1 31 October 2011 John Fitzgerald Boston Redevelopment AuthorityOne City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201-1007 Dear Mr. Fitzgerald and the Boston Redevelopment Authority, I oppose the proposed Copley Expansion because I believe the developers have a dismal record as neighbors and have made no real contributions to the lives of the vast majority in our local community. Nothing will be gai ned for nearly all current residents by building this tower and many conditions in the neighborhood will be worsened. It is unconscionable and a strong indication of their intent to continue to be a negative presence that their proposal does not make any meaningful commitment to the community. I believe the Copley Expansion will actively harm the people because it will create deeper segregation in our divided class neighborhood, create a harsher and even less welcomingenvironment for our youth of color who are already up against discrimination and cannot help but worsen the serious wind tunnel that challenges walking for our seasoned older folks on Stuart Street. The present manag ement has a record of promising and not followingthrough with jobs both in construction and in long-term employment for local residents, even those to which they are l egally bound. I do not believ e you should even consider their proposal. I live one block from the proposed Copley Expansion in the YMCA Clarendon Residences at Stuart and Clarendon Streets. I work in the South End Technology Center @ Tent City. Our community technology center in the Tent City Housing Development largely serves those who hav e the least access to technology who live in our neighborhood. Our Learn 2 Teach, Teach 2 Learn p rogram employs 30-40 teenagers every year who build projects with emerging technology and science and teach free summer and afterschool programs with hands-on activities to over 500 Boston elementary and middle school youth each year. While I adamantly oppose the Copley Expansion, I also want to give you examples ofbottom line ethical demands, a l l of which need to be addressed and have strongaccountability oversight before you should even consider allowing construction to take place. Broad public sentiment has clearly turned to opposing and finding ethically deficient anydevelopment such as this that benefits only the “1%” and blatantly and unapologeticallyexcludes the “99%.” The developer’s proposal is particula rly galling and unconscionable in its disregard of the history of our neighborhood (and Tent City in particular) in defendingaffordable housing and opposing seg regation by gentrifi cation in the South End. That was a major topic of conversation at a meeting over 50 “Copley Neighbors” in the Tent City DowRoom last week. The Copley Place already serv es the “1%” almost exclusively. What developers are proposing for the Copley Expa nsion is more of the same; it is evident theybelieve they can continue to make money without making any meaningful effort to join or contribute to the life of the neighborhood residents.
