Some of you have expressed your reservations about the recently approved BCEC expansion bill. I've had my concerns about it, too since its first public hearing before the Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight (SARO), of which I am a member. The project has many high-profile proponents, replete with studies of how Boston is losing convention, meeting, and hospitality business to other cities, because of the inadequacy of the existing BCEC, and its scarcity of convenient hotels.

The City of Boston is a huge proponent of the expansion, and Boston's mayor and legislative delegation have enormous influence in our legislature. This bill had significant political muscle behind it. Along with the expansions cost, I was concerned with making this investment on the South Boston waterfront, with its vulnerability to flooding from sea level rise and storm surges. I filed written testimony with both the House and Senate Bonding Committees asking that the bill contain a flood risk analysis, build to climate resiliency standards; then I filed an amendment to the House bill imposing such a requirement (both will soon be posted on my website.)

I still don't love the BCEC expansion bill, but House Chairman Peter Kocot of SARO has assured me that revenues from "tourist taxes" do seem adequate to cover the cost of paying off the principal and interest on the bonds. I was disappointed that the House did not adopt my amendment addressing risks on the South Boston waterfront to sea level rise and storm surge. My subsequent research has lead me to discover that the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) now has an extensive process for evaluating and mitigating climate change impacts on Boston projects, so I'm feeling more secure now about the safety of this huge public investment.