Reaction of Mayor’s Central Artery Completion Task Force

(The following is the text of a letter from Robert Tuchmann, co-chairman of the Mayor's Central Artery Completion Task Force, to Sen. Robert A. Havern and Rep. Joseph C. Sullivan, the House and Senate chairman of the Legislature's Joint Transportation Committee. It outlines the Task Force's reactions to the Rose Kennedy Greenway Trust legislation.)

Gentlemen:

Congratulations on the productive effect of your hearing three weeks ago to stimulate the final drafting of the legislation to create the Greenway Trust. We also commend the Governor, Mayor, Speaker, and Senate President for joining forces so effectively to unite behind this effort. We are grateful for all of this support.

This testimony is presented on behalf of the Mayor’s Central Artery Completion Task Force which has served as the advisory board to your Legislative Commission. We are also the CAC designated by MEPA for this portion of the Project. As you know, our members have been working on the issues of governance, maintenance and funding for the Greenway for the better part of a decade. Therefore, we are particularly pleased that there now is the political will to address these issues.

We have not been included directly in the recent negotiations since the last draft of the legislation which we produced on December 10, 2001. Therefore, we received our first look at the new bill two days ago when I circulated it to the members of the Task Force. Knowing that you would be holding your hearing on July 18^th, we met this morning to review and discuss the draft. About 50 community members and members of open space, business, environmental, transit, regional and neighborhood groups were in attendance (a listing of all or our members and participants is attached.)

First, let me comment that certainly through no fault of your committee, the Task Force and the public have had only a brief opportunity thus far to review the legislation. Although many of the issues have been discussed by the Legislative Commission, many new concepts have been added in the current iteration. Therefore, anything which you and your colleagues can do to provide additional time for thoughtful analysis and reasoned consideration would be greatly appreciated.

There is much in this legislation that we find familiar and positive. For instance, we are pleased that there will be a single entity dedicated to planning and operating the new parks. We are also impressed that you have identified dedicated financial resources for their construction, maintenance and programming. These matters alone will go far to assure a high quality effort that is sustained over time. In addition, we commend your efforts to involve the neighborhoods and interest groups in the governance of the Trust. The single most important factor in creating successful parks is the sense of ownership of the community which uses them. Finally we sense your desire to respect and maintain the environmental commitments which have guided all our efforts for the past ten years.

As a result, the Task Force is eager to support the proposed legislation, but members felt that the following concerns should be addressed:

(a) Structure and Representation. The Task Force notes that the legislation creates a three-tiered structure plus an administrative staff. However, our experience from many other public and private for profit and charitable entities has taught us that such a level of complexity may not work efficiently or enhance the ability of the group to achieve its objectives. Therefore, we suggest that the board of directors and the board of advisors be merged into one organization. In addition, it is also the experience of the members that participation on a body without a vote leads to such members being marginalized. To avoid this, we recommend that from this combined Board of Trustees/Board of Advisors two voting representatives be added to the Board of Trustees. We believe that this arrangement would enable the Board of Trustees to be fully informed of all of the interests and concerns of the public and park users as reflected in that representative organization. At the same time, a Board of Trustees of nine members is still efficient.

(b) The Development Parcels. The Task Force’s prior discussions (as well as the Boston 2000 Plan) all envisage a new entity to manage the parks, not the development parcels. However, we recognize the importance of integrating the design and programming of the park and open space parcels with the development parcels and suggest that this can be accomplished with appropriate instructive language. Similarly, we believe that the financial benefits to be derived from ownership of the development parcels can be made available to the park and open space system without the Trust actually having ownership of those parcels. Again, language directing the allocation of proceeds from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) could achieve that result. The benefit of this more simplified approach would be that the Trust would not become a separate planning agency in the heart of downtown Boston while the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) continues to have those functions throughout the rest of the City of Boston. This would also avoid certain legal issues about the ability of the Commonwealth to make use of the development parcels without sharing those benefits with federal government. Finally, we note that most of the development parcels are at some distance from the Greenway itself and are not necessarily related to the operation or programming of the open space. To summarize, therefore, we suggest the deletion of the development parcels (other than the ramp parcels – 6, 12 and 18) from the jurisdiction of the Trust.

