Keep following me on Facebook @Steve4Plymouth

Planning for Our Future

This site is dedicated to providing independent information regarding important issues and events in Plymouth.

Planning for Our Future

This site is dedicated to providing independent information regarding important issues and events in Plymouth.

Steve Bolotin - Working for a Better Plymouth

Thank You!

Thank you Plymouth for choosing me to be a member of the Planning Board. It is an honor to be representing your interests in addressing some of the biggest challenges Plymouth is facing.

The material presented here is intended to provide the residents with information about the important issues facing our town, including how they are being addressed by the Planning Board and the committees of which I am a part. I also continue to want to hear from you about your concerns and your thoughts, as that is the only way I (or any other public official) can bring them to the proper place for consideration.

Please remember, the statements and opinions contained herein are my own, and do not represent the position of the Town of Plymouth or any of its boards, committees, or officials.

Save The Bay

Holtec Radioactive Water Release Plan

Holtec, the company now decommissioning the former Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, is still considering releasing over 1 MILLION GALLONS OF RADIOACTIVE WATER into Cape Cod Bay.

For residents of the communities on the Bay the issue is that we truly don’t know the potential long term implications of such an action on a crucial portion of our ecosystem. But there is no doubt that if there is any contamination, the consequences for those who live and work by the water would be disastrous. And where there is a perfectly viable alternative there is no reason to allow this to happen. It is a simple choice, have the communities of the South Shore and the Cape risk a potentially irreversible environmental and economic catastrophe or have Holtec make a little less money.

__________________________________________________

QUICK LINKS:

On May 6, 2022, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) held a "field hearing" of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in Plymouth on Issues Facing Communities with Decommissioning Nuclear Plants. To view the video of the entire 3+ hour hearing, go to https://www.facebook.com/EdJMarkey/videos/369466435223333/

The Provincetown Independent has written an article explaining the finances behind Holtec's activities. To read the article, go to https://provincetownindependent.org/news/2022/05/18/holtec-expects-to-make-huge-profit-off-pilgrim-plant/

Learn More

Click below to be directed to the Holtec Radioactive Water Release page where you will find more information, summaries of the proposal, documents, and links to other sites.

Find out more

Racetrack Proposal for County Land

Developer Intends to Continue "Investigation" Despite Opposition

Despite a Town vote rejecting horseracing in Plymouth, and two letters from the Select Board to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission rejecting horseracing in Plymouth, the matter is still not resolved. The developer, Boston South, has signed a 73 year lease for the property (3 years with a 70 year extension option) indicating that it is still investigating using the property for horseracing and gaming, along it has now also stated that it is considering other possible uses (some disclosed - others not). Whether horseracing at the site is even possible under the current law is a question that has been raised by numerous residents, and not answered by either Boston South or the County Commissioners, although Town Counsel for Plymouth has issued an advisory opinion suggesting that it is not.

Learn More

Click below to be directed to the Racetrack Proposal page where you will find copies of the relevant documents and information about what the residents of Plymouth can do to express their views.

Find out more

Planning Board Considers New Hope Chapel Special Permits

At a marathon Planning Board Meeting, the standing room only crowd made their feelings known regarding a proposed church to be built off of Long Pond Road. The Planning Board worked hard to try to balance the concerns of the residents with the rights of the New Hope Chapel congregation. To read the WATD story on the hearing go to https://959watd.com/blog/2022/10/plymouth-planning-board-rules-on-plans-for-new-hope-chapel-request-for-new-787-seat-church/ . To read more about the legal issues presented by applying zoning to a religious organization, click below to read my analysis.

Read the Document

Land Court Decides Bump Rock Road Subdivision Matter

The Plymouth County Land Court has issued a 34 page decision holding that the Planning Board was within its authority in deciding to allow a modification to a restrictive covenant limiting the number of homes that could be built on a parcel of land. The decision relates only to the specific covenant, which was issued to the Planning Board as a condition of the Bump Rock Road Subdivision approval. For a summary of the legal proceedings and rthe decision, please click below.

Find out more

Charter Commission Removes 'Rights of Nature' Language from Proposed Town Charter

"Rights of Nature" is a legal doctrine which holds that land is not property, but rather has independent rights which can be protected by any person in court. Concerns were raised when "Rights of Nature" was included in the preamble to our proposed new Town Charter. I personally provided the Commission with a legal memorandum setting forth the court cases from around the country which found that adopting this doctrine as law was unconstitutional (there are none which have upheld it). You can click on the link below to be directed to my analysis.

After further consideration of the potential ramifications of including such language, the Charter Commission has now removed the reference to "Rights of Nature" in favor of a more appropriate language expressing the Town's desire to preserve its natural environment.

Find out more

Town Adopts Flag Policy – With A One-Time Exception

At the Select Board meeting on October 5, 2022, the Town has adopted a formal policy regarding the flying of flags on flagpoles owned by the Town. The policy states, in relevant part:

Only the United States, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Town of Plymouth and official flags of the U.S. Military and POW/MIA flags may be flown on any Town-owned flag pole.

The policy was made effective immediately, but there is a one-time exception; a “Christian flag” to be flown at Town Hall the week of Thanksgiving, 2022. That flag has been adopted as a symbol by many, but not all, Christian congregations in the United States. A request to fly that flag had been made by a local religious group. The Select Board stressed that the institution of the flag policy was in the works for some time, and was not in response to this request.

At the Select Board meeting, those supporting the raising of the Christian flag sought to be heard on their request. Despite being part of the "Administrative Notes" section of the Select Board meeting, several members of the public supporting the request were allowed to speak. During such statements, reference was made to a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. _________ (2022), suggesting that denial of this request might be a violation of the applicant's First Amendment rights.

