State Rep. Candidates Answer Questions on Conservation

The Waltham Land Trust and the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust and Rural Land Foundation
teamed up to jointly ask George Darcy and Tom Stanley, the two candidates for the 9th Middlesex State Representative seat, the following questions.

Please note: While George Darcy serves on the Waltham Land Trust Board of Directors, these
questions were coordinated without his involvement or knowledge by a board member who does not live in the 9th Middlesex District. Both candidates received the questions via email at the same time. Finally, WLT does not endorse political candidates.

1. If elected as the State Representative, what steps will you take to make permanent preservation of community open space a priority, both in the 9th Middlesex District and in the Commonwealth as whole?

DARCY:
As we have all seen during the pandemic, the benefits of accessible open
space are limitless, and our communities need support ensuring that
they are preserved. For the last thirty years, I have been advocating
for open space, learning from the lead that Lincoln took on these issues
as an example to follow when I chaired Waltham’s Conservation
Commission and later co-founded the Waltham Land Trust. I understand the
need for community coalitions and the vital role that partnerships
between elected leaders like myself and community advocates can play in
successfully making the case for open space.

Together, we have preserved 500 acres of open space in Waltham. As
the pandemic began, I was struck by the thousands of people using the
trails in these open spaces to maintain physical and mental health. I
see the role the outdoors are playing for young people in our schools. I
see the ways in which open spaces improve people’s health. And I see
nature thriving in these places. Still, we need to do more, and I will
take the lessons I have learned in my work here in Waltham and share
them widely as a model for success on Beacon Hill.

STANLEY:
In 1972, the Massachusetts voters approved an amendment to the state
Constitution, Article 97, granting the people of the state the right to
clean air and water, and other environmental benefits. The constitution
allows the legislature to consider allowing the conversion of public
land. House bill H732 of which I am a co-sponsor clarifies and
regularizes the process used to evaluate proposals for the status
(so-called Article 97 lands) in order for them to be used for other
purposes, either public or private. It ensures “no net loss” of
protected land in the Commonwealth. Passage of this important
legislation is a priority of mine.

In a letter to the Chairs of the Joint Committee on Environment,
Natural Resources and Agriculture early this year, I urged favorable
action on two bills that would protect the Commonwealth’s forests and
promote clean energies: H.897 relative to forest protection and H.853,
legislation to assure the attainment of greenhouse gas emissions in the
alternative portfolio standard.

Forests are critical for mitigating the effects of climate change,
preserving native wildlife and habitats, safeguarding soils, providing
clean air and water, and offering our residents public recreational
spaces. Unfortunately, most land policies on the books are decades old
and were made long before the crises of climate change, loss of
biodiversity, and surging population growth become the problems they are
today. H.897 would designate all Massachusetts state conservation land
(~610,000 acres) as parks or reserves. This will keep carbon stored in
the trees and soil and increase the rate of carbon sequestration by our
forests. The bill also protects native biodiversity by permanently
preserving 11% of the Massachusetts land base – an important step toward
the recommended 30% to 50% of land needed to avert massive animal and
plant extinctions.

H.853 requires Massachusetts to remove the word “biomass” from the
Alternative Portfolio Standard, which promotes renewable energy. This
ensures that the Commonwealth’s renewable energy subsidies are directed
to clean energies such as wind, solar, and geothermal, rather than
burning wood. As a co-sponsor of H.853 it was important to me to
addresses the misperception that burning wood is not harmful towards the
environment. Studies have shown that burning wood produces more CO2
emissions than even the dirtiest fossil fuels as well as particulates
and other air pollutants that are hazardous to human health. These
bills have been incorporated into H4453 which is in the Ways & Means
Committee which I serve on. I will continue to advocate for passage of
a bill that includes the language of H897 and H853.

2). Do you support placing a conservation restriction on the following open space parcels in Waltham? Why or why not?

a. The remaining 19 acres of the Chesterbrook Woods (identified as number 34 on the City's Open Space Plan)

b. The Woods at Waltham High School (identified as number 41 on the City's Open Space Plan) note: this refers to the existing high school location, not 554 Lexington Street)

c. The Woods behind Chester Brook Housing (identified as number 40 on the City's Open Space Plan)

d. The Woods behind Northeast Elementary (identified as number 42 on the City's Open Space Plan).

DARCY:
[in response to item a. re: Chesterbrook Woods, moved here for
formatting] Yes. The original City Council meeting deliberations clearly
show that the votes taken to acquire this parcel were made with the
expectation that it would be preserved as natural open space in
perpetuity, in its entirety. In addition, local newspaper articles
before and after the acquisition tell the same story. Federal grants
were also used to build accessible pathways through portions of this
parcel.

[in response to all four parcels] Yes. Conservation Restrictions are
the single most important priority for these parcels. All four of these
parcels are part of the now much-used Western Greenway. As such, they
need real protection, such as Conservation Restrictions, so that the
Western Greenway will always be a permanent amenity for Waltham
residents to use and enjoy.

STANLEY:
Yes, I support placing a conservation restriction on these four
aforementioned open space parcels in Waltham. They are designated in
Waltham’s Open Space Plan which provides a blueprint to achieve our
city’s goals in land preservation and usage. Restricting use of public
land parcels requires local approval of both the Mayor and the City
Council. That is appropriate as through this process the public can be
better informed about requests for restrictions on public property and
become part of the dialogue to achieve community goals.

As a State Representative, I have been a strong and proven advocate
of open space preservation in Waltham, Lincoln and across the
Commonwealth. My record reflects this commitment.

3). Please provide specific examples of how you have worked to preserve open space in the communities you currently represent.