Frivolous Legal Delays Cost Everyone

Frivolous Legal Delays Cost Everyone

© David Burton 2016

Massachusetts Electricty Costs

     Here in the United States, and perhaps, even more so in my home state of Massachusetts, we are becoming increasingly paralyzed by interminable delays in approving and undertaking a number of badly needed programs and projects. These delays cost uncountable billions of dollars and inconvenience the vast majority of citizens.

     One can only wonder in whose interest the current Attorney General of Massachusetts is working. These days, Massachusetts has the third-highest electricity costs in the lower 48 states. Here in Massachusetts, we pay about 14 cents per kilowatt-hour, more than double the national average of 6.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Natural gas prices in Massachusetts, are two times higher (about $11 per thousand cubic feet) than the national average.[1]

     America is in the midst of an historic natural gas boom that has seen prices plunge more than 75% since 2008 - but not here in Massachusetts. The Marcellus Shale natural gas field of Pennsylvania, the biggest in America, now produces 16.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, about 20% of the national total.[1] The major reason for New England’s and Massachusetts’ high energy prices is the lack of adequate capacity in the region’s electrical transmission lines and natural gas pipelines. In the case of natural gas, it only makes sense to extend gas transportation lines into Massachusetts from the Marcellus Shale natural gas field, only 200 miles away. But that isn’t happening because of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) court opposition, now supported by the Massachusetts Attorney General.

     “Opponents of a proposed {natural gas pipeline} say they are considering appealing to Massachusetts’ highest court after the state Department of Public Utilities . . . approved 20 year contracts” (Ref. 2) to increase the supply of natural gas in Massachusetts.

     Inconceivably, these opponents argued that the companies had not shown the need for the increased supply of natural gas. Supporting these obstructionists, “a spokeswoman for {the} Attorney General . . . said her office also had argued that the contracts ‘should not move forward until after the DPU considered the broader issue of the region’s gas capacity.’ “ (Ref. 2)

     This action by the state AG ignores the likelihood that these contracts would “save customers an estimated $236 million in years with ‘normal’ weather conditions and $813 million in extreme-weather years . . . The agreements will {also} be used in large part to switch customers from oil to gas, reducing greenhouse emissions . . .” (Ref. 2)

     Once again, it’s delay, delay and delay. Never mind the resultant cost increases nor the harmful effects on the environment from not switching from dirty fuels to cleaner natural gas.

     The federal government, at the encouragement of the Obama administration, has been encouraging and promoting offshore wind farms to generate, non-polluting and renewable electrical energy. One such effort, the Massachusetts Cape Wind Project, first put forward in 2001, went through "an unprecedented level of environmental and regulatory analysis" and "a thorough review of environmental impacts," including impacts on birds, fish, marine mammals and sea turtles. Some would interpret this to mean an inordinate amount or bureaucratic red tape that resulted in a 10-year delay of a project designed to reduce atmospheric pollution and lessen dependence on foreign oil.

     One would think that a 10 year delay in starting a project of this importance would be more than enough? Think again. In spite of the government approval, opponents of the Cape Wind Project warned backers of the wind farm not to "declare victory in a battle that is far from over" and reminded project backers that the project was still the subject of 11 separate lawsuits and appeals.

     After some 10 years of bureaucratic delays and legal maneuvering, the Cape Wind Project was supposedly ready to proceed. But just some 6 months after the announcement of the project overcoming its last hurdles and obtaining final approval, a federal appeals court shot down the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) official position that the offshore power project’s tall wind turbines posed “no hazard” to passing planes. The court remanded the FAA’s findings back to the agency in spite of the fact that the FAA had reviewed the Cape Wind Project for some eight years and repeatedly determined that the project did not pose a hazard to air navigation. This is yet another perfect example of “death by a thousand cuts”. The multi-year FAA study and its report should have ended the issue of safety to air navigation. Who is better qualified to determine air safety than the government’s own impartial Federal Aviation Administration that is charged with maintaining air safety? - certainly not a federal appeals court and not the biased opponents of the project.

     Once more lawyers, the courts, and the “Not In My Back Yard” crowd were costing Americans billions of dollars because of delayed, abandoned or overly expensive projects. Here in Massachusetts, the deleterious impact of lawsuits and court orders are particularly galling and extremely expensive.