(c) Certainty of Parcel Uses. As you know, the environmental mitigation documents are complex and call for a "joint development process" involving the city, state and community with regard to ultimate parcel usage and development. Over the last 12 years or so there has been extensive efforts to plan for appropriate uses. These efforts are reflected in documents such as the Boston 2000 Plan and Article 49 of the Boston Zoning Code. There is an established procedure for proposing changes to such usage which assure extensive public and governmental input to such decisions. This legislation seems to terminate that process and put future land use decisions in the hands of the Trustees. Indeed, the legislation itself seems to change parcel 12 from a development parcel to an open space parcel without any public process at all. The Task Force is understandably troubled by the elimination of the existing system and the creation of a new one without any definition, limitations or public participation. Indeed, we question whether it is consistent with the joint development process mandated by the mitigation commitments. Please let us know if we have misunderstood your intentions in this regard.

(d) Funding. One of the main goals of the mitigation measures is to create the mitigation contemporaneously with the completion of the CA/T project. Indeed, the MTA has been working diligently to move the park design process forward in order to roughly meet that schedule. Aside from starting an entirely new administrative organization to handle a myriad of tasks and coordinate the three-tiered governing structure, there is no provision to continue to use the work product and skilled staff from both the MTA and the BRA who have been involved in the surface restoration aspects of the project for many years and have built up a strong rapport with the adjacent communities which is essential to a successful outcome. To add to this uncertainty and interruption in the progress of the work, the betterment assessment funding is dependent upon approval of the Boston City Council. It is not clear if and when such approval will be obtained. Nor is it clear what will happen to the Trust and its infrastructure if this tax is not approved at all or is approved in a different format or at a different level. Therefore, we ask whether a date may be set for City Council to act on this betterment assessment. Until that time, we would urge that the designee selection process continue under the leadership of the MTA. Another significant component of the funding is derived from the ultimate disposition of the development parcels which were acquired for highway purposes with the assistance of federal funds. We urge the committee to obtain a written opinion from MTA counsel that this is permitted by federal regulation.

(e) Accountability. After reading the proposed legislation, it is clear that the new Trust is really an independent authority. As such, aside from submitting its annual budget to the governor and the mayor (without the need for approval), the Trust is accountable to no other person or institution. Indeed, with a guaranteed revenue stream from the betterment assessment and the income from the anticipated $29 million endowment, the Trust appears to be only marginally accountable to the public at all. Nor can we look to the Board of Directors or the Board of Advisors for accountability since they are only given power to review the budget or comment on certain leases. Since independent authorities have a checkered track record in Massachusetts, the Task Force believes it to be advisable to impose some public accountability on the Trust. There are a number of alternatives to consider including requiring approval of the budget, operating plan and capital program of the Trust annually by the Mayor. Another possibility is requiring approval of those documents by the Board of Directors. Finally, some improvement could also be obtained by shorter terms for the Trustees (for instance three years) and allowing for only one reappointment.

The Task Force feels it is wise to address these basic issues now before the legislation is passed since it would be difficult to adapt piecemeal changes in the future.

The Task Force also had a lengthy discussion about each section of the proposed legislation. I attach as Exhibit A a section by section discussion of the bill along with questions and proposed solutions to the concerns which we foresee. For your assistance, I also enclose as Exhibit B a marked copy of the bill on which I have indicated suggested changes.

As always, we appreciate the opportunity to be of service to your committee and especially to those who now have the task of reviewing and refining the legislation.

Thank you again for your leadership in moving this difficult issue forward and giving us the opportunity to express our views.

Exhibit A, a section-by-section analysis of the bill

Section By Section Analysis of the Bill to Create the Rose Kennedy Greenway Trust
by the Mayor’s Central Artery Completion Task Force

The emergency preamble would have the legislation take effect immediately upon passage. As described in our letter of July 17, 2002, the Task Force wonders whether it would be appropriate to await action by the City Council on the betterment tax since that is a cornerstone of the legislation or, at a minimum, set a date for City Council consideration. During the interim, the selection of the final designers should continue under the auspices of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) so that no further time would be lost. We also advise receipt of an opinion from MTA counsel that the proposed mechanism for use of the development parcel complies with federal regulations.

