Fernald Property, Who Stands To Benefit?

 

By John Thomas, Deputy & Policy Director, The Arc of Massachusetts

Guest Columnist,

Waltham Daily News

March 27, 2007

In a recent story (Rep Targets Housing For Residents, March 21, 2007), George Mavridas, a Director at COFAR, a group opposed to the closure of Fernald, said he is skeptical of a bill concerning the disposition of surplus property, filed by State Representative Kay Khan.�Mavridas said “anytime you turn something run by the state over to the private sector, somebody stands to make a profit.”�

As reported, a public hearing was recently held at the State House where I testified in support of the bill, alongside Rep. Khan, and representatives of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill and Citizens Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA).

Khan’s bill provides an elegant solution to a problem that has long plagued state and local interests with a stake in the future of state-owned property.�The bill would offer a mechanism to capture a portion of the proceeds of the sale or disposition of DMR and DMH surplus property for use in creating housing for persons served by each department, on the grounds of an existing facility, or elsewhere as outlined within the bill’s guidelines.�The bill is completely silent on the question of whether institutions such as Fernald, should remain open or closed.

Historically, the disposition of surplus property has been a messy affair, as parochial and state interests engage in a lengthy process of negotiation that often results in years of haggling, litigation and mitigation, with only a fraction of the value of the property left when the dust settles.�Khan’s bill would strike a fair balance between individuals for whom the facilities were originally built to serve, and other stakeholders.

Ironically, in a report released March 6, 2007, as part of recent court action initiated by COFAR families, US Attorney Michael Sullivan noted he was “surprised to find such vast acreage surrounding the various ICF/MRs [state schools].”�He went on to suggest�DMR could sell the land to generate revenue with which to develop new residential homes for persons served by the Department.

Unfortunately, State Rep. Tom Stanley and State Senator Susan Fargo have repeatedly introduced language through the state budget that would severely limit the probability that disposition proceeds would ever benefit DMR clients residing within or outside Fernald.�Past language, supported by COFAR, has been enacted into law creating a “Fernald Reuse Committee” that its authors characterized as “critical in protecting the interests of the Fernald residents and the greater mental retardation community.”�The Committee’s composition suggested there would be few benefits forthcoming to DMR clients.�DMR Commissioner Gerry Morrissey was the sole voting member identified to speak on behalf of human service interests amongst seven persons and three state legislators representing Waltham.�

While The Arc acknowledges the reasonable inclusion of abutting communities in the decision-making process, we would argue the Fernald property is an asset belonging to all residents of the Commonwealth.�As such, we will continue to advocate that persons with disabilities should be the primary beneficiaries of any revenues generated from the sale or transfer of DMR property.