So who deserves the win?
Certainly, freshman councillor Ed Cameron (friend and neighbor) deserves a good deal of credit for pulling the senior center out of its death spiral. This thing looked dead last week when Cameron's own committee--Planning and Development--vote not to recommend the redesignation.
When I heard eight councillors needed to approve the designation, I figured the Cushing Park site was dead on arrival. With two councillors already on record against the redesignation, how hard could it be to find two other councilors to opppose the deal, especially with Ward 3 Councillor James Shanley having little choice but to oppose the idea if he didn't want to face an uprising in his own ward.
Mayor Moak certainly never said die. I'm not sure how common this practice is, but the mayor, in a weekend email to the council, tried to allay any concerns. It was a solid email. It had to help.
Perhaps the seniors themselves deserve the win. At-large councillor Donna Holaday herself said she was a solid "No" up until a few weeks ago until the flood of calls she received caused her to reconsider. She's still not 100% behind the Cushing Park site, but she recognized the redesignation was necessary if fund-raising for the construction of the center were to begin.
In fact, that positioning seemed to give councillors the political cover they needed to redesignate the park.
The council spent close to an hour considering an amendment put forth by Ward 2 Councillor Gregory Earls, who said he's still hadn't taken a position as of the start of the meeting. The amendment basically stamped an expiration date on the designation. Essentially, the redesignation will require a second council vote if the the Friends of the Council on Aging don't raise enough money to build the senior center in five years.
This means fund-raisers have five years to make some serious headway in raising funds or else the designation might be lost. (I'm a little worried this could encourage litigous types to slow this process down in court.)
The council also debated whether or not to include precise language that stipulated that the senior center could be built in another area if it was deemed more desirable. I'm not sure if language was necessary.
Councillors sitting on the fence clearly wanted to have it both ways. They didn't want to stand in the way of fund-raising for a new senior center, so they agreed to redesignate Cushing Park. This gives the fund-raising groups the final piece they needed before they can legally raise a single dollar--an actual location.
However, they also wanted to establish some distance from Cushing Park as a site for the senior center. They're hoping and praying some better site comes along before any ground is broken at the corner of Kent and Washington Streets.
Based only upon last night's commentary, it appeared to me that six councillors were strongly in favor of the redesignation: Cameron, Brian Derrivan, Tom O'Brien, Tom Jones, Steve Hutcheson and Larry McCavitt. Let me know if I misread this.
Three opposed: Shanley, Kathleen O'Connor Ives and Barry Connell. Shanley stepped down from the president's seat to oppose the project, saying a future senior center might be used as community center or other purposes that could adversely impact the neighborhood. "Overwhelmingly what I've heard from the neighborhood is please don't do this," he said.
In her opposition, Ives says she's concerned that attaching the senior center to the Cushing Park site could ultimately slow the project down because of legal questions over its status as a park, thanks to some sloppy work by a council in the 1950s. Connell said he preferred leasing a site as the needs of seniors may change with time, making it unwise to build a site to fit current requirements.
So with six in favor, and three against, it appears politics won the day by pulling both Earls and Holaday into the Yes column. But the seniors won too so who really cares.
Meanwhile, we'll credit Cameron and Mayor Moak with the save.
.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Extra! Extra!
The city council voted 8-3 to redesignate Cushing Park as a site for the senior center.
Yes: Cameron, Derrivan, Earls, Holaday, Hutcheson, Jones, McCavitt, O'Brien
No: Connell, Ives, Shanley
.
Yes: Cameron, Derrivan, Earls, Holaday, Hutcheson, Jones, McCavitt, O'Brien
No: Connell, Ives, Shanley
.
INCOMING!
Watching the Council on TV.
A fellow just submitted a petition requesting resident only parking for the streets surrounding the YWCA, saying the current system is untenable. The request was referred to the public safety committee.
This should be interesting. This City needs a comprehensive parking plan, and it needs it soon.
.
A fellow just submitted a petition requesting resident only parking for the streets surrounding the YWCA, saying the current system is untenable. The request was referred to the public safety committee.
This should be interesting. This City needs a comprehensive parking plan, and it needs it soon.
.
Hey
Pretty Snazzy Website.
This is a definite improvement, even with a typo.
Nice job.
Update: Gillian Swart scooped me by 30 minutes.
.
This is a definite improvement, even with a typo.
Nice job.
Update: Gillian Swart scooped me by 30 minutes.
.
And Counter Point
Mary Harbaugh was nice enough to pen a thoughtful rebuttal that warrants posting.
For the record, I don't think I'm blithely giving up anything. I've give it serious consideration and thought every time I walk through the park, roughly seven to 10 times per week. I honestly don't see the little piece o' Americana the opponents see when they draw images of the park. It's a parking lot.
As for Mary's hope that someday we'll reclaim it. I'd like to think that' s possible but I don't see that happening. Will the neighbors be happy with losing their parking spaces to a park instead of a senior center?