1. 1.
1. We suggest the deletion of the second sentence and its insertion instead as a new Section 3(c). Instead, in Section 1(a), we suggest the inclusion of a more inspirational or visionary statement such as, "The purpose of the Trust is to design, construct, operate, program and maintain a world-class area of open spaces and adjacent cultural and commercial uses to inspire, entertain, educate and unite all the citizens of the Commonwealth and to enrich the lives of all who visit it."
2. The Trust is established in Section 1(b) as an independent public instrumentality. It has all of the characteristics of an authority and yet is called a "trust". Would it be more appropriate to call the entity an "authority"? As described in our letter, the Trustees are accountable to no other public official or organization. Would it be appropriate that the budget, operating plan and capital plan be subject to the approval of the Mayor of the City of Boston? Could we achieve a level of accountability by having the budgets and plans subject to approval of the Board of Directors? Would it be helpful to reduce the Trustees’ terms to three years, subject to one-time reappointment?
3. This subsection seems to make the Trust subject to certain sections of the general laws and exempt from others. We observe that the freedom of information act was not noted. Should it be applicable?
2. 2. Definitions.
1. In the sixth line of the definition of "Corridor", please delete the words "from certain parcels abutting Causeway Street in the city of Boston to and including the parcels abutting Kneeland Street". This phrase may be inconsistent with the actual location of some of the parcels.
2. The "Development Parcels" are identified by number. First, parcels 26a and 27a south of Kneeland Street have been omitted. Should they be restored? On the other end, parcel 12 has been deleted. As you know, there is considerable discussion in the North End community as to whether parcel 12 (which has been designated for some time as a development parcel over the ramps) should be changed to an open space parcel. The Task Force was awaiting a presentation from the neighborhood groups on that very issue with the expectation that a decision to make such a change would be processed through a "Notice of Project Change" which involves an established set of procedures and public hearings. Is the deletion of parcel 12 meant to eliminate the need for such a process?
3. At the end of the definition of "Horticultural Society Parcels", please add the sentence, "Said Horticultural Society Parcels shall be subject to all applicable state and federal rules, regulations and laws, orders of courts of competent jurisdiction, and state and federal approvals associated with the design and construction of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project, and all building, zoning, fire, garage or other applicable rules, ordinances or regulations in the City of Boston." This is the same language applicable to the "Development Parcels" and "Park Parcels".
4. The "Non-Corridor Parcels" were the subject of extensive discussion by the Task Force. Initially, the object of the legislation during its earlier drafting was to make sure that none of the open space project parcels would be lacking an owner or source of funds for maintenance. Beginning with this definition and more fully in Section 14, this proposed legislation appears to give jurisdiction to the Trust of all of the Non-Corridor Parcels used for open space. This was troubling to many of the Task Force members. While they were certainly interested in making available some of the funds which would be held by the Trust for the benefit of these parcels, the language elsewhere in the legislation did not make it clear that the money could be spent on Non-Corridor Parcels. Furthermore, much of the planning for these Non-Corridor Parcels such as the Bremen Street Park, the East Boston Greenway, Spectacle Island and the Charles River Parks have progressed far beyond the stage of the corridor park parcels. Therefore it was not clear whether the Trust would slow down those processes or how the Trust would interact with the agencies already administering those parks. Therefore the Task Force suggests that the language be modified to call for a report from the Trust to the legislature after one year which discusses each of these Non-Corridor Parks, identifies their needs and requests appropriate legislation should that be desirable. It was noted that if the non-corridor park parcels were included, neighborhoods adjacent to these facilities would lack representation in any of the three governing levels of the Trust. If, in fact, this concept is retained in the legislation, the Task Force would suggest that there be a reference to a document which could identify the parcels. Otherwise, areas such as the edge parcels along the Southeast Expressway could also be viewed as eligible for inclusion within the jurisdiction of the Trust. Finally, at the end of the definition section, it would seem appropriate to indicate that the Non-Corridor Parcels were also subject to "all building, zoning, fire and other applicable rules, ordinances or regulations in the City of Boston." In the second line of the definition of "Revenues", please delete the word "earned".
3. 3.

"Management Accounting and Reporting System" is the language included in the heading of Section 3, but we do not find any text to match up with it.

