Click here to view the Conservation Law Foundation letter

Click here to view the Aries presentation

At this week's meeting, the City Council was asked to sign a Host Community Benefits and Pilot Agreement with Aries for a gasification facility at the landfill. Earlier that day, the City Council received a letter from the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) raising numerous public health concerns regarding this proposal.

CLF is a nonprofit public interest organization that works to conserve natural resources and protect public health. CLF became aware of the project after an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) was filed with the state for review under the MA Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The public health concerns related to this facility arise from the fact that sewage sludge is toxic and contains hundreds of chemicals, including PFAS, a dangerous group of chemicals that do not break down in your body and are known to have adverse health effects. Aries claims that gasification is a "PFAS solution." When I asked if they had any data or evidence to support the claim that PFAS is destroyed in the gasification process, the answer was no. They also claimed that if PFAS is not destroyed in the gasification process, it will be sequestered in the concrete that is produced as the end product. Concrete, however, is porous, meaning the PFAS could very well leach into the surrounding soil or surface water.

The City did not hire an independent consultant to investigate the public health and environmental impacts of this proposed facility. Despite these outstanding questions and concerns, there was a 7-2 vote in favor of signing the Host Community Benefits and Pilot Agreement with Aries. I voted in opposition because, to me, the uncertainty and potential risks to the health of our community outweigh moving forward with this proposal as hastily as we are.

An update on some of this week's events. First, I want to thank everyone that has reached out in support of my resolution condemning the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. I put forth the resolution because I strongly felt it was the right thing to do and needed to be done. I will certainly continue to do what I think is right. That has and will continue to be my guiding principle in my public service. Although the resolution did not pass, I think this effort has sparked an important discussion about the shared values of our community and how those values should be upheld and represented.

Now for marijuana. On Tuesday, the Appeals Court ruled in the City's favor in the appeal of the contempt proceeding in Bask, Inc. vs. Taunton City Council. The ruling once again asserted that the Land Court does not have the jurisdiction to affect our licensing process, stating that portions of the Land Court judge's order "exceed his jurisdiction, must be stayed, and accordingly cannot form the basis for a finding of contempt." In addition, the ruling made it clear that the Land Court also does not have the power to award licenses or rescind previously issued licenses.

We also discussed increasing the number of retail marijuana licenses again at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, but a motion to begin the process of increasing the number of licenses from 5 to 8 was tabled for two weeks. It was stated that the purpose for this motion to table was to wait for feedback from the Law Department, but First Assistant City Solicitor Matt Costa stated that the Law Department likely would not weigh in on the number of licenses. I voted against the motion to table because we have discussed this at length already, but I remain opposed to increasing the number of licenses for the reasons laid out in my previous post on this matter.