Anyway, Mary raises many plausible options. (Editing note: I lost Mary's paragraphs during the cut-and-paste so I added some breaks on my own. I think they work.)
We don't need to cannibalize a neighborhood recreation space -- a well-loved if somewhat scruffy area used by upwards of 150 people during the winter and many more than that the rest of the year for recreation.
(Tom, would you so blithely give up Perkins Park or Woodman Park or any other neighborhood space? Go take a look at any of them at the same time of day you walk through Cushing. No neighborhood park is busy all the time. I was at Cushing Park just yesterday afternoon, where I encountered two other dog walkers I know, as well as several parents with young children. Some of the kids were learning to ride bicycles on the hardscape. Other kids were throwing balls around.)
We can and will, one day, fix up the park, but not if we've given away -- forever -- the place where we nurture neighborliness and protect the quality of life of a dense neighborhood. Don't fool yourself -- if we give up the site as a neighborhood recreation area, we give it up. Even the proponents admit the one remaining basketball court would have to give way to parking whenever the need arises, which it surely will. Don't forget that several nearby residences were given permission to add units based on the proximity of nearby parking. Those folks will be competing for the center's parking.
Are you also willing to ignore the adverse impact of other uses of the proposed building on the neighborhood? Some proponents look forward to renting out the building on weekends and evenings to help cover maintenance and other costs. That's likely to affect street parking year-round, add noise and traffic, and change the "you must be my neighbor" feeling of the area.The trend nationwide is to *add* neighborhood parks to promote the health and civic engagement of residents and to enhance a community's appeal for economic development purposes. Chicago, to name just one place I was reading about recently, is actually tearing down buildings to create neighborhood parks.
In fact, Newburyport is also actively working to increase public recreational space, to provide more places for kids to play.We don't need to give up a neighborhood park!So what about a senior center? For starters, we may want to rethink the criteria for site selection.If what we're talking about is a senior center intended to appeal to some large percentage of the city's 4000 seniors -- a center that can readily adapt to the changing needs of a diverse group of seniors in the coming decades -- a center that reflects best practices in land use and urban planning -- a center that can incorporate some self-financing component to assure its operation in tough fiscal times -- then we need a malleable space in a commercial/institutional area, and we need a programming and a transportation plan to go with it.In this scenario, we could partner with a developer to build above existing retail, or partner with a redeveloper of sites downtown, at Storey Ave, or at the traffic circle. With a transportation plan and handicapped upgades, we could use the Kelley School.
If, one the other hand, what we're talking about is the senior center that Ed Cameron describes -- a center designed to serve the perhaps 5-7 percent of seniors who are socially isolated and uncomfortable socializing in more community-oriented spaces (such as the library program room, a park, a coffee shop, or one of the existing large common rooms in our senior housing complexes), folks who have difficulty traveling to various locations -- then we're talking about a more specialized, social-services approach. (I'm told that an important component involves a volunteer sitting down with a group of seniors for a meal or cup of coffee, alert to any mention of hardship, so that services can be arranged to help that person.) In this scenario, we could also be talking about a shorter horizon of need for a specific building setup, as technology and transportation changes, as well as demographic changes, will shape how such services are delivered in the future.
We don't need as large a building as is now proposed, because a simple staggered schedule will accommodate the programming for this relatively small, relatively homogenous group. We could look for an agreement with a church for use of space on weekday mornings and early afternoons. With some bridge financing, we could buy a building such as the one mentioned by Kathleen O'Connor Ives at the last public meeting on this issue. We could revisit some hastily rejected options with a clearer idea of the immediate need.
Thanks Mary
I should point out that Ed Cameron addresses many of these issues in his comprehensive post. See the link in the below post.
.
For the record, I don't think I'm blithely giving up anything. I've give it serious consideration and thought every time I walk through the park, roughly seven to 10 times per week. I honestly don't see the little piece o' Americana the opponents see when they draw images of the park. It's a parking lot.
As for Mary's hope that someday we'll reclaim it. I'd like to think that' s possible but I don't see that happening. Will the neighbors be happy with losing their parking spaces to a park instead of a senior center?
Anyway, Mary raises many plausible options. (Editing note: I lost Mary's paragraphs during the cut-and-paste so I added some breaks on my own. I think they work.)
We don't need to cannibalize a neighborhood recreation space -- a well-loved if somewhat scruffy area used by upwards of 150 people during the winter and many more than that the rest of the year for recreation.
(Tom, would you so blithely give up Perkins Park or Woodman Park or any other neighborhood space? Go take a look at any of them at the same time of day you walk through Cushing. No neighborhood park is busy all the time. I was at Cushing Park just yesterday afternoon, where I encountered two other dog walkers I know, as well as several parents with young children. Some of the kids were learning to ride bicycles on the hardscape. Other kids were throwing balls around.)