     In 2011, “Almost half of clean energy projects proposed in recent years have been delayed or abandoned due to local opposition, according to a March report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That’s a lot of development potential denied.” (Ref. 3)

     Sky-high energy costs are just one more example of the harm wrought here in Massachusetts by NIMBYs, their lawyers and the courts. For more than 50 years Onyx Specialty Papers of South Lee, Massachusetts “has carved out a niche selling unusual, high-value products like Kevlar-reinforced paper used in automobile clutch plates.” (Ref. 4) But today, they are facing a financial crisis. The problem isn’t labor costs or raw material costs. And the problem is not in finding markets for their products. The problem is energy costs!

     “. . . America sits in the midst of a historic natural gas boom that has seen prices plunge more than 75% since 2008. Just 200 miles to the southwest of South Lee lies the Marcellus Shale natural gas field of Pennsylvania, the biggest in America. . . . Marcellus now produces 16.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, about 20% of the national total. Pipeline companies are itching to extend their lines to bring plentiful gas to Massachusetts; Kinder Morgan has already lined up long term buyers for the gas it would haul in via its stalled $3.3 billion Northeast Direct Line.
     “But that’s not going to happen, at least not anytime soon. Despite the fact that Western Massachusetts GDP plunged 3.6% from 2007-13 (while the U.S. overall expanded 5.6% over the same time), opposition by small, well-organized groups to any new pipeline remains as ferocious as it is irrational. . . . thanks to {these groups}, in January 2014 New England’s power companies, lacking gas to make electricity, resorted to burning 2.7 million barrels of emergency fuel oil – more expensive and far more toxic, pumping out twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas. So much for ‘economic and climate reasons.’” (Ref. 4)

     In August of 2015, the president of the United States called for regulations to bring about a major reduction in power plant emissions and pollution in this country while here in Massachusetts, power plants have been forced to burn polluting oil or coal because of a lack of natural gas caused by NIMBYs and their lawyers delaying or preventing the construction of the needed pipeline infrastructure to bring natural gas into the region. There is something seriously wrong with a system that allows this to happen!

     The irrationality of all this is caused by the unnecessary and exorbitant cost of getting anything done in America. From subways to bridges to power lines and pipelines, the nation’s land, water and key infrastructure is increasingly being held hostage by a growing thicket of regulation, sophisticated opposition and a me-first philosophy that regards development - no matter the benefit to the public - as a potential assault on the sacred. From housing construction caps in San Francisco and the Keystone XL pipeline in Nebraska to bridge and subway construction in New York City and port expansion in Savanah, Ga., NIMBY has delayed, killed or inflated the expenses of more than 500 projects nationwide over the last decade at a cost to the economy of more than $1 trillion annually, FORBES magazine has conservatively estimated, though in truth those numbers are likely far higher.

     “The problem is being exacerbated by a furious wave of regulation writing in Washington. ...
      - - -
     “’What has happened by accident is that the legal approval system has evolvd to be so complicated that any person who doesn’t like a project can exercise a legal veto.’ . . . The effect . . . is ‘bureaucratic mental illness.’ It’s the kind of sickness that now threatens a country that was once defined by advancement and progress.
      - - -
     “{In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, was created.} It didn’t take the newly minted NIBYs to realize the tools that they had been handed. The law that created the EPA required all sizable federal project plans to include an environmental impact statement. Courts decided that it wasn’t enough to declare what the impacts would be – agencies also had to inform the public on how they intended to address these impacts. The problem, though, is that every agency can weigh in on environmental impacts, but no single agency has authority over the process, allowing environmentalists to litigate every word in every impact statement. [Emphasis mine] . . . {One} local transportation official {said} that ‘if I take $1 of federal money for a state transportation project, it can add 11 years to the process.’
     “Forty-five years later the unanticipated result is a sophisticated NIMBY-industrial complex of activists and lawyers that has grown increasingly proficient at weaponizing all this well-intended regulation to stall even green projects and explode their costs.
     “Take Vermont, where New England NIMBYs sought to block an electric transmission project that would bring zero-carbon hydropower to the region from Canada . . . {to replace the electrical power lost when the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was decommissioned in 2014}
     “But if you think subbing hydropower for nuclear power would satisfy the region’s NIMBY forces, think again. Boston’s Conservation Law Foundation intervened because of the plant’s “impact on the aquatic environment” and potential competition with renewable projects in New England. . . . Faced with the potential for endless litigation, {the transmission project developers} cut a deal with the NIMBYs: Drop your opposition and in return we will invest nearly $300 million over 40 years on Conservation Law Foundation pet causes like solar and wind.” (Ref. 4)