4. 5.
1. In the listing of tasks, we suggest the insertion of the words "construction" and "programming" and the deletion of the word "control". It is also not clear what the phrase "consistent with the fiduciary duties of trustees pursuant to the applicable state and federal laws governing non-profit, charitable entities" refers to. It is our understanding that fiduciary duties are a product of case law. We therefore suggest the deletion of that clause. As a public instrumentality, the Trustees are ultimately responsible to the public although that accountability is not clearly defined in the bill. We have therefore suggested in our letter either making the chairs of the Advisory Board and the Board of Directors voting members of the Board of Trustees or requiring the annual budgets and plans be approved by the Mayor.
2. Consistent with this suggestion, we suggest the deletion of the word "non" in the second line of subsection (b) and a change in the last paragraph of subsection (b) to read "the chair of the Massachusetts Millennium Greenway Trust Board of Directors created herein and the chair of the Massachusetts Millennium Greenway Board of Advisors shall be ex-officio, voting members of the Board of Trustees." In order to encourage qualified candidates to serve as trustees, it was suggested that the terms be reduced to three years as the Task Force noted that the duties and responsibilities of these individuals will be extensive and time consuming. The members also expressed the hope that residents of the abutting neighborhoods would be selected as Trustees.
3. The members noted that duties and responsibilities of the executive director would be quite extensive and hoped that an individual of outstanding experience and vision in open space and urban planning would be selected. With that in mind, we suggest in subsection (i) after the word "execute" the addition of the words "vision, program, construction, operation and administrative policies . . .". We also suggest that subsection (iii) be expanded after the words "annual budget" with the words "(including capital, programming and maintenance)".
5. 6.
1. It’s not clear that a state instrumentality can qualify as a 501(c)(3) entity under the Internal Revenue Code, nor whether that is advantageous. Therefore, we suggest changing the subsection after the colon to read "to adopt by-laws, trust and other agreements; and to create subsidiaries which shall be non-profit, chartable entities."
2. In subsection (vi) we suggest beginning this clause as follows: "To lease development parcels, as lessor or lessee, or license, as licensor or licensee after thirty (30) days notice and upon the advice and consent of the Board of Directors, . . .". It does not seem appropriate that the Park Parcels should be leased and in order to increase public accountability of the Trustees, we suggest adding this "advice and consent" responsibility to the Board of Directors.
3. In reading subsection (vii), the Task Force wondered whether there is or should be any limit on the ability of the Trust to acquire other land in or adjacent to the corridor.
4. The Task Force felt strongly that subsection (viii) should be deleted in its entirety. It implies that the public may be excluded from the Park Parcels which, we were sure, was not the intention of the legislation. We believe that the general powers elsewhere in the bill are adequate for the Trustees to properly administer the corridor without this language.
5. In reading subsection (vii), the members asked whether the Trust could also sell property which it acquired and, if so, under what terms.
6. In subsection (x), at the end of subsection (i), please add the words "the Massachusetts Horticultural Society with respect to the Horticultural Society Parcels," and add in subsection (iii) after "Massachusetts Turnpike Authority" the words "for the provision of consulting and other services;".
7. At the end of subsection (xi), please add the words "and enter into a lease, license or other agreement with said Society for the development and operation of the Horticultural Society Parcels."
8. In subsection (xii), a number of comments were suggested. First, instead of the words "or as the Trustees may determine", if the legislature feels it appropriate and the budgets are approved by the Board of Directors, then this phrase should be eliminated. In addition, a suggestion was made that the Trustees be required to hold a public hearing on the annual budget and plans.
9. In subsection (xvi), please add at the beginning of this subsection the words "Together with the Advisory Board,".
10. Consistent with the suggestion in our letter emphasizing a smooth transition, at the end of subsections (xvii) and (xviii) we suggest adding the words "using to the extent feasible, processes, documents and personnel already involved in these activities." This also raises the question of whether a phrase needs to be added to indicate that nothing in this section will impair the contracts (such as 17A6) already awarded for work in this area. Finally, it was suggested that these two subsections be undertaken in a manner consistent with applicable state, federal and local laws and ordinances and in collaboration with the abutting neighborhoods.
7. 7.
1. We are confused about the concept of the "Final Corridor Plan". The language suggests this is a new look from scratch of the design, programming and uses for the corridor. We suspect that that is not what is intended. Therefore, we ask you to consider the following language for the introductory phrase: "The Trust is hereby authorized and directed to prepare from time to time or caused to be prepared and updated from time to time a Final Corridor Plan based on the existing master plan and program that shall, . . ." and to add at the end of subsection (ii) after "January 2, 1991" the words "as reflected in Boston 2000 Plan and Article 49 of the Boston Zoning Code." As suggested with respect to Section 6(a)(viii), please delete from Section 7 the words "but the Trust may prescribe reasonable limits on public access consistent with powers and duties of the Trustees and the purpose of the Trust as set forth in clause (vi) of subsection (b) of Section 8 of this Chapter." Again, we feel there is sufficient flexibility in the standard powers of Trustees to limit access during construction or to avoid dangerous situations and that this phrase merely suggests that the public can be generally excluded from the Park Parcels which are to be used for public open space. At the end of the second paragraph, please add the words "and applicable ordinances of the City of Boston." Finally, please delete the third paragraph of Section 7 and substitute the following:

