As the Advocate went to press this week, there was still no word on whether the Springfield City Council would revoke or amend the special permit granted to the controversial wood-burning power plant proposed for East Springfield. The Council was expected to vote on that matter at its May 23 meeting, after the newspaper’s deadline.
While councilors were mulling over the call from plant opponents to revoke the permit, which was granted in 2008, one would-be elected official took a strong stand against the project.
Bob Massie, Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate seat held by Scott Brown, last week issued a statement in which he called the plant the wrong kind of development for Springfield and its residents, who already struggle with enough health and environmental problems.
“A safe and healthy home is vital to creating prosperity, and the proposed biomass plant in Springfield will only perpetuate a cycle of pollution and urban decay,” Massie said. “Facilities like these have no place being sited in dense, urban areas, particularly those as overburdened as Springfield. As proposed, this facility would release hundreds of tons of known pollutants linked to asthma, diabetes, and heart disease, into surrounding neighborhoods, including over 55 schools within a five mile radius.”
Massie continued: “We must focus on designing smart, vibrant, and beautiful communities that create sustained growth, both economically and environmentally. As a state and nation, we must build a better life for all. Do we want to continue risking our health and our safety, or will we lead a new revolution based on sustainable, clean energy? I applaud the efforts of STOP and all the other groups and citizens for engaging on this issue, and defending our shared values.”
(By “STOP,” Massie was, presumably, referring to Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, the grassroots coalition opposed to the project. In fact, the group tends to go by the acronym “STIS,” not “STOP.” While that sort of blunder demonstrates that the Somerville-based Massie is perhaps still not quite as closely connected to Western Mass. issues as a statewide candidate should be, it’s hard to imagine the growing number of opponents to the PRE project will hold that against him.)
Massie is among the small group of Democrats who’ve already announced plans to challenge Brown. (Also in the running: Setti Warren, mayor of Newton, and Alan Khazei, who ran in the Democratic primary for the 2009 special election that ended with Brown’s victory). He’s also got a damn interesting background: the Democrat’s 1994 candidate for lieutenant governor (he ran on a ticket with Mark Roosevelt; they were toasted at the polls, you might recall, by a couple of Republican fellows called Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci), Massie is a Harvard MBA and an Episcopal priest with a long resume of social activism and a lot of compelling human-interest stories to tell (including a 2009 liver transplant that his campaign says “cured his symptoms and renewed his strength and vigor,” giving him a “miraculous second chance to become a US Senator Massachusetts will be proud of—a compassionate, courageous and relentless advocate for all Americans.”) Last month, Joe Trippi, campaign manager for Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign (oh, if only&), signed on a political adviser to Massie.
Meanwhile, the local battle over the controversial plant could be decided well before the 2012 election. At last week’s hearing, attorneys for the developers insisted that the Council lacks the legal ground to revoke the permit, and threatened a lawsuit if it does. Plant opponents, meanwhile, contend that changes made to the project after that 2008 vote give the Council just cause to revoke the permit. That group includes former city councilor Pat Markey, city solicitor during the Ryan administration, who maintains the Council can, indeed, revoke or amend the permit because PRE has made multiple changes to the project since the permit was granted, including increases in truck traffic and the amount of wood that would be burned. Markey also notes that the project was originally pitched as a recycling project (the initial plan called for burning construction and demolition waste) but no longer meets that description.
