Sensible Sailing Pavilion Area

I am writing in regards to Ms. Amy Herrold’s letter in Thursday’s Daily Free Press (“Agree on a pavilion site”), as well as Mr. James Baldwin’s and Mr. Aaron Michel’s submissions. I agree totally with Mr. Baldwin’s comments on Mr. Michel’s letter. That said, I would like to reply to several of Ms. Herrold’s comments.

First, Ms. Herrold accuses Boston University of “not compromising with the community.” According to all indications, BU has gone out of its way to meet the demands of the community. Not only would the facilities be totally open to public use, but nearly one-sixth of the proposed building is set aside specifically for public amenities, such as restrooms and a concession stand. Not to mention the new outdoor fitness facility, landscaped park and benches, meticulous litter collection, emergency phones — the list goes on and on.

Second, she compares the visual impact of the new building with that of the DeWolfe Boathouse. The DeWolfe Boathouse was meant to be seen. It was built as a showcase for BU rowing. By contrast, if Ms. Herrold would have taken the time to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (as Mr. Baldwin suggested), she would have found computer-generated photographs of how the site would appear. The new sailing pavilion would, in fact, have very little visual impact.

In her letter, Ms. Herrold lists a seemingly important number of groups “settling upon” Site 5. In fact, several of the groups listed and many other community and governmental groups support BU’s preferred sites 2 and 4. Site 5 was not promoted by BU for several reasons, including travel time for students to and from classes, handicapped access, activity (Site 5 had the most pedestrian use), boat traffic and rescue availability for beginning sailors, among others.

Finally, a lease of 25 years is nothing like owning the site. BU will have to get approval for any and all additions and renovations done.

I must digress now and tell my personal opinion on the matter. I am an environmental science major and like also to consider myself an environmentalist. I have followed this issue closely over the past two years or so.

I’d like not to offend any member of the ESO, but people like Mr. Michel and Ms. Herrold give the organization a bad name. It seems like they are more anti-BU than anti-sailing pavilion. BU is trying to do something positive for its students, faculty, community and the city of Boston. But some mis-informed people can’t seem to grasp this concept. (I cite the factual error on the website Ms. Herrold recommends: www.crwa.org. They say BU seeks a 1.45 acre site, when in fact BU seeks less than 0.33 acres. BU was asked by the Metropolitan District Commission to landscape and maintain an additional acre for public use.) It wouldn’t surprise me if these were the same people who complain about not having cable TV or who rioted at the Breaker’s game last year.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that after reviewing the Environmental Impact reports issued by BU and the CRWA, I think that BU has chosen the only sensible area, maximizing community availability and student access while minimizing negative social and environmental impacts.