     Most rational people would recognize such behavior as government-aided and abetted legalized extortion and blackmail by lawyer-driven organizations. Small businesses faced with similar demands are in no financial position to fight against these well-financed extortionists. “It can also feel like a shakedown – it’s cheaper, after all, for a small business to pay $20,000 to $50,000 in fees to make something go away, rather than fight a small army of environmental lawyers.
     “’It’s quite lucrative. . . . They come in under the banner of they’re the white knights, but when you’re going to put a small guy who employs five to ten people out of business, that’s not so good.’” (Ref. 4)

     There has been some effort in congress and in the courts to redress the problem, but just as quickly as red tape appears to be getting cut back, NIMBY lawyers find additional ways to tie everything up. And on top of that, the EPA is still adding additional levels of permitting. It doesn’t matter to these NIMBYs, their lawyers and their willing dupes that adding pipeline and transmission line capacity increases environmental safety by getting millions of gallons of petroleum off the nation’s highways each year that is now being shipped by truck.

     And just how is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts responding to its high cost of energy crisis?

     “How are our Beacon Hill politicians dealing with the need for increased natural gas pipeline capacity and consumers’ growing bills?
     “While Gov. Charlie Baker supports more capacity, others want to study the issue to death. [Emphasis mine]
     “One hour before Baker was sworn in to office, then-Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration finally released the Synapse energy Economics report that concluded there was a significant need to increase natural gas pipeline capacity by 600 to 800 million cubic feet.
     “The $250,000 report came after 30 other studies on the same issue conducted by a variety of institutions, including the U.S. Department of Energy and the New England Governors Association. All but two concluded there is a need for more capacity.” (Ref. 5)

     BUT, the Massachusetts Attorney General now wants her own study of the issue. Just why isn’t the Patrick administration report or the other 30 studies enough for her? Maybe not surprisingly, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s “study is being funded by a climate change advocacy group – the Barr Foundation. The fix is in. [Emphasis mine] This study will likely conclude that New England’s natural gas capacity doesn’t need to be increased.
     “{The Attorney General} will hide behind it to justify holding consumers and businesses hostage to promote the climate change agenda.” (Ref. 5)

     In 1941, the largest office building in the world, the Pentagon, was built in just 18 months! Today, it can take ten times as long just to clear the legal hurdles to get approval to start a project! Something has gone terribly wrong with American government in the last half century. Our government has forgotten how to build big projects fast. Today, projects have to get clearances from numerous environmental agencies and advocacy groups and to then prepare for the inevitable lawsuits that will be launched by environmental advocacy groups. Today, the Pentagon probably couldn’t be built because an environmental advocacy group would take the government to court to protect some newly discovered endangered species that they would find in the mud flats upon which the Pentagon is located. A half century ago, the planners and builders of the pentagon didn’t have to engage in endless negotiations with state governments, local agencies and NIMBY advocacy groups. Today, government bureaucracy, environmental activists, dollar-hungry lawyers and obstructionist NIMBYS stand ready to impede all progress, irrespective of the cost or other consequences.

     Coupled with the interminable obstructionist delays of needed projects, we also have the reality of notoriously bad and indefensively incompetent planning of major public projects. On 25 August 2015, the head of the newly formed MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) control board said he had ‘deep reservations’ about the survival of the state’s suddenly beleaguered Green Line expansion after officials revealed it could soar to $1 billion over budget.” (Ref. 6)

     “The recent news that the estimated cost of an ongoing Boston-area subway-line extension has risen from $1.4 billion to nearly $2 billion [now estimated at more than $3 billion] surprised exactly no one. The more-than-two-decade history leading up to this most recent cost overrun contains a lifetime’s worth of cautionary tales for state and local governments.” (Ref. 7)

     “In addition to the $3 billion cost to build this project there appears to be no serious plan to cover the $40 million cost of operations (just in year one).
     “{Unfortunately}, the state has already sunk millions into {now outdated} early planning and construction. And of course there is a legal commitment to completing the Green Line extension, part of a pollution mitigation agreement related to the Big Dig.” (Ref. 8)

     Excuse me! Please explain to me how anyone with half a brain could develop plans for a project originally (and incorrectly) estimated to cost $1.4 billion and then have “no serious plan to cover the $40 million cost of operations” in year one. Additionally, there are apparently no plans on how to pay for the cost of maintenance and operations in subsequent years. On top of that, the original cost projections have now ballooned to $3 billion!