We can and will, one day, fix up the park, but not if we've given away -- forever -- the place where we nurture neighborliness and protect the quality of life of a dense neighborhood. Don't fool yourself -- if we give up the site as a neighborhood recreation area, we give it up. Even the proponents admit the one remaining basketball court would have to give way to parking whenever the need arises, which it surely will. Don't forget that several nearby residences were given permission to add units based on the proximity of nearby parking. Those folks will be competing for the center's parking.
Are you also willing to ignore the adverse impact of other uses of the proposed building on the neighborhood? Some proponents look forward to renting out the building on weekends and evenings to help cover maintenance and other costs. That's likely to affect street parking year-round, add noise and traffic, and change the "you must be my neighbor" feeling of the area.The trend nationwide is to *add* neighborhood parks to promote the health and civic engagement of residents and to enhance a community's appeal for economic development purposes. Chicago, to name just one place I was reading about recently, is actually tearing down buildings to create neighborhood parks.
In fact, Newburyport is also actively working to increase public recreational space, to provide more places for kids to play.We don't need to give up a neighborhood park!So what about a senior center? For starters, we may want to rethink the criteria for site selection.If what we're talking about is a senior center intended to appeal to some large percentage of the city's 4000 seniors -- a center that can readily adapt to the changing needs of a diverse group of seniors in the coming decades -- a center that reflects best practices in land use and urban planning -- a center that can incorporate some self-financing component to assure its operation in tough fiscal times -- then we need a malleable space in a commercial/institutional area, and we need a programming and a transportation plan to go with it.In this scenario, we could partner with a developer to build above existing retail, or partner with a redeveloper of sites downtown, at Storey Ave, or at the traffic circle. With a transportation plan and handicapped upgades, we could use the Kelley School.
If, one the other hand, what we're talking about is the senior center that Ed Cameron describes -- a center designed to serve the perhaps 5-7 percent of seniors who are socially isolated and uncomfortable socializing in more community-oriented spaces (such as the library program room, a park, a coffee shop, or one of the existing large common rooms in our senior housing complexes), folks who have difficulty traveling to various locations -- then we're talking about a more specialized, social-services approach. (I'm told that an important component involves a volunteer sitting down with a group of seniors for a meal or cup of coffee, alert to any mention of hardship, so that services can be arranged to help that person.) In this scenario, we could also be talking about a shorter horizon of need for a specific building setup, as technology and transportation changes, as well as demographic changes, will shape how such services are delivered in the future.
We don't need as large a building as is now proposed, because a simple staggered schedule will accommodate the programming for this relatively small, relatively homogenous group. We could look for an agreement with a church for use of space on weekday mornings and early afternoons. With some bridge financing, we could buy a building such as the one mentioned by Kathleen O'Connor Ives at the last public meeting on this issue. We could revisit some hastily rejected options with a clearer idea of the immediate need.
Thanks Mary
I should point out that Ed Cameron addresses many of these issues in his comprehensive post. See the link in the below post.
.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
The Mayor's Senior Center Moment
I think the mayor makes an effective argument in favor of the senior center. (See The Mayor Makes His Case.)
I never really had a strong opinion on the Cushing Park location. I acknowledge a senior center is a worthwhile service. I question whether we can afford it during these tough times.
My concerns eased a bit when I learned the building could be built with donations and non-budget dollars. If that can be done--and that's a sizable if--than I say let's try.
So, putting aside the financial concerns for a moment, is Cushing Park the answer?
I put forth the idea two months ago about finding a temporary home downtown. The not-to-be Chico's site is one possibility. I'm sure there are other suitable sites, but they've been vacant and suitable for some time and nothing happens. I take this to means some integral part of the equation isn't interested in the idea.
So if I'm on the council, here are what I'd see as the key questions.
1. Will it ruin the dynamic of the neighborhood?
No. It'll change the dynamic, yes but not ruin it. I walk through the park everyday. It's an empty wasteland most days. I think a small, tasteful senior center wouldn't be a problem. In fact, it might be an improvement.
2. Where will people park during snowstorms?
I'll admit this up front. I have a driveway, a sizable driveway that fits my car and my neighbor's car. So this doesn't impact me. But I think it's a mistake to maintain an ugly, empty parking lot for 360 days per year because someone must park their on five days (or 15 for those folks who abuse the parking privileges and leave their cars for days on end.)
One possibility? Can't we allow some on street parking in the North End during snow storms? Some of the streets certainly are wide enough (including mine) to handle the flow.
3. Will seniors use it?
This is my biggest question. I'm told there are surveys that suggest they will, but I haven't heard anyone saying they absolutely love this site.
They love the possibility of having this site, but is anyone really excited about the idea of having the senior center here? And if they're not will they use it once it's built and the novelty (and accomplishment) is over?
4. Is this the quickest route?
Some are concerned opponents will tie things up in court challenging the legality of the park's status. Read George Roaf's letter for more. Well, I don't think the potential for litigation should sway the council from doing something. Approve the site, and if folks sue we'll cross that bridge then. But then it's clear that those folks are the obstructionists, not the council.
