For those interested in climate change adaptation policy, 2018 will no doubt be remembered as a banner year for Massachusetts. Spurred by the historic flooding caused by this winter’s bomb cyclone, policymakers redoubled their efforts to promote climate resiliency. In June, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed a sweeping $2.2 billion climate adaptation bond bill, earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure reconstruction and rehabilitation projects. The Baker Administration increased its investments in a number of existing programs, including the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program, which provides support to communities looking to plan and implement climate adaptation programs. Not to be outdone by his colleagues on Beacon Hill, Mayor Walsh hosted last month’s International Mayors Climate Summit when he pledged, among other things, to erect seawalls in East Boston.
At a time when many cities and states are only beginning to ponder appropriate strategies for navigating the unavoidable and often negative externalities of an ever-changing climate, Massachusetts is, without question, poised to serve as a model state in the adaptation arena. The virtual mosaic of innovative programs implemented over the last few years make Massachusetts a forerunner in the race to identify best practices for mitigating coastal flooding, minimizing the threats posed by excessive heat waves, and combating the rapid spread of vector-borne illnesses, like Lyme disease and West Nile virus.
But despite these undeniably positive steps in the right direction, public messaging on the issue of climate adaptation has been undermined by what many see as the proverbial elephant in the room: the rapid growth of Boston’s Seaport District, an area once referred to as “ground zero” for future flood risks.
Commenting on the Seaport’s remarkable transformation from what one observer called “a decrepit no-man’s land” to an emerging tech hub, Brendan Carroll of the real estate firm Perry Brokerage Associates recently told the Boston Globe “We’re seeing the Seaport District develop in a fashion faster than anybody could have imagined. It’s starting to equal the Back Bay in terms of size and commercial activity.”
The Seaport is—or soon will be—home to an illustrious roster of companies, including MassMutual, Reebok, General Electric, and, of course, Amazon, which, in May of this year, signaled its intention to build a new facility in the waterfront district. Nor is the real estate boom showing any signs of slowing. Just last week, Skanska, an international construction firm, confirmed that it planned to build a $128 million office building in the Seaport.
While the Seaport’s transformation is no doubt a welcome development for anyone interested in attracting high-paying jobs to the city, it directly contradicts the ongoing movement to adapt to climate change. In fact, it increases our collective vulnerability. Boston’s own climate report indicates that low-lying areas in the Seaport could face monthly flooding by the end of the century.
Policymakers got a taste of this reality in January when winter storm Grayson sent floodwaters pouring into the district, forcing fire fighters to use rubberized life boats to rescue stranded citizens. Mayor Walsh went so far as to label the flood a harbinger of things to come, saying “If anyone wants to question global warming just see where the flood zones are.”
But despite the well documented risks associated with developing an area already prone to moderate flooding, state and local officials continue to endorse multimillion-dollar building projects, like Amazon and Skanska. Mayor Walsh, for example, stated that the Skanska project “will add valuable, dynamic workspace to the Raymond L. Flynn Marine Park, one of Boston’s busiest innovation hubs attracting forward-thinking companies from all over the country.”
Walsh was equally enthusiastic about the Amazon announcement noting that “It’s great news for Boston that Amazon is expanding its footprint in the Seaport, bringing new jobs and economic opportunities to our city.” Governor Charlie Baker echoed the mayor’s excitement adding “Amazon’s expansion in the Seaport will bring thousands of new jobs to the Commonwealth and build upon the hundreds of jobs they already have here in research and development, fulfillment centers and robotics.”
The Seaport’s meteoric growth raises important questions about who will bear the burden of responsibility when it comes time to protect such valuable assets. Developers are allegedly committed to climate-proofing and elevating new buildings, but this will do little to safeguard existing infrastructure.
City officials have floated a number of ambitious climate proofing plans, including a rather audacious proposal to build a barrier system capable of closing the harbor during storm surges. The outer barrier alone, which would extend from Hull to Winthrop’s Deer Island, would cost upwards of $11.8 billion. The inner barrier, which would stretch from Logan Airport to the Seaport, would cost roughly $8.7 billion. Fortunately, the barrier proposal appears to have been nixed after a comprehensive feasibility study by UMass Boston’s Sustainable Solutions Lab suggested it was not a financially sound option.
The implications of these high-profile adaptation projects transcend budgetary concerns alone. When it comes to assessing risk, citizens, real estate developers, and business owners take cues from elected officials. Elected officials are assumed to make planning decisions that not only promote economic prosperity but ensure public safety.
Climate resilience will require that communities up and down the coast make tough decisions about the long-term viability of seaside development. Municipalities already face increasing pressures from insurers and government to avoid building new properties in high-risk zones. In fact, there appears to be a growing appetite among some policymakers to voluntarily buyback chronically flooded homes. Aside from removing citizens from harm’s way, buyback programs could promote the creation of a natural buffer against rising tides by facilitating the restoration of marshes, wetlands, beaches, and other floodwater capture points.
Unless citizens have confidence in the ability of government officials to make fair and transparent decisions, adaptation programs will engender conflict, anger, and anxiety. Few people want to abandon their lifelong homes or invest scarce public resources to protect against a problem that, in the eyes of some voters, seems light-years away. Distrust in government raises the specter of a voter backlash that could undermine current as well as future adaptation efforts.
The unabashed endorsement of multimillion-dollar projects in the Seaport sends a dangerous signal that government is willing to condone development in flood-prone areas, provided the developer is a wealthy company like Amazon, Skanska, or Reebok. The time has come for state and local politicians to stem the tide of real estate development in the Seaport and embrace the mantel of a model state. Only then can the Commonwealth—and perhaps even the rest of the country—truly move forward in the race to adapt to climate change.