     The now infamous “Big Dig” project that turned an unsightly elevated highway into an outrageously expensive underground roadway beneath downtown Boston ran nine years late and had a cost that escalated from an original $2.8 billion to $14.6 billion - an unbelievable cost growth of 521%! One reason for this cost growth was that Massachusetts had a deal with the federal government wherein the feds covered 80% of the cost – and there was no limit in the agreement to the ultimate cost! Why skimp on cost when someone else is picking up most of the tab?

     The Big Dig fiasco has had a long-term impact on the MBTA. As part of an environmental mitigation deal to compensate for the additional traffic created during the Big Dig, the courts mandated 14 transit-related projects. “Twenty-three years after the 1991 mandate, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority owes nearly $9 billion in debt and interest, almost half of which can be attributed to the transit-mitigation requirements.” (Ref. 7)

     The MBTA woes have many causes – bad management; poor planning; labor unions; court ordered mandates; and almost-infinite project delays caused by environmentalists, NIMBYs, courts and others.

     There are lessons to be learned, but experience has shown that these lessons are ignored here in Massachusetts. Some of these lessons are: “it’s a spectacularly bad idea to mandate the construction of billions of dollars of new projects without a funding source” and “Projects should be budgeted based on the cost of building, operating and maintaining them over their lifecycle.” (Ref. 7)

     The MBTA has the dubious distinction of being one of the most expensive public transit systems in the nation and yet still having one of the worst records for maintenance and reliability. “The MBTA faces a maintenance backlog that topped $3 billion in 2009 and has only grown since [now pegged at $6.7 billion]. In the transit authority’s fiscal 2010 budget, just six of 57 maintenance projects that received a safety rating of ‘critical’ could be funded.” [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 7)

     As usual, there are calls for the federal government to bail out Massachusetts and the MBTA. The Vice Mayor of the ultra-liberal city of Cambridge, often derisively but accurately referred to as “Moscow on the Charles” (in reference to the communist capital of the Soviet Union of Josef Stalin days) “said officials should look to the federal government, not to small cities like his, to make up for any {MBTA} shortfall.” (Ref. 9)

     But the federal government learned its lesson on the Big Dig. “. . . the Federal Transit Administration said in a statement that the binding contract the MBTA signed caps the federal contribution at $296 million and obligated the MBTA to accept responsibility for any cost overruns.” (Ref. 9)

     In another example of delay, delay and delay, Massachusetts' Attorney General issued a demand that the construction of an exhaustively reviewed and fully approved gambling casino in the nearby Boston suburb of Everett be held up until there was a new agreement that would “include a permanent, long-term solution to the traffic concerns around Sullivan Square before a single shovel can go into the ground.” (Ref. 10)

     For those unfamiliar with the casino conflict. After an exhaustive competition, overseen by a state Gaming Commission, Steve Wynn’s bid to obtain a license to build a Las Vegas style gambling casino in Everett, adjacent to Boston, was selected over that of a competing bid for a casino in Boston. The mayor of Boston had been conducting a guerilla campaign ever since to have the decision reversed. One of his strategies was to have the award voided because of his claim that traffic in the nearby Sullivan Square area of Charlestown, a Boston neighborhood, would be adversely affected and that this impact had not been adequately addressed in the Wynn casino application. Wynn and the state casino commission have stated that this charge is untrue and the Wynn application had addressed the issue. It should be clearly noted that the Sullivan Square traffic interchange has been a traffic nightmare for decades, well before the nearby site for a casino was considered. Neither the state nor Boston chose to address the problem until now.