Roaf makes some good points about the status of the park. But one thing to remember is the senior center won't require the entire park. We'll still have the courts, the playgrounds and good deal of the parking.
The mayor makes a good case. I think I vote yes.
.
I never really had a strong opinion on the Cushing Park location. I acknowledge a senior center is a worthwhile service. I question whether we can afford it during these tough times.
My concerns eased a bit when I learned the building could be built with donations and non-budget dollars. If that can be done--and that's a sizable if--than I say let's try.
So, putting aside the financial concerns for a moment, is Cushing Park the answer?
I put forth the idea two months ago about finding a temporary home downtown. The not-to-be Chico's site is one possibility. I'm sure there are other suitable sites, but they've been vacant and suitable for some time and nothing happens. I take this to means some integral part of the equation isn't interested in the idea.
So if I'm on the council, here are what I'd see as the key questions.
1. Will it ruin the dynamic of the neighborhood?
No. It'll change the dynamic, yes but not ruin it. I walk through the park everyday. It's an empty wasteland most days. I think a small, tasteful senior center wouldn't be a problem. In fact, it might be an improvement.
2. Where will people park during snowstorms?
I'll admit this up front. I have a driveway, a sizable driveway that fits my car and my neighbor's car. So this doesn't impact me. But I think it's a mistake to maintain an ugly, empty parking lot for 360 days per year because someone must park their on five days (or 15 for those folks who abuse the parking privileges and leave their cars for days on end.)
One possibility? Can't we allow some on street parking in the North End during snow storms? Some of the streets certainly are wide enough (including mine) to handle the flow.
3. Will seniors use it?
This is my biggest question. I'm told there are surveys that suggest they will, but I haven't heard anyone saying they absolutely love this site.
They love the possibility of having this site, but is anyone really excited about the idea of having the senior center here? And if they're not will they use it once it's built and the novelty (and accomplishment) is over?
4. Is this the quickest route?
Some are concerned opponents will tie things up in court challenging the legality of the park's status. Read George Roaf's letter for more. Well, I don't think the potential for litigation should sway the council from doing something. Approve the site, and if folks sue we'll cross that bridge then. But then it's clear that those folks are the obstructionists, not the council.
Roaf makes some good points about the status of the park. But one thing to remember is the senior center won't require the entire park. We'll still have the courts, the playgrounds and good deal of the parking.
The mayor makes a good case. I think I vote yes.
.
Economy Slowing Karp Down?
I said it before and I'll say it again. Karp isn't bringing forth any plans for the Waterside West lot this year.
Want some proof? The Nashua Telegraph suggests the economy is slowing down a New England Development product in Nashua.
.
Want some proof? The Nashua Telegraph suggests the economy is slowing down a New England Development product in Nashua.
.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The Mayor Makes His Case
I'm told Mayor Moak sent the following to city councillors (but not to this blogger.)
City Councillors,
I would be remiss in not making a few statements about Cushing Park and the Senior Center.
1. The criteria used to determine a site has been very objective and thorough. For nine years part of my profession involved consulting on library building projects, part of that service was site selection. I believe the process for this site selection was effective. Interestingly, 6 projects called for work with senior centers, successful in 4 sites in Connecticut where municipal complexes were built with separate buildings, in Mass. 2 projects that were built were not as successful because of the scheduling of shared common building spaces and parking capacity issues during the daytime.
2. I believe that Cushing Park is our second best location for a senior center, my first choice has always been the area that is now a soccer field at Cashman Park, but we could not have erected a soccer field at Cushing Park, and what would that have done for the neighbors parking concerns.
3. The request to the council is to change use of parking lot not the Ayer Play ground. We have consulted our City Solicitor, Office of Environmental Affairs and Attorney General's Office, the only concern is the vote in 1954 by the City Council to designate this area as a parking lot, it was an affirmative vote, but was it 2/3's… we cannot determine that. The documents you have received from me address that issue. The decision was made to designate this space for parking; a legal challenge would be very difficult.
4. The talk of the Kelley School comes up; we are working diligently to set standards to preserve the historic significance of this building while we try to determine final use. Today I strongly support the use of this building for youth services and community services. The building cannot house these services and senior services. We can make this building a true youth and educational enrichment center if we can find funds to adapt to ADA. Today we have commitment letters form the following agencies who would like to share space and pay rent. YMCA, Jeannie Geiger Crisis Center, Girls, Inc., Learning Enrichment Center, Adult & Community Education, Hugh Doyle Resource Center, after school drop in center, and of course our youth services.
5. I have recently heard of some very generous gifts that are viable funding sources to assist a senior center once a plan is developed, I do believe that these gifts can be a reality as long as the donors are still able to give.
Thank you for considering this essential service for our citizens.
John Moak
How strong is his case? My answer is in the next post.
.
