Many concepts are possible for reuse of the HRA land…

To the Editor: I listened to all five Hull Redevelopment Authority members who presented their proposals last week. I feel they should consider the following points as they decide how the HRA land will be improved and used.

At a town meeting in 1961, Hull voters supported a renewal plan for the purpose of clearing substandard and decadent areas in town to protect the health and safety of the community. Four years later, Hull residents never voted on the resolution through which HRA members assigned the HRA three additional objectives: generate revenue and reduce taxes, improve business activity, and increase property values, ostensibly excluding the option of public open space for recreational use. A 1968 renewal agreement approved at town meeting (1162-168) was modified in 1973 by HRA members; they added a clause that allowed any developer to build housing only (no hotel, motel, marina, retail, office, meeting hall, etc.). At the 1973 town meeting, Hull residents voted 141-49 to remove the clause, but a majority of HRA members simply ignored the public will. Again and again, over the last six decades, HRA members have tried to ignore what constituents (the residents who elected them) want.

Now, finally, the HRA should respond to the clear preference of Hull residents for public open space to be used for recreation and entertainment. Zoning should be changed to Commercial Recreation B and Public Open Space. Until the zoning is changed, the HRA should not invite or host events or activities that qualify as “public amusements or assembly” since, at any moment, the building inspector may feel compelled to enforce current zoning (which is Commercial Recreation A). Beach parking is a grandfathered use, originally permissible when the area was a business zone.

Hull residents do not want the HRA land – a narrow coastal zone threatened with flooding, wind hazard, and sea level rise – to be used for housing, a hotel, or large-scale commercial/retail development. A dozen “affordable” units for seniors, veterans, and first responders wouldn’t begin to address the problem of skyrocketing housing prices for residents in need. And since Hull is already one of the most densely populated towns in New England, it doesn’t need an infusion of residents just because they can afford luxury condos.

The majority of Hull residents don’t want the HRA to sell the land to private developers (like Procopio) to build whatever makes them the biggest profit (like Paragon Dunes). Obviously, the HRA should act in the interest of the community to ensure the HRA land continues to be an asset for the community, used by Hull residents and visitors. The HRA isn’t a private business operating in a built urban center. By definition, it should not participate, like a private enterprise, within a Business Improvement District.

Behind closed doors, the HRA organized a September 22, 1965 closed meeting with selectmen, planning board, Army Corps of Engineers, Division of Waterways, a state senator and a Boston developer to plan the filling of 125+ acres of Nantasket Bay clam flats from Rockaway Annex to Hampton Circle. They discussed how to pass legislation that would allow the sale of Nantasket Pier and other town-owned land for a private marina complex with high-rise apartments and shopping center on the landfill. At the same time (as part of a proposed “general” renewal plan, because Hull didn’t have urban blight), they also planned to fill the tidal flats between Bay Street and Edgewater Road for high-rise housing and boat storage. The real estate broker, R.M. Bradley (involved with Prudential Center in Boston) boasted that Hull would become the “hottest” real estate around and Paragon Park would no longer be an “economical” use of such valuable land. By December 1965, the HRA chair identified GS Enterprises as the developer of choice and Phillips 66 oil company as the financial backer for a $3.5-million private marina to be named “Pier 66.” Although, at the time, most residents wanted an improved marina, when they were informed about the plan, they opposed the landfill and sale of public assets to private developers. Today, it’s obvious that any HRA renewal plan should not include another marina on the protected Weir River Estuary, or the ancillary high-density housing, hotels, motels, and shopping center that those developers in the 1960s and 1970s wanted to make Hull’s marina a rival to Boston’s.

HRA improvement plans should align with the 2015 Nantasket Beach Master Plan, particularly the boardwalk and bike path. The HRA should renew active direct cooperation with the DCR, sitting at the table with representatives from other town boards, commissions and committees. The HRA should not “collaborate” through private meetings with the town manager; the town manager should periodically visit open HRA meetings. The HRA and town boards, commissions, and committees should communicate and cooperate through joint open meetings where the public can listen to the conversation. Since the HRA will no longer have a staff liaison in the Department of Community Development and Planning, the building inspector (already seated on the board) should serve that function by providing information, data, and records that part-time unpaid elected officials can’t access for themselves. Like other elected government bodies, the HRA should be provided with an administrative assistant to record and publish the minutes and assist with IT so that HRA members can focus on the work they were elected to do.

The solution to the problems of traffic congestion (the need for road changes) and the use of precious beachfront land for parking is obvious. The HRA should work with the town and state agencies to make off-site parking available, affordable, and accessible for all residents and visitors. The MBTA already pays a private company to provide invisible, substandard bus service to Hull. Rather than duplicate and fund a second municipal bus or shuttle system, the HRA and Hull officials are obligated, as public servants, to work together to force the MBTA to provide standard bus service (with connections to all public transit) to reduce traffic and parking lots on the HRA. Of course – absolutely – there should be at least one permanent, well-marked bus stop adjacent to the HRA parcels. Standard MBTA bus service would make it easy for bicyclists to arrive on public transportation – from Nantasket Junction on the south and from the ferry on the north – for a scenic ride through Hull. Making it easier for residents and visitors to get around in Hull (year round) would certainly benefit local restaurants and other businesses.

Everyone supports expanded opportunities for local retail businesses to operate food trucks, small shops, food/craft vendor stalls, sports training and equipment rental facilities on the HRA land. Incidental structures and durable, permanent infrastructure should be constructed as needed for maintenance, storage, and shelter, and outdoor electrification (powered by small wind turbines and solar panels where possible) to support the type of community activities and events that residents and HRA members have proposed, like mobile stages for concerts, festivals, carnivals, circus tents, outdoor movies, athletic events, exhibitions, etc.

First and foremost, Hull residents want the HRA land to become a public park that preserves, unobstructed, the open space that allows the unique and spectacular vistas that the public currently enjoy. Of course, the park should feature attractive and sustainable gardens with native plants. Hull residents and visitors deserve basic park facilities and features that other municipalities proudly provide – appropriate lighting, accessible walkways, seating, tables, informational signage, public restrooms, observation points, permanent firepits, natural “agora seating” for outdoor performances and gatherings, permanent game boards and “playground” equipment, and public art.

The HRA park should feature wind sculptures, water catchers, and thematic murals and sculpture (carousel horses, shipwrecks) that reference Hull’s historic and geographic significance – elements that will make this location an attractive and enjoyable destination for passive and active recreation. To prepare the terrain for sustained public recreational use, grading, permeability and landscaping should be given careful consideration in the context of inevitable sea level rise.

Lisa French