     The Massachusetts AG said she wanted Wynn to develop “a long-term solution to the area’s notorious traffic woes.
     “Without such a plan in place, {the AG} wrote, ‘we may never get one.’
     “A perfectly appropriate sentiment coming from a resident of neighboring Charlestown and an affirmed opponent of casinos; {the AG} happens to be both.
     “And if Wynn had somehow failed to comply with the environmental permitting process it would be reasonable for the AG to step in, in her formal role, to demand that he do so.
     “But in fact Wynn has agreed to a $10.9 million plan to deal with the immediate impact of casino traffic in the impacted area, to the apparent satisfaction of state transportation officials. The plan obligates him to another $25 million for long-term improvements at Sullivan Square.
     “ ‘The . . . process requires that we mitigate our traffic impacts, not solve decades-long traffic issues which predate our project,’ a Wynn spokesman said.  . . .
     “{The AG} may be correct that if Wynn is not required to provide a long-term traffic mitigation plan ‘we may never get one.’ But fault for that will rest not with one private developer but with the commonwealth and city of Boston, which have failed to solve a problem that has festered for decades.” [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 10) What the city of Boston, its mayor and the state’s attorney general have been trying to do is blackmail Wynn into paying for what the city and state should have started doing a long, long time ago. But here in Massachusetts, we have a long history of going after other people’s money, whether it be that of the federal government or that of someone with “deep pockets”.

     Fortunately, there are some in the Massachusetts state government who don’t subscribe to the practice of political extortion. On 25 August, the Massachusetts State Transportation Secretary announced that Steve Wynn had adequately addressed traffic and transit issues around his $1.7 billion casino in Everett and was endorsing the awarding of a key state permit he needed to break ground.

     “{He said that} ‘. . . this area has been subject to extensive planning {but no action} o ver the past decade, and the long-term issues there go well beyond those posed by the proponent’s development . . .’ . . . Wynn{had} agreed to pay $10.9 million as a short-term fix for Sullivan Square AND $25 million of over 10 years for the long-term fix.” (Ref. 11)

     Later that same week, the state’s Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary issued a “28-page ruling {which} said that Wynn’s plan for traffic improvements in Charlestown will be ‘effective to mitigate the project’s impacts on existing transportation infrastructure.’
      - - -
     “{The Secretary added,} ‘I have concluded that the practical, rational and effective approach to addressing broader region transportation impacts for this project is through enhanced transportation planning processes, not through the prism of this single project.’ “ (Ref. 12)

     Back in 2015, the mayor of Somerville, which abuts Everett and Boston, sensed an opportunity to join Boston in shaking down the nearby Everett casino project and appealed a previously approved project authorization, just as construction of the casino was commencing. Construction ground to a halt!

     After a year’s delay that cost everyone millions of dollars, the courts threw out the Somerville mayor’s frivolous extortion attempt and gave the Wynn Casino the go-ahead to proceed. Wynn Resorts fended off the challenge to a key state environmental permit and, within weeks, began construction of its nearly $2 billion Boston-area casino. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection issued its decision in late July of this year, upholding the award of a public waterways license to the Las Vegas-based company that was issued in January. Still, the Somerville Mayor, who had challenged Wynn's environmental permit, says his administration is reviewing the “final” decision and pursuing other ways to block the project.[13] Here in Massachusetts, legal extortion is alive and well and the exhortation to “Go after the deep pockets” remains in effect

     What should be clear is that we need revamp a legal and legislative system that currently allows NIMBYs and their sycophants to strangle progress in these United States. We need to put an end to our outdated and malfunctioning legal system that allows unlimited numbers of lawsuits to be filed which stretch beneficial projects interminably and invariably greatly inflate their ultimate costs. This legal madness is costing America a fortune. These legal antics against our public projects inflict death by a thousand cuts. All too frequently, the objectives of these suits are not to right or prevent a wrong, but to delay, incur legal costs and to discourage the completion of the project. The legal fees, the delays, the time lost, the overloading of our courts, and cost increases due to the delays are obscene.

     It’s long past the time to make changes to our civil legal system. We need to make it infinitely harder to bring obviously trivial and foolish suits and we need to make it extremely expensive for both the plaintiffs and particularly their lawyers to bring these frivolous lawsuits into our courts. To do this will be extremely difficult, but the process must start now. The lawyers’ lobby and the large numbers of lawyers in our state and federal legislatures make the needed reforms very difficult to achieve. But all concerned citizens need to start the process. We need to file referenda to change the laws of our states and those of the federal government. We need to put our legislators on notice that that we want real reform or we will vote in new legislators. And just maybe, we need to put a law on the books that prohibits lawyers from becoming legislators.