City Councillors,
I would be remiss in not making a few statements about Cushing Park and the Senior Center.
1. The criteria used to determine a site has been very objective and thorough. For nine years part of my profession involved consulting on library building projects, part of that service was site selection. I believe the process for this site selection was effective. Interestingly, 6 projects called for work with senior centers, successful in 4 sites in Connecticut where municipal complexes were built with separate buildings, in Mass. 2 projects that were built were not as successful because of the scheduling of shared common building spaces and parking capacity issues during the daytime.
2. I believe that Cushing Park is our second best location for a senior center, my first choice has always been the area that is now a soccer field at Cashman Park, but we could not have erected a soccer field at Cushing Park, and what would that have done for the neighbors parking concerns.
3. The request to the council is to change use of parking lot not the Ayer Play ground. We have consulted our City Solicitor, Office of Environmental Affairs and Attorney General's Office, the only concern is the vote in 1954 by the City Council to designate this area as a parking lot, it was an affirmative vote, but was it 2/3's… we cannot determine that. The documents you have received from me address that issue. The decision was made to designate this space for parking; a legal challenge would be very difficult.
4. The talk of the Kelley School comes up; we are working diligently to set standards to preserve the historic significance of this building while we try to determine final use. Today I strongly support the use of this building for youth services and community services. The building cannot house these services and senior services. We can make this building a true youth and educational enrichment center if we can find funds to adapt to ADA. Today we have commitment letters form the following agencies who would like to share space and pay rent. YMCA, Jeannie Geiger Crisis Center, Girls, Inc., Learning Enrichment Center, Adult & Community Education, Hugh Doyle Resource Center, after school drop in center, and of course our youth services.
5. I have recently heard of some very generous gifts that are viable funding sources to assist a senior center once a plan is developed, I do believe that these gifts can be a reality as long as the donors are still able to give.
Thank you for considering this essential service for our citizens.
John Moak
How strong is his case? My answer is in the next post.
.
Friday, June 27, 2008
History and stuff
Mary Baker connects to another Port-centric site today. This time, its NBPTA.com. I think it's turned up on a few Google searches I've performed, but I never really looked too deeply.
Apparently, the site hopes to educate visitors to Newburyport's history form 1950 to 1990, which might affectionately be known to some as the "pre-Tom Salemi" era.
I'm all for education and history, so it gets two solid thumbs up from me.
Speaking of historical perspectives, I just finished John Marquand's Point of No Return. I thought it was an outstanding account of what life must have been like in Newburyport in the early part of the 20th Century, but this semi-historical depiction is rich with timeless lessons.
I look at Port a bit differently these days, with a few more layers of context.
.
Apparently, the site hopes to educate visitors to Newburyport's history form 1950 to 1990, which might affectionately be known to some as the "pre-Tom Salemi" era.
I'm all for education and history, so it gets two solid thumbs up from me.
Speaking of historical perspectives, I just finished John Marquand's Point of No Return. I thought it was an outstanding account of what life must have been like in Newburyport in the early part of the 20th Century, but this semi-historical depiction is rich with timeless lessons.
I look at Port a bit differently these days, with a few more layers of context.
.
The Mahket at Pine Hills
The Current's Plymouth equivalent has a write up on the new market at New England Development's Pinehills in Plymouth. I would not mind having one downtown.
There is a video but you might find a better use for four minutes of your time on this Earth.
.
There is a video but you might find a better use for four minutes of your time on this Earth.
.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
I can't find the survey
Bean gets the finder's fee.
http://www.newburyportpolice.com/SURVEY.htm
Fill it out and drop it off. Or email it in if anonymity isn't an issue.
Can you find the survey? From the Daily News.
I looked all over the web site and couldn't find the survey. I'd take it if I could.
.
http://www.newburyportpolice.com/SURVEY.htm
Fill it out and drop it off. Or email it in if anonymity isn't an issue.
Newburyport: Police extend deadline for survey responses By Dan
AtkinsonStaff Writer
NEWBURYPORT — What's a bigger problem in Newburyport —
cars not yielding to pedestrians, stray and/or barking dogs, or youths "hanging
around?"
Those are some of the questions the Newburyport Police Department
wants citizens to answer in its public safety survey. Police have only about a
dozen completed surveys so far, so they are extending the deadline for returning
them to June 30, according to Lt. Mark Murray.
The survey queries
respondents about their perceptions of crime in Newburyport and the department's
response to it.
"We want to get a general idea about how people feel about
us, if we can do better," Murray said.
The department last surveyed residents
about four years ago, Murray said. He hopes this survey's results are mostly
positive but said he expects some negative responses.
"I hope we get at least
a B-plus," Murray said. "I know we're not perfect."
Surveys are available at
City Hall, the library, the police station and several facilities for senior
citizens, Murray said, as well as online at
newburyportpolice.com. Completed surveys can be returned to City Hall
or the police station or e-mailed to the department's Web site.
