| 
Photo courtesy of Tom Kates Photography
Bradley Campbell
President, Conservation Law Foundation
Age: 58
Industry experience: 30 years
Conservation Law Foundation is on the front lines of battles over real estate and transportation planning in New England, from projects on the downtown Boston waterfront to the timing of a commuter rail project serving an emerging development cluster in Allston.
The Boston-based nonprofit environmental group is challenging state approval for new zoning that would enable construction of a 600-foot skyscraper at the Harbor Garage property on East India Row and spotlighting alleged violations of public access requirements by waterfront property owners, most recently the Battery Wharf Hotel. Bradley Campbell, an attorney and former regional administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was named CLF’s president in 2015.
Q: Is there any potential for a settlement in your challenge to Boston’s downtown municipal harbor plan rezoning?
A: They are moving forward, which I think is unfortunate because it may have to be redone depending on the outcome of the court cases. We’re hopeful that we’ll get some clarification from the court that’s favorable to us and also benefits the public in restoring the protections the law provides for public access and public benefit.
Q: How would you summarize CLF’s most important argument in that case?
A: Our greatest concern is the extent to which [former Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Matthew Beaton] threw out the rule book in protecting the public interest on the waterfront. If you take the language of the decision seriously, there is no reason to have any height limitations on the waterfront, and that’s obviously of deep concern to us.
Q: CLF has a public campaign to raise awareness about the public’s right to access the waterfront. Does the state have the resources to enforce the regulations on private property owners?
A: We’ve asked the state to bring an enforcement action to address the violations at Battery Wharf. Under Commissioner Martin Suuberg, the Department of Environmental Protection has been very responsive when we’re pointed out violations to them. An example would be their response to the Intercontinental Hotel. We’re optimistic the DEP will take action to address the longstanding violations at Battery Wharf.
Q: What’s your grade for the city of Boston’s climate resiliency strategy?
A: A year ago, we probably would have given the city low marks on a number of fronts. As a general matter, we’ve been given them high marks for analysis and taking the issue seriously, integrating climate resilience into planning. We’ve seen less in the way of hard standards that will change practices in development. But we’re beginning to see movement in that area. [Chief of Environment, Energy and Open Space] Chris Cook has taken a very active role pushing these issues forward.
In terms of the region’s challenges in climate and resiliency, we think there’s a tremendous opportunity for Gov. [Charlie] Baker to lead on the issue. He’s just appointed a terrific secretary of energy and environmental affairs, Katie Theoharides. In his report on the future on of transportation in the commonwealth, and his testimony before the House on climate change, he is saying all of the right things and is at a point where the administration could take significant strides forward in decarbonization of our energy system. We’re hopeful we’ll be seeing more leadership on that in particular.
Q: Should developers be required to contribute to resiliency programs?
A: There has to be a financing mechanism to address issues of resilience and it’s really the classic collective action problem, where no one developer can bear the cost. No one developer should be designing the resilient solution just for one site, which means there has to be some kind of mechanism whether it’s a [tax increment financing], some kind of fee or some other financing structure to supplement the resources available from the state.
Q: Recent research has spotlighted the health impacts of development near highways. How is the CLF’s Healthy Neighborhoods Equity Fund addressing the problem?
A: Most people don’t realize CLF is a funder of housing development. The Healthy Neighborhoods Equity Fund is intended to increase the number of transit-oriented development that occurs in Boston and the Gateway Cities, and make sure those developments improve both the health and environment of the communities. The fund produces that last sliver of equity a project needs in order for the pro forma to work.
Projects are designed to meet a set of criteria based upon the environmental and social determinants of health. We couple that with a participatory action research model that involves the community in identifying their needs. And that is coupled with an effort to track and monitor whether that produces better health outcomes. In a region where the life expectancy between affluent and poorer zip codes can be as much as 35 years, healthier housing has to be part of the solution.
Q: What’s the reason for Massachusetts’ mobility crisis and what are the failures of the state’s transportation planning?
A: From our perspective there are three or four different issues. One is coordination among agencies. Often the solution to the impacts of a MassDOT project may lie with changes at MBTA. But the silo-ing of the transportation functions is often a barrier to that. Second is funding. Some of the most important needs in terms of upgrades and service are funding needs. We’re encouraged Gov. Baker announced additional funding for the T on the order of $18 billion. We strongly support that. Long-term revenues for transportation are still wanting. The third issue is just planning capacity. There are needs for better transportation planning in the Seaport. We recently saw that with the McClellan Highway in East Boston. There’s a sensitive transportation corridor where the MBTA was going to sell a right of way without any real planning for what is already a terribly congested corridor. We stopped it.
Q: CLF helped force the MBTA Green Line Extension as mitigation for the Big Dig. Would that legal strategy apply to the Massachusetts Turnpike realignment, arguing that the state should accelerate West Station’s construction rather than waiting until 2040?
A: West Station really presents the coincidence of redevelopment in Allston and the so-called I-90 throat project. It presents an incredible opportunity for mode shift from cars to rail if West Station is up and running before those projects start, and the level of service is upgraded so it’s adequate. But there doesn’t seem to be a plan in place to make sure that happens.
It’s very much a priority for us, and generally we’re very concerned about the extent to which transportation projects, even when they’re absolutely needed, are done in a way that impairs the transportation options for some of our lower-income and more distressed communities. The mitigation steps that our Department of Transportation and other agencies take often are not very well thought-out, the most recent example being the elimination of HOV lanes on I-93 as mitigation for construction projects.
The mantra seems to be development first, figure out the transportation later. Transportation planning always seems to be an afterthought in development in the Boston metro region and that has been the cause of our awful congestion problems, and it’s contributed to adverse health conditions like the ones we’re seeing with air quality in areas such as Chinatown. They’re closely linked to failures of transportation planning. Even now, after $8 billion of development in the Seaport, we’re only now beginning to see some serious looks at the transportation solutions.
We’re concerned that pattern not repeat itself with the Allston Yards redevelopment. Concurrently, you’re going to have a big overhaul of the Mass Pike and yet nobody seems to make a priority of getting West Station built in time for those developments.
Q: Is there a better way to plan private investment in transportation upgrades rather than on a case-by-case basis, such as the Assembly Row and Boston Landing developers paying for new train stations to serve their properties?
A: Well, that’s a great question. One set of concerns is we have a great blueprint for where our transportation needs to move in terms of the report from the governor’s commission. There’s no plan for implementation of that, and that’s a crying need at this point. On the development side, we’re seen time and time again where developers are willing to pay their fair share for transportation improvements, but there isn’t a plan for them to do that effectively. You see this in South Boston where you had a developer proposing a gondola, and whatever you think of that solution, you at least had a developer recognizing that transportation planning had to be part of the redevelopment plan.
The response from the state tends to be, “Well, write the check to us and we’ll figure it out.” Understandably, the development community wants to have more assurance the money will be used effectively and used in a timely way, so the transportation is in place in time for the development.
Campbell’s Five Favorite Ways to Relax:
- Sailing down the coast to the Vineyard
- Taking his dog Henry to Crane Beach
- Dinner and drinks at Darryl’s Corner Bar and Kitchen
- Browsing at Brookline Booksmith
- Day hiking in the Berkshires