"The Board of Trustees in implementing the Final Corridor Plan shall comply with all of the environmental mitigation requirements adapted by the Commonwealth including those set forth in the January 2, 1991 Certificate referenced herein with respect to involvement of the public in the planning process. To that end, the Board of Directors is hereby constituted the corridor-wide public body required by the so-called joint development process and is hereby designated as the Citizens’ Advisory Committee pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30, § 61, et seq. and regulations promulgated thereunder."

Again, our objective is to build from the extensive planning and community involvement which has gone on during the last ten years and to designate the Board of Directors as the CAC as successor to the Mayor’s Central Artery Completion Task Force which, we assume, will be superseded by the Board of Directors.

2. In general, it might be helpful to distinguish between completion of the build-out required by the CA/T Project which, we would suggest, is constrained by the environmental mitigation requirements as well as the planning and preparation which has occurred during the last few years. In distinction, after the initial improvements have been completed, we assume that the Trustees will engage in new planning and activities free of many of those constraints. That comment is relevant to the last paragraph of Section of 7 as it now stands which says that the Trustees are "authorized and directed to obtain the approvals of any changes from the currently established plan". It is not clear whether requests for such changes from the Trustees have the same standing as other requests for variances, special permits and site plan approvals in the ordinary course under the Boston Zoning Enabling Act and Boston Zoning Code.
8. 8.
1. Since the betterment assessment is to extend over the time, would it be appropriate to index the $50,000 exemption to inflation? It is probably necessary to introduce subsection (a) with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of law," because M.G.L. c. 80 limits betterment assessments to a one-time tax which can be paid in installments over a twenty-year period.
2. Subsection (e) is unclear. Would it be more appropriate to read as follows: "Any properties of any kind and nature within the control and jurisdiction of said Trust which have not been leased by the Trust to non-Trust entities or individuals pursuant to this chapter shall be exempt from the tax assessed under this Section 8; and the initial $50,000 of ad valorem tax payment for all properties within the district shall be a credit against the tax assessed under this Section 8."
9. 9.
1. Since the "corridor" now includes all of the open space including the streets and sidewalks, we believe it would be appropriate to include a statement that the construction of the streets, curbing, sidewalks, street lighting, street trees and street furniture shall be constructed and installed by the MTA as currently contemplated and included in the 17A6 contract. In addition, the streets shall be public ways subject to the jurisdiction of the City of Boston and policed, maintained and controlled by the City of Boston.
2. Therefore, to continue that clarification, we suggest that the end of the first sentence the following be added, "for the design and construction of improvements to the Park Parcels."
3. Subsection (d) we suggest be changed to substitute the word "may" for the word "shall" in the fist line.
10. 10.
1. As suggested in our letter, we would recommend deletion of the Development Parcels (other than the ramp parcels) from the jurisdiction of the Trust. However, if they are to remain there, we urge the committee to seek the advice of MTA counsel to be certain that Title XXIII of the FHWA regulations permit Massachusetts to utilize sales or lease proceeds from these parcels for maintenance of surface improvements not related to the actual highway structures themselves.
2. In subsection (b)(2), is the additional $29 million to be used only for capital improvements to the Park Parcels or can it be used for maintenance and operations as well?
11. 11.
1. In subsection (a) to provide flexibility to the Trust, we suggest deleting the entire balance of the first paragraph following the words "at the discretion of the Trust." In the fourth line after the words "greenhouse facilities," please add the words "educational and exhibit space," and after the words "retail space" please add the words "as may be needed to support its activities".
2. In connection with the second paragraph, Mass. Hort. fail to carry out its project, or should Mass. Hort. request changes in its proposed uses, the Task Force wonders whether a process is contemplated for consideration of such a request. Specifically, the Mass. Hort. parcels are considered "open space" under the environmental mitigation commitments but, of course, to a great extent they are built spaces. What else can or should be built on these parcels? Does the committee plan to leave these decisions to the Trustees or is there some notion that these parcels should remain "Park Parcels"?
12. 13.
1. At the end of the first paragraph, we suggest the addition of the words "as well as services relating to the design, construction, programming, maintenance and operation of the open space parcels. The City of Boston shall maintain, repair and replace all streets and sidewalks within the corridor." In this respect, the Task Force would like to capitalize on the experience and expertise of the City of Boston Parks Department which has been operating, maintaining and programming such spaces for many years.
2. In the second paragraph, in lieu of the words "to receive any comments from" please substitute the words "and the advice and consent of". Again, this is an effort to make the role of the Board of Directors more substantive that it now is.
13. 14.
1. Our prior comments with respect to the Non-Corridor Parcels are relevant here. Our preference is to delete them from the jurisdiction of the Trust. If not, we need a clear delineation of which parcels are involved and an answer to the question as to whether the funding made available to the Trust would also be available to the Non-Corridor Parcels. One way to at least eliminate at least the so-called "edge parcels" from this jurisdiction is to add at the end of the first sentence of subsection (a) the words "exclusive of the highway related facilities".
2. Please add at the end of subsection (b) a semicolon and the words "however, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority shall be relieved of its responsibility to complete the open space above the highway, such responsibility being transferred to the Trust in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and agreements including the so-called environmental commitments."
14. 18.
1. In an effort to include some omitted neighborhoods, we suggest that the second paragraph increase the number of members of the Board of Directors to thirty and in the second line make the chair of the Advisory Board a voting member of the Board of Directors We then suggest that the third sentence of the second paragraph increase the number of members appointed by the Mayor to seven, five of whom shall be appointed at his or her discretion and at the end of the third sentence, please add the following: "One of whom shall be a resident who is a member of a Leather District civic or neighborhood association; one of whom shall be a resident who is a member of a Wharf District civic or neighborhood association; and one of whom is a resident who is a member of a North Station or West End District civic or neighborhood association."
2. In the third paragraph, in the fourth line, please delete the word "non" before "voting member".
3. In the fifth paragraph, subsection (c) please delete the words "submit written comments" and substitute the words "advise and consent" for the same reasons previously stated.
15. 19.
1. In the second paragraph, please delete the word "non" before "voting member" and change the designation to the "Board of Trustees" for the reasons previously stated.

