By Aram Hollman
Whether flooding can be mitigated, and to what degree, depends on the details, including topography. The closer a site is to the lowest point around, the less feasible it is to mitigate flooding, because that's where the water goes when it dumps, and Mugar's Florida swampland on Rt. 2 is pretty close to the low point.
State law requires that a property owner's "enjoyment" of his or her property, for example, by developing it, does not adversely affect one's neighbor's right to the same. To that end, developers must create "compensatory flood storage", additional flood storage on their property to ensure that their development does not simply displace flooding onto their neighbors' properties. In addition, any developer wants to protect his or her own investment from flooding. If you look at what Cambridge developers along Rt. 2 have done, they have sculpted out a retention basin inbetween Acorn Park Drive and Little River to compensate for some of the flood storage their buildings occupy, and they have raised their buildings several feet above surrounding ground level to keep them dry. These measures are inadequate, but, because those properties were initially developed before compensatory storage requirements were enacted, they need not be fully adequate. As a result, floodwaters spread out furth
er and higher, including into East Arlington.
In large storms, 3 of which occurred from 1996 to 2002 (large enough to shut down Rt. 2, and requiring Arlington and Cambridge Fire Departments to pump out homeowners' basements once the floodwaters started to recede), existing buildings displace floodwaters elsewhere, generally onto someone else's property. That is exactly what all those buildings in Cambridge will do, various flood abatement measures notwithstanding. Since then, many more buildings have been built in and near the floodplain, each one making its small contribution towards worsening flooding.
In 2016, the would-be developers of the Mugar property said that if they were allowed to build, they would "fix" the flooding problem on their property. It was not clear whether the fix that they proposed (additional regrading of the site) would actually solve the flooding problem, or simply displace it elsewhere. Furthermore, that fix was not overly expensive. The Mugars could have and should have done it simply to be good neighbors, and it would have given them some credibility as such. That the Mugars held on to this bargaining chip in exchange for being able to develop their property shows just how little they care about their neighbors or the rest of Arlington, despite words to the contrary. For Arlington to rely on the Mugars or their developers to ameliorate flooding is like having the Kurds rely on Donald Trump for security.
No matter how much development occurs on the Cambridge side of Rt. 2, it's wrong, and it's wrong to allow the Mugars to develop their property in Arlington for the same reason: It will worsen area flooding (haven't mentioned climate change thus far). The best use of the Mugar site would be to dig a big hole in the ground, call it Mugar Pond, and use it as compensatory flood storage for the surrounding area.
Of course, there's also the traffic. In the triangle bounded by the bike path, Rt. 2, and Spy Pond, there are roughly 500 residential structures. Roughly half of them are 2-families, so there are about 750 housing units. Lake St. is critical for residents of these units to get in and out of their neighborhood (notice that I'm ignoring the portion of Lake St. between the bike path and Mass. Ave, for which Lake St. is important, but not absolutely critical). Allowing a single project, all on one side of Lake St., to increase demand on this already-congested portion of Lake St. by roughly 30% is not only absurd and bad planning, but a safety hazard. As it is, drivers headed for even more congested Alewife divert to Lake St.
Then there's education. Any children in grades K-5 living at the Mugar Monstrosity there would attend the rather full Hardy Elementary School. Its population has increased from 300 in 2006 to 350 in 2012 to 450 today, a 50% increase since 2006. This has been possibly only because, systemwide, all 6th graders were relocated to the Gibbs School in 2018.
This 40B project, with 25% affordable units, would not make Arlington more affordable. On the contrary, it would make Arlington even less affordable than it is now. More affordable units push up the price of market-rate units. Arlington does not need more market rate units, but more affordable units, ideally 100% affordable.
In short, construction of over 200 units of housing on the Mugar site would worsen flooding in a flood-prone area, worsen traffic in an area that is terribly congested even by Boston standards, would further overcrowd the local elementary school, and would make Arlington even less affordable than it is now.
-- Below, is the text of a recent Newsletter alert from the Arlington Land Trust with details of the ruling against Arlington and allowing the Mugar development to continue. Since it is not yet available on the http://arlingtonlandtrust.org/ website, we have included it here: | |
|
