City Council passes limited animal testing; opens door for possible life science companies

By Neil Zolot

By a narrow 6-4 margin, the City Council passed a zoning ordinance to allow limited animal testing in life science facilities should they be sited in Everett, at their meeting on Monday, January 13. Sponsor and Councillor-at-Large Stephanie Smith, Councillor-at-Large John Hanlon and Ward Councillors Wayne Matewsky (1), Anthony DiPierro (3), Robert Van Campen (5) and Peter Pietrantonio (6) voted in favor of it. Councillors-at-Large Guerline Alcy Jabouin and Katy Rogers, Ward 2 Councillor and Council President Stephanie Martins and Ward 4 Councillor Holly Garcia voted against it. Councillor-at-Large Michael Marchese was absent.

The vote overrode an unfavorable recommendation from the Legislative Affairs and Elections Subcommittee – comprised of Marchese, Martins, Rogers and Smith – made at a short meeting earlier in the evening.

Passage approved animal testing, but limits it to small animals like gerbils, mice and rats and prohibits testing on cats, dogs, horses and other large animals that are often pets or used for recreation.

“Communities around Everett have life science facilities, but Everett does not,” Smith said in discussion. “The industry has the highest annual income due to high-wage jobs. Those are the jobs we want people in Everett to have, but companies are going to other cities. They’re getting the facilities and the tax benefits.”

As she had when introducing the proposal on December 9, she reiterated that the proposed ordinance was hers and hers alone and not written at the behest or under pressure from The Davis Companies, a development company that builds life science facilities in order to sell them. “I take offense that this is from The Davis Companies; I wrote it,” she said. “They didn’t write this. I did. This is not a company initiative. It’s my opinion of what I think is best for the city.”

Smith was speaking in response to Rogers’ assertion that the ordinance would “serve the interests of one company, The Davis Companies” and “a corporate agenda that undermines the interest of our constituents.”

She added that the constituents are concerned about safety in the city and the quality of its schools and The Davis Companies has addressed neither nor other issues in any proposal. “I want to make sure Everett’s potential isn’t handed over to companies with no interest in our people,” she said. “It serves a private interest and is against the wishes of many constituents.”

She also said that biotech and life science companies are moving away from animal testing to “cutting edge alternatives more effective than animal testing. Everett can lead the way as a hub for innovative, sustainable science rather than clinging to increasingly obsolete practices. Why should Everett bet on a faltering market when we have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to define ourselves in the industries of tomorrow. I want to make sure we’re not on the back end of something other communities are getting away from.”

The ordinance designates the Docklands Innovation District, which is one of three in the area, in addition to the Lower Broadway Economic Development District on Lower Broadway and the Commercial Triangle Economic Development District, as an area for facilities, but Rogers doesn’t think animal testing is innovative. She also said Everett doesn’t have the space for facilities like Cambridge does.

“I’m glad companies are moving away from animal testing, but don’t want Everett to get left behind other communities in the future when companies are already there,” Smith countered. “They are doing animal testing now and will go to other communities and change there. I don’t want to close the door to life science, so when they change, they’ll be here.”

Martins argued that previous ordinances prohibited testing. “That’s what our citizens supported,” she said. “Limited testing is still testing. I’m not against life science, but it’s possible to have life science without animal testing. They can test cell cultures, but it’s expensive.”

She also said, “In regard to high paying jobs, we don’t just get those jobs. We have to start with basics and think about funding our schools properly and job preparedness. We have to make sure our people are qualified. Otherwise, we’re just bringing in people from the outside.”

She didn’t mention that a local facility could prompt people to move to Everett.

Smith acknowledged there are alternatives and they are more expensive, but “in cities around us, they are doing animal testing.”

She also said, “Companies help with job force creation.”

In discussion, Garcia said, “Every single email I’ve gotten is against this. I have to listen to my constituents.”

Hanlon said, “I don’t think I want to see animal testing, but I don’t want to see the benefits it’s brought to the human race end” before voting for the new ordinance.

Matewsky added that he hopes the Mayor crafts a host agreement “that puts their feet to the fire.”

DiPierro said there were good arguments on both sides. “I’m torn,” he admitted. “The reality is if neighboring communities are allowing it, companies will go to those communities. Everett will not be an option.”