Like dominoes, the fragile funding and tenant commitments for the $1.5 billion Westwood Station mega-development could come toppling down at any time, as legal proceedings and legislative infighting tangle an already complicated process, a state lawmaker said Wednesday.
As the state hemorrhages jobs, the 4.5 million-square-foot, retail, residential, office and hotel complex brings with it the alluring promise of 2,000 permanent workers, but for nearby Canton, the sprawling facility means a crush of additional vehicles on the road each day, degrading the quality of life for its residents.
The antithetical imagery has ballooned into a trio of legal battles and a months-long, business-stopping fight in the state House of Representatives.
According to Westwood Station developer Jay Doherty, president of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, two or three tenants - one of them a specialty burger joint - have already walked away from the project under increasing financial strain as a result of a deteriorating national economy.
State Rep. Paul McMurtry, D-Dedham, who is pushing a bill to secure a liquor license for a Wegmans supermarket in Westwood Station, pointed to the departure of tenants as a reason his bill needs to pass.
"This is why, in this economic climate, why the risk is far too great for us to continue to keep this bill hostage," said McMurtry, whose district includes Westwood. "With each passing day, other risks and other factors come into play that may change the scope of this project."
His bill has been held up for months, first by state Rep. Angelo Scaccia, D-Readville, and now by state Rep. William Galvin, D-Canton, who protests that Westwood Station would harm the quality of life for neighboring Canton, which he represents. The dispute has led to a series of procedural maneuvers that has occasionally forced House business to a close, and has bottlenecked many bills in committee and at the enactment stage for weeks.
Other factors that are unnerving supporters of the development include legal proceedings that could prolong the stalemate. In one case, Cabot, Cabot & Forbes on Oct. 24 called for an adjudicatory hearing to protest a review of the project completed by the Executive Office of Transportation. CC&F contends that the review, a required step to assess the environmental impact of a development, inaccurately asserted that the developer would be responsible for an array of infrastructure projects to which it never agreed.
Projects to which CC&F argues it never consented include constructing the intersection of Dedham Street and the Cumberland Farms driveway, to construct the intersection of Dedham Street and Shawmut Parkway and to construct improvements to the Dedham Street/I-95 interchange.
"These errors of fact misstate (CC&F's) commitment and require redress," CC&F's states.
The transportation office review is also under fire from Canton, which filed suit in Superior Court on Oct. 31 to vacate transportation office findings and issue an injunction to prevent certain construction, award Canton attorney fees and award the town "further relief as may be just and proper."
"The court should vacate the findings, first, because the findings do not condition the permit and operation of the development on all feasible mitigation of projected traffic impacts, but rather - in violation of law - defer this mitigation until those projected impacts become actual," according to the Canton's complaint, "and, second, because the environmental reviews conducted to date with respect to the project are not adequate and complete in that they did not give meaningful consideration to reasonable alternatives to the project as planned."
A lawyer for the town, Douglas McGarrah, said Canton would like to negotiate with CC&F to iron out disagreements but that the developer had walked away from the table. Doherty, the DD&F president, has denied that contention and said he was always open to further negotiations.
McGarrah also criticized CC&F for launching a suit against Canton over a public record requests, calling it "a harassing technique."
Doherty declined to "engage in a war of words" with Canton's lawyer and said construction of Westwood Station was underway to the tune of $5 million a month. Some construction would be curtailed for the winter, but he said any contention that the project would not continue is "totally false, it's absurd, it's wrong."
He acknowledged filing a Freedom of Information Act request for Canton's public documents pertaining to its traffic mitigation concerns.
Doherty described CC&F's own complaint over the transportation office findings as "fine print stuff" that wouldn't further the dispute.
McMurtry said he hoped the state's more powerful figures like Gov. Deval Patrick and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi would intervene on his and Westwood Station's behalf but said he understands "the reality of politics."
"I don't know if I would expect any more involvement," he said. "The fact that they realize the economic significance to the commonwealth is something I'm extremely pleased with."
Patrick weighed in briefly on the dispute recently when he called for a reform of the home rule petition process.
Home rule petitions, like McMurtry's Wegmans request, receive the approval of local residents before coming to the State House for legislative affirmation. Most fly through without controversy, but often, Patrick said, they are used as "bargaining chips."
In the case of the Westwood development, Patrick decried the use of parliamentary maneuvering to uphold a development that promises thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of economic activity.
