Large Crowd of Navy Yard Residents Lend
Support to Save Pier 5 Effort
by Seth Daniel • June 24, 2021 • 2 Comments
A large and organized crowd gathered
on the Flagship Wharf patio on the evening of June 16 to display their growing opposition to development of any
kind on Pier 5, and to push for federal funding to restore the pier so it can be used as a park – a plan once
considered by the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) but discarded when the pier was deemed
unsafe.

More than 150 people turned out to hear the first in-person update on the two organizations that have combined
efforts in the Navy Yard for restoration of the pier as a park, hiring high-powered lobbyist firm O’Neil and
Associates to advocate for them.
Navy Yard resident Bob Markel, a former mayor of the City of Springfield in the 1990s and a close friend of U.S.
President Joe Biden, kicked off the lively gathering around 7 p.m. and said two associations – the Pier 5
Association and Restore Pier 5 – have combined their forces to oppose the current development plans. Pier 5
Association is looking to secure federal COVID funding through the use of O’Neil and Associates, and Restore
Pier 5 is working on community advocacy for turning Pier 5 into open space.
They reported a petition with 1,750 signatures.
“We have a developing consensus this is the time to act and this is the time to get funding and restore the pier,”
said Markel. “Before, this couldn’t be done because there was never any money. Times have changed. There is a
Niagara of money flowing out of Washington, D.C. now.”
Jamie Dunbar and Chris Tracey, both of O’Neil, reported that firm owner Tom O’Neil was not able to make the
June 16 meeting due to a wedding commitment, but would be at the next meeting for a comprehensive update.
Tracey, a former BPDA manager, said he has been working as an advocate for the two groups at City Hall.
“My charge is to be your advocate and lobbyist at City Hall and over the last month I’ve tried to amplify your
concerns at City Hall,” he said.
5/23/22, 2:03 PM Large Crowd of Navy Yard Residents Lend Support to Save Pier 5 Effort
https://charlestownbridge.com/2021/06/24/large-crowd-of-navy-yard-residents-lend-support-to-save-pier-5-effort/ 2/9
← Geenneerraall Paattiieenntt aanndd FFaamiillyy Addvviissoorryy Coouunncciill aatt
MGH IImpprroovviinngg Caarree
Coouunncciilloorr Eddwaarrddss Wiinnss Gaamee ooff Poolliittiiccaall Chheessss
Wiitthh Ciittyy Coouunncciill Ruullee Chhaannggee →
“This is the best view and the only view of the open harbor and we think it should stay open to the public,” said
Nitzen Sneh, of one of the restoration groups. “This is what we want to happen here.”
Chris Nicodemus, a construction professional that has recently moved back to Charlestown, said the Pier could
and should be saved as he has seen done in New York, New Jersey and Miami.
“The idea it has to be privatized to be monetized is silly,” he said. “Boston is an embarrassment to me on that
front.”
The group was intent on raising more money to keep O’Neil on the case, hoping to fund them for another 45 days
to continue advocating for federal funding to restore and revitalize Pier 5 as a park.
Currently, the BPDA is considering three development projects for Pier 5, including two floating housing concepts
and one stationary affordable housing/mixed-use development. The BPDA met in October 2019 with the
community about the idea of putting out a housing RFP for Pier 5 and got the go-ahead at the time. However,
things changed drastically when actual responses came in earlier this year.

Legal issues
What document does BPDA rely upon to assert that it owns the development rights to Pier 5?
Didn’t the LDA executed by the BPDA in the late 1978 and amended through 1984?
In that Land Disposition Agreement, didn’t the BPDA/BRA transfer all development rights for the Navy
Yard to Immobiliare New England and its successors?
The BPDA agreement with Immobiliare New England LP and Flagship Wharf Realty Trust limited the
development of Pier 5 to not more than 15 townhouse units, is the BPDA/BRA obligated to comply with
the terms of its prior agreement?
If not why not?
If not, then if the BPDA is not bound by its prior agreements and covenants of development, then are the
surrounding owners also not obligated to make the payments to the BPDA?
If the BPDA takes the position that it ‘owns’ Pier 5, then why has the BPDA never maintained it?
The BPDA collects fees from numerous properties in the Navy Yard including millions of dollars from
Flagship Wharf in transfer fees. Why have none of these moneys been used for Pier 5 maintenance?
How can the BPDA consider any of the RFP projects knowing that all of the projects violate c.91 and 310
CMR 9.0 et seq. because all call for residential housing which by regulation is not a ‘water dependent’
use?
What law or authorization does the BPDA rely upon to justify the planned violations of c.91?
What is the BPDA’s plan for indemnifying Flagship Wharf when the project creates a violation of FW c. 91
license?
Pier 5 presents structural support to the foundation of 197 8th St. what is the BPDA plan to insure that
any work (whether demolition or otherwise) does not create collateral damage?
What type of contingencies or studies have been made to insure that toxic substances will not be
released into the water or air when Pier 5 is disturbed?
What Environmental Impact Studies have been done?
Has Coastal Zone Management or the State Office of Environmental Affairs been contacted about the
nature of the RFPs?
What provisions have been made to guard against violating Federal Navigational Servitude?