Opinion - The Argument Against Baldwin

The following is a letter that has been sent to Town Meeting members in Brookline:

Dear Town Meeting Member,

We, your colleagues in Precinct 15, are writing to express our unified opposition to the proposed ninth elementary school at the unsafe and un-walkable Baldwin site, erroneously labeled the Baldwin Expansion Project. We say “erroneously,” because what is planned is not an expansion, but a demolition.

Historically, Baldwin was the site of a single-section K through 3rd grade school. Some of us have family, friends or neighbors who attended the school decades ago. They remember it as a charming schoolhouse that blended into the neighborhood. The plan to force a massive school building onto an inadequately-sized 1.4-acre site in one of the most problematic locations in town from both a traffic and safety perspective is absurd. The town’s recent purchase of three nearby townhouses does not change this dynamic.

The adjacent Soule Park currently hosts the Brookline Environmental Education Center and environmentally focused camps. Ironically, school construction would result in the removal of a number of Olmsted-planted old growth trees that cannot be replaced. An enormous building of several stories on this site will cast shade over much of the federally-protected Baldwin Playground area and disrupt the serene beauty that put this site on the National Register of Historic Places.

According to an April 30, 2018 memo by Town Counsel, “The southern half of the Baldwin property is protected under Article 97.” It further states, “Land benefiting from an LWCF grant must remain accessible for ‘public outdoor recreational use.’ This could conflict with any attempt to use the southern half of the Baldwin parcel as dedicated play space for a new school. Open access to the playground could raise security concerns, limit the playground’s usefulness during recess periods, and could lead to additional maintenance or replacement costs if it accelerated wear and tear on the facilities.”

By accepting these grant funds, the town agreed not to convert the use of the Baldwin Playground and Soule Park sites for educational uses as proposed in the Baldwin North plan without first gaining National Park Service (NPS) consent, which would also include a land swap as compensation under state law Article 97. Even in the case of a hypothetical land swap, no suitable land exists.

Rather than heed this warning about legal restrictions, the town has added to the pile of money already spent on this misguided proposal by hiring outside counsel to come up with an alternative legal opinion. While the lawyers representing neighbors of the site have released their letters to the public and the Town Counsel memo is public record, the town refuses to release any correspondence from its hired firm. Meanwhile, our own Town Counsel has not been asked to further weigh in on the matter.

We say “further,” because on April 30, no one seriously thought the so-called Baldwin North site was in the running. To be sure, it had been included in slides during the months-long Alternative Site Study commissioned last November 2017 by Town Meeting and overseen by former interim school Superintendent Dr. Joseph Connelly. But in the series of half-dozen “listening sessions” at schools throughout town, Baldwin North did not receive any endorsement from members of the public.

Similarly, at a June 6 town-wide public hearing prior to site selection, not a single person in more than two hours of public comment offered support for Baldwin North. Select Board Chair Neil Wishinsky suggested during open session immediately after that public hearing that the site be removed from consideration.

In spite of this, just one week later, on June 13, the Select Board and School Committee voted to select Baldwin North as a 2+++ ninth school site. This was done without any public vetting or notification to immediate neighbors or any member of our Town Meeting delegation. It is difficult to understand how these boards lined up votes without even a single open meeting or any effort to include the affected neighborhood and its representatives.

We believe Baldwin was chosen in this way because it is a site that cannot survive in the light of day. It is not a popular site with town residents who clearly stated a preference for walkable schools and for expansions at Pierce, Driscoll and Baker schools during Dr. Connelly’s study. Baker in particular is in poor condition and is due for renovation. Sitting on 11.27 acres, it is the located on the largest school campus in town, about 50 percent larger than the Coolidge Corner School site, which is second-largest. Milton has two adjacent elementary schools on similar-sized land serving more than 1,100 students. If Milton can do it, why not Brookline?

All schools in Brookline presently serve walkable populations. Walkability was consistently raised as being an important issue in all the listening sessions. The growth in Brookline is in the north. The Baldwin School is 1.7 miles from Baker and will not serve as a walkable alternative for the Baker community or for the rest of Brookline. The closest T stop is the Chestnut Hill D line across Route 9 and a half-mile away. The traffic up and down Route 9 is already a nightmare, as is the traffic across town from Route 9 through Horace James Circle and over to South Brookline. Both these routes are major arteries not just for Brookline but for commuters to the north, south, and west of Brookline.

Choosing Baldwin has a ripple effect throughout Brookline due to redistricting. Children who can now walk to school will be forced to go to schools further from their home. Families who have purchased property thinking that they will be sending their children to a local school will suddenly find that they are bussing their children miles across town. Aside from the effect on already horrendous traffic conditions in Brookline, driving and bussing 95% of the students (only 5% of the students are estimated to be within walking range of Baldwin) is not environmentally responsible or in keeping with Brookline’s goal of getting to net zero emissions. (Note that according to the recent widely-published ICPP report, we have another 12 years to get our carbon emissions to zero to stay within 3.8 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature).

Baldwin has federal and state restrictions that will tie construction up in court for years. Baker, on the other hand, sits on unrestricted land, according to the town’s just-completed 2018 Open Space Plan.

Town Meeting has the opportunity to change direction and create new school space right now. That can happen with the proposed renovations and expansions at Driscoll and Pierce, and by renovating Baker and adding six classrooms.

The Select Board’s and School Committee’s refusal to accept the legal restrictions that surround the Baldwin project is wasting time and public resources in pursuit of a school that will not be permitted to be built. Please join us in voting against the $1.5 million Baldwin appropriation.

Sincerely,

Lisa Cunningham

Jane Flanagan

Kristine Knauf

Barbara Gutman

Kea van der Ziel

John Hall

Benedicte Hallowell

Eileen Berger

Robert Liao

Jim Rourke

Abby Coffin

Richard Nangle

Ira Krepchin

-------

Please contact Richard Nangle at ranangle1@gmail.com with any questions or concerns or to join the campaign to stop this unnecessary project.