For those understandably not familiar with this case, in Shurtleff, a group called Camp Constitution, asked to hold an event on Boston City Hall plaza to celebrate the civic and social contributions of the Christian community, and as part of that ceremony to raise what was described as the “Christian flag.” Because of concerns about the religious nature of the Camp Constitution flag, the City of Boston denied this request. Camp Constitution filed suit against the City of Boston, and the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately held in favor of Camp Constitution. But there are significant differences between the circumstances in Boston and Plymouth which make this holding narrower than has been suggested.

In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court decision focused almost exclusively on the long established policy of the City of Boston. The Court noted that “[f]or years, since at least 2005, the city has allowed groups to hold flag-raising ceremonies on the plaza. Participants may hoist a flag of their choosing on the third flagpole (in place of the city’s flag) and fly it for the duration of the event, typically a couple of hours. Most ceremonies have involved the flags of other countries—from Albania to Venezuela—marking the national holidays of Bostonians’ many countries of origin. But several flag raisings have been associated with other kinds of groups or causes, such as Pride Week, emergency medical service workers, and a community bank. All told, between 2005 and 2017, Boston approved about 50 unique flags, raised at 284 ceremonies. Boston has no record of refusing a request before the events that gave rise to this case.” The question the Court stated it needed to decide was whether given this policy, does the raising of a flag at City Hall Plaza constitute ‘government speech’. If so, then it can be regulated by the City. If not, then then it cannot exclude flags based on their content.

In assessing the “government speech” question, the Supreme Court stated that numbers alone were not determinative. More important was the scope of the City’s practices. The Court cited to the City’s history of telling the public that it sought “to accommodate all applicants” who wished to hold events at Boston’s “public forums,” including on City Hall Plaza. No prior consideration had been given to the message being sent by the raising of any other flag. Rather, the “city’s practice was to approve flag raisings, without exception.” Accordingly, the Court stated, “we look at the extent to which Boston actively controlled these flag raisings and shaped the messages the flags sent. The answer, it seems, is not at all. And that is the most salient feature of this case.”

Given this history of the raising of flags on City Hall Plaza, including inviting the public to raise flags, not reviewing them prior to being raised, and not engaging in any assessment as to what message such flag may be conveying, the Supreme Court determined that the flying of a flag at City Hall Plaza could not be considered as expressing the City’s view or position on any issue. Therefore, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the City of Boston could not now limit one particular group from flying its flag because of its religious viewpoint.

The circumstances in Plymouth, as discussed at the Select Board meeting on October 5, 2022, are considerably different than those of the City of Boston.

First, unlike the City of Boston, Plymouth does not have a policy of inviting the public to utilize any of its flagpoles. Plymouth has never promoted private flag raising ceremonies. It does not even have an identified application process or sated procedures for doing so. Second, Plymouth does not have a history of allowing its flagpole to be used for public expression. Until this past year, when the Select Board allowed the flying of a “Pride flag” for Plymouth Pride, it had not allowed any non-governmental or military awareness flag to be flown at Town Hall. Third, Plymouth has a practice of flying non-governmental flags in order to express a governmental message to the public. In the past, it has allowed the flying of military-related flags, such as the POW-MIA flag, as an expression of Town support and solidarity with the military community. Similarly, as confirmed by Select Board member Harry Helm, the flying of the Pride flag was done to convey the Town’s position of inclusiveness to the LGBTQ+ community, after several previous years denying such a request.

Given the Town’s history, it appears that it could establish that the flying of flags on Town owned flagpoles represent the position of the Town, and as such has regulated the message being conveyed by the flying of such flags. Accordingly, the Town could have legitimately argued that it is entitled to restrict which flags fly on its flagpoles. However, rather than potentially escalating the issue, as a compromise, the Select Board decided to allow a one-time exception, permitting the flying of the “Christian flag” for the week of November 21 (rather than the requested one month), after which no other flags would be permitted.

MBTA Not Resuming Commuter Rail Service To Plymouth

The MBTA had previously said that service would be resumed in July, but has now stated that will not happen. Further, there is no current plan to resume the service anytime in the near future. To read the Wicked Local/USA Today article on the MBTA , click the button below.

Find out more

ARPA Grant Received for Airport Wastewater Upgrade

The Town received a $2.25 million ARPA grant to be used to upgrade the Airport wastewater treatment facility. Just this spring, Town Meeting voted to approve funds for this same use. To read the Old Colony Memorial article on the grant, click the button below.

Find out more

Planning for Our Future

Planning for Our Future

Steve Bolotin - Working for a Better Plymouth

Thank You!

Questions or Comments? Contact Me

I want to know what you're thinking!

Planning For Plymouth's Future

Issues Facing Plymouth

Save The Bay

Holtec Radioactive Water Release Plan

Learn More

Racetrack Proposal for County Land

Developer Intends to Continue "Investigation" Despite Opposition

Learn More

Chapter 40B Housing

MBTA Communities

Master Plan

Old Exit 5 Traffic

Planning Board Considers New Hope Chapel Special Permits

Latest News

Land Court Decides Bump Rock Road Subdivision Matter

Charter Commission Removes 'Rights of Nature' Language from Proposed Town Charter

Town Adopts Flag Policy – With A One-Time Exception

MBTA Not Resuming Commuter Rail Service To Plymouth

ARPA Grant Received for Airport Wastewater Upgrade

Select Board Sets Out Town Goals