Background
On August 16th, the Pawtucket Planning Commission held a meeting discussing the selling off of the last public park and field in Ward 5, Morley Field. It is reported to be sold for $500,000 to JK Equities, a real estate developer located in New York. With Morley Field being closed off as of recent due to harmful chemicals in the soil, the developer has proposed paving over it, turning it into a private parking lot to be used for delivery vehicles for its “last mile distribution center.”
This meeting, held by the Commission, focused on the proposal by the developer. Afterward, there was a public input session. The public input consisted of members of the community, all of whom voiced their opposition to the proposal due to various reasons. Finally, the Commission gave a brief reasoning on their thoughts and voted to move forward with the project.
Public And Personal Opinion
During the proposal, I noticed the Pawtucket Planning Commission and JK Equities did not appear to be representative of the poor, minority community they were addressing. Their opinions and biases were also not in alignment with what the community wanted either. Before getting into the issue around why this development is detrimental, it’s important to understand the potential bias that the Pawtucket Planning Commission and the developer had, which was highlighted during the initial presentation. It’s also worth noting that the proposed replacement park will be located much further away in a wealthier community.
During the developer’s proposal, there were several instances that left the community wondering whose side the Commission was on and if the developer had their interests in mind. The first was when one of the developer’s representatives made light of electric vehicles when alluding to the idea of implementing electric charging stations to the Commission. The second, more clear-cut incident happened when one of the Commission members was discussing the overall project with one of the developers, stating that this was a good thing for the public and children – the audience audibly laughed. When the developers were asked about considerations for the community, they stated that the city will figure out the replacement, essentially cleaning their hands of their care. Lastly, during public input, the Commission asked those who gave public input where they were from, seemingly ignoring the fact that JK Equities wasn’t even located in the state.
Following much of the engineering talk and proposal, the representatives had one of their fellows talk about their environmental assessments. The assessment appeared half-baked at best, merely only following bare minimum DEM guidelines. No consideration for the nearby river and environment in case of leaks or what of the toxic soil that was already present (aside from putting pavement on top) was mentioned, and the long-term effects appeared to be an afterthought. The talk of increased local air and noise pollution from the vans, as well as community tree coverage and greenery, was also absent.
It appeared none of the two dozen or so community members who showed up to give public input were in favor of the proposal, myself included. Pawtucket, often known as a concrete jungle for its lack of greenery, appears to have forgotten about the heat wave a week prior or the fact that this is a coastal city in the advent of climate change. This loss of green also contributes to and highlights a laundry list of community problems that will be further exacerbated.
All of these issues were brought up by the local community, so below I want to take note of each one and summarize what I talked about above.
Summary
- Pawtucket as a whole suffers from a lack of green space.
- This proposal appears in this time of accelerated climate change, where green space is vital. As we know, these spaces help alleviate and prevent droughts, floods, and other climate change effects. The commission also seems to have forgotten that it’s located on the coast.
- JK Equities clearly demonstrated they have no regard for the local community and environment based on their comments and barebones environmental assessment. Hiring out of state developers already poses risk to the local community due to lack of care and understanding.
- Ward 5 has no other public parks, and relocating it to a wealthier neighborhood is outright environmental classism and racism. A similar proposal would never pass in a wealthy, non-minority neighborhood.
- Potential net environmental loss; we may have to cull forest land for the new proposed park.
- Odd comments and sentiments by the Commission and Developers:
- “The city will figure out the park replacement” when the developer was asked about community consideration.
- Developers mocked electric vans.
- Gas powered vans cause a lot of ground, air, and noise pollution.
- A Commission member, when conversing to the developer during their proposal, stated that this is better for people and kids because we’re removing toxic materials. This displayed a clear bias and garnering laughter from the public.
- We aren’t removing them; we’re hiding them, ignoring potential leaks and future issues.
- Pavement itself is toxic.
- Kids don’t want to play in a parking lot, and they wouldn’t even have access to it because it’s private.
- Many inner city families, especially minorities and those of lower income, don’t always have access to reliable transportation, so getting to the new proposed park may be an issue. Not to mention, public greenery and parks ought to be in walking distance for everyone.
- Providence ranks the worst city in the US for those with disabilities. A large number of these folks use non-car transportation such as walking, electric scooters, busing, etc. One of the problems of having a parking lot like this is that large vehicles will be further adding to the already unwalkable state of sidewalks and infrastructure, impacting all people, especially those with disabilities. This individual does a wonderful job detailing the ramifications of this project to those with disabilities.
- Most of the community in ward 5 don’t even have yards.
Closing
This 30-second video by a young teenager who gave input during the meeting highlights the issue a bit too perfectly.
Video taken by Uprise RI, Source