I looked all over the web site and couldn't find the survey. I'd take it if I could.
.
Help
I've got a birthday dinner coming up. I've hit most places in town, but I'm interested in trying something new in the Seacoast area.
Any suggestions?
Any suggestions?
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead
And Cushing Park is still a park. I'm told the City Council's Planning and Development Committee voted 2-1 against recommending to change the status of Cushing Park, which needs to be done if a senior center is going to be built there.
The council as a whole still needs to vote on this matter, but this can't bode well for the project. It's not clear as to whether eight or six councilors need to support the change.
No word on who the supporters/dissenters were. Ward 4 Councillor Ed Cameron has been supportive of the notion of building a senior center at that location, and he chairs that committee.
We're guessing he's the yes vote.
Kathleen O'Connor Ives and Barry Connell are the other two members. So perhaps they're the nos?
I'm guessing here folks. I'll take any facts.
UPDATE: Here's today's News account.
.
The council as a whole still needs to vote on this matter, but this can't bode well for the project. It's not clear as to whether eight or six councilors need to support the change.
No word on who the supporters/dissenters were. Ward 4 Councillor Ed Cameron has been supportive of the notion of building a senior center at that location, and he chairs that committee.
We're guessing he's the yes vote.
Kathleen O'Connor Ives and Barry Connell are the other two members. So perhaps they're the nos?
I'm guessing here folks. I'll take any facts.
UPDATE: Here's today's News account.
.
Quick Hits
Little River: Wow. I mean, Wow. I'm shocked by this. I had a chance to sit through one of the presentations for the Little River project and I was impressed. I thought it'd be a nice fit for that part of Newbury. It would clean up an ugly eyesore, and it would provide another destination for the bike path connecting the MBTA station with the Newburyport downtown.
I feared the water and sewer hurdles would be higher than others anticipated. From what I'm told Newburyport might have held out for the right to drill a new well in Newbury, with the water than being sold back to Newbury's residents. I could see that being a problem, but I didn't anticipate this.
Well, I respect the people's decision. But Newbury's fianancial picture looked pretty bleak without this passage of this project.
p.s. I do hope that the News has more dialogue from the meeting in tomorrow's meeting. I suspect deadlines kept the article brief.
Landfill: Well, I know the news that we'll have to pay some lawyers to work on the landfill case isn't welcome, but it seems to me if we don't pay money now we'll be paying in one way or another years from now. So I view today's news as a positive development.
Concerts: Put me in for $20.
.
I feared the water and sewer hurdles would be higher than others anticipated. From what I'm told Newburyport might have held out for the right to drill a new well in Newbury, with the water than being sold back to Newbury's residents. I could see that being a problem, but I didn't anticipate this.
Well, I respect the people's decision. But Newbury's fianancial picture looked pretty bleak without this passage of this project.
p.s. I do hope that the News has more dialogue from the meeting in tomorrow's meeting. I suspect deadlines kept the article brief.
Landfill: Well, I know the news that we'll have to pay some lawyers to work on the landfill case isn't welcome, but it seems to me if we don't pay money now we'll be paying in one way or another years from now. So I view today's news as a positive development.
Concerts: Put me in for $20.
.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Globe Article
Today's Globe had a follow up, one of many I'm sure, on New Ventures/Landfill follow up. (Gillian Swart had said this was happening.)
Worth a read.
Highlights
* William Thiebeault himself speaks, and he's disappointed.
* Our city officials apparently haven't taken any donations from Thibeault. As was pointed out in Ari Herzog's blog, the same can't be said for our state senator.
* This thing is going to court this week, which I say justifies the executive sessions (except for the vote to reject the offer. I'm not sure why that was secret.)
I still say kudos to the council for rejecting this proposal. Now let's see what the courts say. I'd be lying if I said I weren't a bit worried.
Worth a read.
Highlights
* William Thiebeault himself speaks, and he's disappointed.
* Our city officials apparently haven't taken any donations from Thibeault. As was pointed out in Ari Herzog's blog, the same can't be said for our state senator.
* This thing is going to court this week, which I say justifies the executive sessions (except for the vote to reject the offer. I'm not sure why that was secret.)
State environmental officials, who are still weighing Thibeault's latest proposal and must sign off on it, have declined comment. The state attorney general's office is overseeing a court-ordered capping and closing of Crow Lane, and all sides in the dispute are due back in Suffolk Superior Court on Tuesday.
After Newburyport's leaders rejected the proposal Wednesday, Mark Reich, the city's attorney, said in an interview that he was "worried" the move would generate more litigation.
I still say kudos to the council for rejecting this proposal. Now let's see what the courts say. I'd be lying if I said I weren't a bit worried.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Who Cares?
So I think I've figured this out.
I was a little disappointed with the meager turnout at the landfill meeting. I'm told that--despite my assertions--that the landfill problem is an issue only for the abutters.
