups. Also, recently the Manchester NH Union Leader described the millyard as promoting "the economy of the future", especially for high tech companies, and noted that "the appetite for glass and steel buildings on isolated sites or in new corporate parks has been sated in some circles."*
5. Why did city officials not admit members of the public
or the press to the so-called "briefing sessions", or have any type
of public involvement as the development plans proceeded to take
shape?
The Hackett Hill development has been
described as a "high profile" environmental problem. Although many
residents of Manchester still have little or no knowledge of the
issue, public awareness of the development plans has heightened.
There is an ever-increasing demand for the city to critically
evaluate information on the Hackett Hill topic, including the "zero
development" plan and alternative plans for the use of the property,
and thereby demonstrate that democracy is "alive and well" in
Manchester.
* The quotations are from an article titled
"MillyardSurge Capitalizes on 'Ambience" by Tom Fahey. It appeared in
the business section of the Manchester, NH Union Leader on March 27,
2000.