     Somewhat more specifically, we need to force our legislators to enact legislation that:

  1. eliminates or greatly diminishes the number of legal hurdles and roadblocks that a project faces,
  2. drastically reduce the number of agencies and departments that are involved in reviewing and overseeing programs – ideally, empower only 1 agency to review and oversee major projects,
  3. strictly limit the amount of time permitted to review and approve projects, and
  4. prohibit further reviews and lawsuits once a project is given approval to proceed.
     As I’ve previously said[14] “America must discontinue the bureaucratic nightmare that has evolved over the past half century. The review process must be made finite. Dissent must be allowed up to a point in time, at which the decision must be made to proceed or to terminate. After that, dissent must be strictly limited. There must be unity of command. Firm time lines and budgets must be adhered to. There can be no overlapping authority, no bureaucratic infighting and no turf wars. Environmental concerns must not be the lone deciding factor in decision-making. Project authority must be focused and the chain of command clearly defined. The authority of courts to interfere once a project is approved should be strictly limited. We must avoid the cancer of requirements growth, of "wouldn't it be nice to have" and "let's add a few more bells and whistles." What was once known as "paralysis by analysis" has now morphed into "paralysis by analysis, review, litigation, turf wars, interference, and lack of leadership."

     “Are we here in the United States doomed to forever continue on these spiraling paths of delays, ballooning costs and frustration? The answer must be no. If – and it’s a gigantic if – outraged citizens can get our legislators to do what they are elected to do and pass laws that:
  1. eliminate or greatly diminish the number of legal hurdles and roadblocks that a project must put up with,
  2. drastically reduce the number of agencies and departments that are involved in reviewing and overseeing programs,
  3. strictly limit the amount of time permitted to review and approve projects, and
  4. prohibit additional reviews and lawsuits once a project is given approval to proceed, then we can escape this death spiral.
As is done in business and the military and, as what should be done in government, all review, dissent and discussion should be encouraged and permitted at the commencement of the project and up to a clearly defined decision point. After that final decision point is reached, discussion should be terminated and the project should then go forward at all reasonable speed.” (Ref. 14)

  1. NIMBY Nation, Christopher Helman and Daniel Fisher, Forbes, Pages 102-107, 17 August 2015.
  2. Gas pipeline foes may appeal OK to SJC, Marie Szaniszlo, Boston Herald, Page 21, 2 September 2015.
  3. Correction: NIMBY-ism Killed Roughly Half of Proposed Clean Energy Projects, Stephen Lacey,, 21 October 2011.
  4. NIMBY Nation, Christopher Helman and Daniel Fisher, Forbes, Pages 102-107, 17 August 2015.
  5. Solution to the energy crisis lies in pipeline, Holly Robichaud, Boston Herald, Page 6, 10 August 2015.
  6. T EXPANSION DERAILING, Matt Stout and Marie Szanislo, Boston Herald, Page 7, 25 August 2015.
  7. Big plans put MBTA on wrong track, Charles Chieppo, Boston Herald, Page 17, 26 August 2015.
  8. Red light on Green line, Op-Ed, Boston Herald, Page 16, 26 August 2015.
  9. Transit expert: #3B for T extension ‘way out of scale’, Marie Szanislo and Matt Stout, Boston Herald, Page 19,
    26 August 2015.
  10. AG aims at Wynn, Op-Ed, Boston Herald, Page 14, 25 August 2015.
  11. Transportation boss gives Winn OK, while cities stew, Owen Boss, Boston Herald, 25 August 2015.
  12. STATE GRANTS KEY ENVIRONMENTAL OK FOR WYNN CASINO, Marie Szaniszlo, Boston Herald, Page 12,
    29 August 2015.
  13. Wynn gets go-ahead for Everett casino, WCVB, 22 July 2016.
  14. Government gone Haywire, David Burton,; Article 113, 11 November 2011.
   Gas pipeline foes may appeal OK to SJC, Marie Szaniszlo, Boston Herald, Page 21, 2 September 2015.
   NIMBY Nation, Christopher Helman and Daniel Fisher, Forbes, Pages 102-107, 17 August 2015.


  12 August 2016 {Article 261; Undecided_50}    
Go back to the top of the page