1917:

From: bobe [mailto:beisengrein@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:22 AM
To: 'James.Welch@masenate.com'
Cc: 'M:ichael.Kane@mahouse.com'
Subject: timelineforpetitionhearingofthejointlegislativecommittee 2011

The purpose of the letter is to further inform you of the purpose of the petition submitted to your Committee by Senator Eldridge. The attachment provides a good overview of the last 95 years by a timeline covering both the Fort Devens era and the current era of the redevelopment of the DREZ. In addition to the above, the Devens Committee is currently creating additional documents for the Joint Committee’s review. It will provide the Committee with an overview of what has happened at Devens over the last 95 years. It will help provide a more complete perspective on the complexity of Devens history.

However, there’s nothing like a visit to Devens, and it could be planned by Senator Eldridge. Joint Committee members could see first firsthand what has been accomplished by the Commonwealth funded redevelopment of Devens. The Commercial/Industrial tax base created would be the envy of any small town. A financial model reveals that Devens could be sustainable as a town in the next decade. The existing Devens community is an excellent example of how the Commonwealth has turned a potential lemon into nourishing lemonade.

To understand Senator Eldridge’s petition submitted to your committee, it is important that you understand the local politics when Fort Devens was created almost 100 years ago. When the Fort was decommissioned in 1994, the regional situation changed dramatically when the Commonwealth in it’s wisdom provided the redevelopment program to create the community of Devens, and then an industrial/commercial space to assist the region to recover from the economic loss because of the decommissioning. The attached time line provides a picture of two scenarios.

The 1^st is the development of Fort Devens over the last 90 years when the Army leased and then purchased land from the residents of the three abutting towns. The governing bodies of the three abutting towns were not involved in the process. It reveals how the Army developed its own community of families over time and provided the services that any town would normally create for its population.

The 2^nd scenario describes how Chapter 498 legislation created the community of Devens and its industrial tax base. The Commonwealth established a $200 million bond to support the activities over the next 40 years. The legislation also created a situation where residents could vote depending where they lived in Devens – if it was in land formerly governed by Harvard, they would vote in Harvard.. In addition, the legislation provided 2 important but negative major decisions. The first limited the number of residential houses to 282: another legislative decision decreed that the major redevelopment projects in Devens were to be approved by all of the three towns in simultaneous town meeting votes. A major omission in the legislation was that the resident investors in Devens, although they paid taxes to the Commonwealth, had no legal voice in the redevelopment of Devens. It was a situation of” taxation without representation”!

The above were major reasons for the petition being filed. Devens residents believe the Joint Committee should rectify these problems and suggest potential solutions below:

The “Timeline below was created from a book “Images of America” Fort Devens, written by William J. Craig in 2004.(ISBN 0-7385-3512-5) .

1917: The U.S. Army leased land purchased from Ayer, Shirley, and Harvard residents to create what was then called Camp Devens. (The abutting town governments were not part of the process)

1919: The leased land was than purchased so the Army had complete control over it

1926 During this decade there was tremendous work building structures and grooming the land for conventional U.S. Army training of soldiers. At any given time, approximately 43,000 troops on the post.

1927-1939: Appropriations were made this year for the permanent construction of buildings on this Army Post. During this period a large Army population growth occurred, Since the Army children were required by law to be educated; the Ayer school system agreed to contract to educate these children . Harvard never contracted to educate the Army children at Fort Devens during the time of its existence. Both towns would have been paid for such services performed.

In addition, both towns benefited financially over the years from increased State Aid since their populations were increased by the number of Army personnel residing in the land that was formally part of their town before 1917, As an example, State Aid to Harvard increased from about $400,000.00 per year to over $1.6 million. A similar increase occurred for the town of Ayer

1940: By 1940, the public came to the realization that the twentieth century was soon to become a century of conflict. In 1940, Fort Devens once again became a reception station for thousands of draftees from all over New England. This was due to the institution of the first peacetime draft. At the war’s peak, there were 65,000 enlisted men to one officer

.1941-1943: With the emergence of their power, the War Department approved construction of a Devens Army Airfield adjacent to Fort Devens

1944: A POW camp was created that could house 5000 prisoners. This was in addition to the many more permanent buildings that were constructed, including hospitals and barracks for the increasing number of troops assigned to Fort Devens. Additionally more permanent housing was created for the Officers, including the large Colonial buildings for the top officials, and ranch houses for the lessor officials. Bungalows were built for non-commissioned officer along with larger multifamily buildings for Army families of Devens. It became a self contained community with schools, churches, social clubs, organized sports, and recreation areas for youth activities. All the services were provided by the U.S. Army so as to provide the families of Fort Devens a sense of community.