That got me thinking. It's a refrain I've heard consistently since I heard back. One afflicted population or another complains in the paper or in blogs that the rest of the city just doesn't care enough about their particular issue.
So I thought I'd spell it out a little more clearly.
By my measures, the community at large doesn't care about...
I was a little disappointed with the meager turnout at the landfill meeting. I'm told that--despite my assertions--that the landfill problem is an issue only for the abutters.
That got me thinking. It's a refrain I've heard consistently since I heard back. One afflicted population or another complains in the paper or in blogs that the rest of the city just doesn't care enough about their particular issue.
So I thought I'd spell it out a little more clearly.
By my measures, the community at large doesn't care about...
Folks living near the landfill.
People on Plum Island
Parents with kids in school.
Senior citizens who want a senior center.
Senior citizens on limited budgets
Our teenagers.
Kid in schools.
Am I missing anyone?
So, by this account, it would appear the community-at-large only truly cares about young to middle-aged adults who have no children and live between the South End, Route 95, and Low Street, in other words folks who don't really require anything from the community-at-large.
That's what makes them so darned lovable.
.
Took Three Minutes
Got this email from School Committee member Stephanie Weaver
It literally took less than three minutes. And it doesn't cost a dime.
Hope all is well. I'm writing to let you know that the School Committee is conducting a community survey as part of its annual self-evaluation. So far we have good response from school parents, but we haven't had a strong participation rate from the rest of the community.
If you haven’t taken the survey yourself, and want to take a look at it, it can be found at www.newburyport.k12.ma.us/scsurvey. If folks do not have access to a computer, hard copies of the survey can be found at City Hall and the Newburyport Public Library.
We welcome participation and comments from all members of the Newburyport community.
It literally took less than three minutes. And it doesn't cost a dime.
What'd I miss?
Well,
Business took me out of town for a few days, so I missed the party at City Hall on Wednesday.
I did catch up on the news online, and I wasn't as discouraged as some by the decision to ask the mayor to go back to the negotiating table. I recognize we'd all feel best if Mayor Moak formed a posse to drive the black hats out of town. But life ain't a Western.
We're going to have to do business with New Ventures in some capacity, in my unwanted opinion. I think that's clear. The question is under whose terms. I'd prefer them to be ours.
I think a more definitive decision--i.e. the City Council tells New Ventures to shove it--would open the door for the Department of Ineffective Protection to cram something down the city's vote.
So I saw the vote as shrewd. But I can understand why some folks were disappointed.
I do wonder why the vote was held in executive session. The council had discussed the proposal in open session during the previous landfill meeting. It seems the vote, at very least, should have been in open session.
Business took me out of town for a few days, so I missed the party at City Hall on Wednesday.
I did catch up on the news online, and I wasn't as discouraged as some by the decision to ask the mayor to go back to the negotiating table. I recognize we'd all feel best if Mayor Moak formed a posse to drive the black hats out of town. But life ain't a Western.
We're going to have to do business with New Ventures in some capacity, in my unwanted opinion. I think that's clear. The question is under whose terms. I'd prefer them to be ours.
I think a more definitive decision--i.e. the City Council tells New Ventures to shove it--would open the door for the Department of Ineffective Protection to cram something down the city's vote.
So I saw the vote as shrewd. But I can understand why some folks were disappointed.
I do wonder why the vote was held in executive session. The council had discussed the proposal in open session during the previous landfill meeting. It seems the vote, at very least, should have been in open session.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
It's going to be your problem now
As the Daily News reports, The City Council is meeting Wednesday night, first in public, then in private, to figure out what the next step is regarding the Crow's Lane landfill. A potential lawsuit, presumably inolving New Ventures, is on the table.
So this no longer is a neighborhood issue. It's a community issue.
Any lawsuit will cost money, money that might otherwise be spent on services for the rest of us. After listening to the complaints of the Crow's Lane folks, I happen to think it would be money necessarily spent.
But make your own decision. It's time to step up. Hit tonight's meeting. Listen to what your fellow residents have dealt with and--based on those first hand accounts--determine how much you're willing to take.
Oh, and please check out Gillian Swart's blog, particularly this diddy about some smack talk from Everett's mayor.
.
So this no longer is a neighborhood issue. It's a community issue.
Any lawsuit will cost money, money that might otherwise be spent on services for the rest of us. After listening to the complaints of the Crow's Lane folks, I happen to think it would be money necessarily spent.
But make your own decision. It's time to step up. Hit tonight's meeting. Listen to what your fellow residents have dealt with and--based on those first hand accounts--determine how much you're willing to take.
Oh, and please check out Gillian Swart's blog, particularly this diddy about some smack talk from Everett's mayor.
.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Clam Shack
I really have one question about this clam shack controvery, and it relates to the issue of ownership.
Has Mark Roland been paying taxes on this land since he bought the house in 1994?
If he has been paying taxes on the land I'd say he owns it. If not, I'd guess he doesn't.