Miscellaneous.

Finally, we present for your consideration a few other issues for possible inclusion in the legislation:

1. The language to properly transfer the environmental mitigation commitments is found in the Metropolitan Highway Legislation in Section 16(a)(vii) as follows:

"(vii) the allocation of all obligations arising from permits, licenses, approvals, mitigation commitments and other agreements entered into by or legal obligations imposed upon said . . . Massachusetts Turnpike Authority in connection with the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Corridor not satisfied or otherwise discharged prior to such transfer by said . . . Massachusetts Turnpike Authority" shall be transferred to and become the responsibility of the Trust.

2. As we mentioned, there seems to be some ambiguity about how future changes to the existing parcel usages will be accomplished. Therefore, it might be helpful to include a statement that there will be no change in the parcel use plan except in accordance with the joint development process.
3. A smooth transition to the new entity will be difficult but critical for the success of the project and the new Trust. Therefore it might be helpful to have a general statement that all state agencies as well as the BRA are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Trust, provide transitional services to the extent reasonably possible and make available all resources which may be useful to the Trust in effecting a smooth transition.
4. Programming of the open space is critical to the success of the project. Therefore, whenever operations and maintenance are mentioned in the statute, you might consider adding the word "programming".
5. There is no standard of maintenance to be observed by the Trust in connection with the parks. Do you feel that that is necessary or advisable? If the general vision statement is included in Section 1 and it includes a "world-class" or "first-class" park, that might be sufficient.
6. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs has discussed at a meeting of the Environmental Oversight Committee the advisability of imposing conservation restrictions on the park parcels. This would mean that in connection with any transfer or lease of such parcels, the designation and use of the property for open space and park purposes could be enforced. This is in addition to the benefits of Article 97 of the Constitution which are subject to a two-thirds override vote by the legislature. You might consider the advisability of adding such a provision.