1945 – 1990: Fort Devens .remained very active despite the cessation of WWII. It continued to benefit the abutting towns as in the past.

The result was an economic blow to the region with a loss of jobs and income to the local businesses. In its wisdom the Commonwealth instituted a formal plan to redevelop Devens and funded it with a $200,000,000 bond and 40 years time to create a new community of Devens. The goal was to create a Commercial/Industrial tax base and a new residential community of Devens.

1994: As a result, the 3 abutting towns held what they called a Charette which included Legislative members. They discussed what the future Devens redevelopment could and should be. They created the Chapter 498 legislation defining the nature of planned redevelopment. It included a voice for the 3 towns to guide the redevelopment agency responsible for this activity – eventually Mass Development. This discussion provided that any major developments must be approved by all 3 towns in a simultaneous town meeting vote. In addition, the Legislation limited the number of Devens homes to 282. The reasoning for this is really unknown but would indicate that the 3 abutting towns somehow wanted no significant competition. This attitude existed despite the previous huge financial benefit the 3 towns received before Fort Devens was decommissioned.

Moore Army Airfield 42°20'N 71°21'W Leominster, MA

Moore Army Airfield, located at Fort Devens, was built in 1940. During the Second World War it was also used by the Navy, and was referred to as Ayer Naval Auxiliary Air Station. The airfield originally consisted of three paved runways, taxiways and a ramp.

Moore Army Airfield was declared excess when Fort Devens was downgraded to a training area, and was closed in the late 1990s. By the time of its closure, two of the original runways had been abandoned, and the longest runway was still maintained (14/32, approximately 4,700 ft long). Two helicopter runways (2/20 & 15/33, each approximately 500 ft long) were located at the northeast corner of the airfield. The closure of Fort Devens meant some relief for local residents from the noise from Army helicopters. However the runway at Devens, Moore AAF, still exists. Since its closure, it has been used to store police vehicles, and to run auto races.

An overview: The generous Commonwealths bond issue of $200,000,000 and 40 years to complete the redevelopment promised the region a chance to recover their losses when Fort the Devens was decommissioned. The redevelopment of Devens advanced more rapidly than the Commonwealth had planned. The process was recognized as a success and excellent example of what Commonwealth support could achieve. A wide variety of industry types and sizes settled in Devens;. Smaller companies leased space in a renovated Army building. Larger companies purchased land adequate for their needs and ranged in size from 15 to 500 employees. They included both U.S. companies and a number from Europe.

2003: With the rapid and successful growth, the question arose as to the future disposition solution for Devens. Chapter 498 merely set a time for a final decision to be made in 40 years. In 2003 all entities involved, agreed to establish a Devens Disposition Executive Board known as the DDEB. It consisted of representatives from the 3 abutting towns, Devens Committee residents, Mass Development, and the Devens Enterprise Commission; DEC was created to review and set rules for companies wanting to establish businesses in Devens

The program took 2 years to arrive at a decision. Funding for the effort was obtained from the Commonwealth by the office of then Senator Resor, in the amount of $384,000. The seriousness of this endeavor and the eventual process outlining their final decision was evidenced by weekly meetings of all parties, and final agreement of all involved, The result was a detailed description in writing of a series of reports to the Legislature for Devens becoming a Town, with unique benefits to to abutting towns.

The final vote of each entity required that 5 of the 6 entities approve the disposition result. In the final vote of all entities in the fall of 2006, the towns of Ayer and Harvard voted against the results and the draft legislation was not submitted to the Legislature. The detailed documents were still available for future disposition efforts.

2007-2011:The local discussion of a disposition solution continued by the JBOS:

Using unspent funding that remained from the DDEB study, the Joint Board of Selectman of the abutting towns, continued discussing the disposition issue until 2011. Devens residents were included, but in an unofficial capacity. They were recognized to speak and seemingly tolerated. In contrast to the DDEB process, JBOS never outlined a specific goal, but held monthly meetings during which much talk took place but little action was defined. Money was allocated to Montachusetts Regional Planning Commission, and it received funds for several studies. No significant progress was made based on their reports. The informal nature of the meetings, after 5 years, produced nothing specific or concrete in the form of legal documents for Legislative submission.

It seems apparent that local efforts to settle the disposition issue are virtually impossible. It is time for the General Court to step in and rectify this problem.