A Collegial Race for Plymouth Planning Board

Bolotin and Filla Focus On The Issues; Commonalities and Differences

PLYMOUTH – In a Town Election that has occasionally proven rancorous, the race for Planning Board between current Planning Board Alternate Stephen J. Bolotin and former Planning Board Member Nicholas F. Filla has remained courteous, informative, and issues-based.

Both Mr. Bolotin and Mr. Filla are to be congratulated on this achievement (in this article, I generally have listed them in alphabetical order).

Based upon seeing both candidates at the League of Women Voters’ Forum on April 27th, upon reading their public statements, and some discussions (of varying length) with both candidates, I think it is fair to say they share some commonalities and also some differences.

( Plymouth Town Hall, shortly after the Planning Board candidates spoke at the Plymouth Area League of Women Voters Forum in April; photo credit — J. Benjamin Cronin )

Shared Opposition to Horse Track/Casino Proposal

Significantly, both candidates are united in their opposition to the horse track/casino proposal on the County Woodlot in Plymouth (Question 4 on the Plymouth Town ballot; A Yes vote is in favor of the horse track/casino proposal; a No vote is opposed. The Question is non-binding, but it will prove politically difficult at best to defy the vote of the Town and accede to the developers plans).

Mr. Bolotin, who has three decades of experience as an attorney in both Washington, D.C., and Boston, including with municipal law, observed that what Boston South Real Estate Group (i.e., the O’Connell Family of Quincy developers) promised changed over time and depending upon the audience.

 “Boston South previously said that if the Town residents didn’t want the racetrack they wouldn’t proceed,” wrote Bolotin shortly after the Boston South public relations hour on May 11th, at which he asked some very focused questions.

 “At the presentation, Mr. Gabbert not only said that they wouldn’t be dissuaded if the Town voted against horse racing in a non-binding referendum, but also that they would not withdraw their proposal even if the current Select Board declined to give them a necessary letter of support for their racing license.”

In addition to concerns around what the Town of Plymouth would actually bring in in tax revenue, Mr. Bolotin warned against putting too much stock in those making extravagant promises, reminding “residents that in making your decision not to focus too heavily on promises made.  Different representations have been made at different times by different members of the development team to our Town representatives and to the people,” he said.

“ I and others have taken notice of these contradictions, including members of the Select Board.”   

  Mr. Filla likewise expressed his total opposition to the proposed horse track/casino, both at the May 11th public meeting at Memorial Hall and in written statements.

  When asked by The Old Colony Memorial in its May 12th edition whether he supported the building of a horse racing track in Plymouth, Mr. Filla replied:

“Absolutely no! No because of location, no because of infrastructure and no because of the natural environment.”

Mr. Filla, who has degrees in architecture and city planning, and has worked in the field for decades, told the Old Colony Memorial that “the proposed track location is far removed from the existing interchange. Worse yet, access to the track would pass by our intermediate school with children, our skating rink with children, our police station which needs uninterrupted vehicular access, two shopping centers and an intense multifamily housing complex. It’s a dangerous situation!”

As it is, the current interchange at Exit 13/Old Exit 5 is already unable to efficiently bear current traffic loads, he observed.

Like many opponents, Mr. Filla decried the reckless and destructive environmental consequences of the horse track/casino proposal.

“The proposed race track is an environmental disaster,” he told The Old Colony Memorial. “It would be situated right on top of our sole-source aquifer and adjacent to the Eel River watershed. Within the watershed area is a fish hatchery, which absolutely needs an uncontaminated fresh water supply. Absolutely no! to all of the above.”   

A Civil and Humane Moment on the Campaign Trail; Commonalities and Differences  

One of the striking moments of this Election came when I ran into both candidates outside the developer’s public meeting on May 11th. Candidate Filla and Candidate Bolotin ran into one another outside Memorial Hall, and both were absolute gentlemen, agreeing on what a terrible idea it was, while wishing one another well, and serving as exemplars for us all in a time of great tension.

At the League of Women Voters Forum in April, some differences between the candidates did emerge.

Mr. Bolotin, with his background in law, emphasized his focus on balancing multiple competing factors, such as affordable housing, environmental preservation, and providing tax revenue, and the necessity of reaching acceptable compromises in the planning process.

Mr. Filla, with his background in urban planning, spoke of larger cycles of growth and change; he suggested that Plymouth appeared to be ending its current, five-decade period of growth, and perhaps it was time to stabilize and consolidate those changes, before moving forward.

The two candidates likewise had somewhat differing views on commercial development.

Whereas Bolotin stressed that there would be a need for some kind of commercial development to balance the tax burden on residential properties, Filla expressed some skepticism on the topic, noting that with the rise of e-commerce, keeping physical storefronts in business was proving a difficult task in the Town and in the region.

Nevertheless, both agreed that some sort of year round commercial base is necessary for Plymouth, with slightly different emphases on what that might mean.

Affordability was likewise an issue that saw a lot of common ground between Mr. Filla and Mr. Bolotin. Mr. Bolotin calculated that one of the “affordable” apartments at Cordage required a yearly income of approximately $61,000 per year.

Mr. Filla lamented the fact that, like Carver and Wareham, Plymouth is unable to use mobile homes towards its quota of affordable housing under current Massachusetts laws (like 40B).

On the whole, it has been a collegial, informative race for the Plymouth Planning Board, and both candidates seem well-suited, in my view, to the task at hand.

I wish them both well, and hope both will remain involved in local government, whatever the outcome of the race.

The Plymouth Town Election is tomorrow, Saturday, May 21st. Polls open at 7 a.m. and close at 7 p.m.