I'm not suggesting he still shouldn't live there if he doesn't. But he'll have to pay something in lieu of texes.
The city's Vision database suggests assessments for both property and building, if I'm reading them correctly.
Any answers out there?
Has Mark Roland been paying taxes on this land since he bought the house in 1994?
If he has been paying taxes on the land I'd say he owns it. If not, I'd guess he doesn't.
I'm not suggesting he still shouldn't live there if he doesn't. But he'll have to pay something in lieu of texes.
The city's Vision database suggests assessments for both property and building, if I'm reading them correctly.
Any answers out there?
Saturday, June 14, 2008
This Sucks
As I wrote to my father-in-law...
I'm struck by how much his death really has affected me. I rarely watch him except on election night so his professional impact will be minimal.
But what I guess I'll miss most is his decency. He just seemed like a good, good man.
I can think of no finerepithetepitaph.
True, we never know the true nature of celebrities. But I think the decency was genuine.
I truly feel for his son too, losing his dad so close to Father's Day.
Anyway, I'm glad I'm spending tomorrow with my dad, father-in-law, and, of course, The Boy.
Happy Father's Day to all.
.
Friday, June 13, 2008
More on the clam shack
I'll blog more on this later, but for your reading pleasure.
Some folks ain't happy.
I know. Stop the presses.
This does answer our question about the ownership issue.
Now the question is, who would challenge that and where? Would it be the city's challenge? Or could abutters raise an argument.
.
Some folks ain't happy.
I know. Stop the presses.
This does answer our question about the ownership issue.
His proposal has been marked with controversy from the start, including when it was questioned whether Roland even owned the riverfront land or if the city owned it — something that remains unanswered but outside the purview of the ZBA.
Now the question is, who would challenge that and where? Would it be the city's challenge? Or could abutters raise an argument.
.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
A Little Positive Thought Today
From Mike Barry, who donated $100,000 to the Pioneer League. Nice article in the DN.
Amen.
.
"I volunteer because I can and it's the right thing to do. I haven't seen my father since I was 11. People helped me become a man, and when somebody helps you, you turn around and help someone else. It's a circle of help. I don't expect the people I help to do something for me. I expect them to do something for someone else when they're able."
Amen.
.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Okay One
A friend sent me this Globe Blog item on the very very interesting Clamshack decision.
More comments later, except for this. The Photo is cool. It's a Globe File Photo. Must have been an old file.
Update: Here's the link .
We interrupt this blog with..
No time to blog today. But here's a message from Ward 4 buddy Ed Cameron.
That is all.
Dear friend,
A Planning and Development Committee meeting has been posted for Tuesday, June 24th at 7pm in the City Hall auditorium. This has also been posted as a Committee of the Whole. At that meeting, the Committee will be discussing Cushing Park.
I will ask that the Daily News and Current publicize the meeting but please also spread the word to interested citizens.
Thank you,
Councillor Edward Cameron
That is all.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Softball Team Wanted
Any semi- to low-competitive softball team looking for a no-hit, no-glove slowfooted first-baseman type? I can also misplay balls in the outfield if needed.
All interested parties can contact me here.
Of course if we get a few more blogs in town we could field a team of our own.
All interested parties can contact me here.
Of course if we get a few more blogs in town we could field a team of our own.
Absolutely Chilling
From Gillian Swart's blog. I'd normally just link but this deserves a copy and paste.
Chilling, but not surprising, I'm afraid. Well, if I'm on the council this makes my job easier. Time to send a big (screw) you vote to the state.
A commenter asked a question that I've been wondering myself. Where are our state reps on this? Will they really permit the state to shovel unwanted trash down our throats?
Honestly, I'm sure the DEP commissioner won't lose much sleep over this but I've lost complete faith in an organization that I once trusted. Again, I'm just going by testimony I've heard over the past weeks. First we were told the state overrode a decision by our conservation commission to favor New Ventures.
Now this. How can this be?
Comment from Everett re: landfill
Thought this deserved to stand on its own, as well as being a comment to a post:
FYI
Attorney Anthony Rossi, Mr Thibeault's attorney, just stated at The City of Everett's Alderman's meeting that if Newburyport votes against the increased trucking, the state will step in and override your Council's vote.
I think both of our communities are screwed.
7:44 p.m.
Chilling, but not surprising, I'm afraid. Well, if I'm on the council this makes my job easier. Time to send a big (screw) you vote to the state.
A commenter asked a question that I've been wondering myself. Where are our state reps on this? Will they really permit the state to shovel unwanted trash down our throats?
Honestly, I'm sure the DEP commissioner won't lose much sleep over this but I've lost complete faith in an organization that I once trusted. Again, I'm just going by testimony I've heard over the past weeks. First we were told the state overrode a decision by our conservation commission to favor New Ventures.
Now this. How can this be?
Welcome Hopscotch
You had me at Salmon BLTs.
The Daily News has a nice report on the new downtown eatery. Glad to see no one lost their shirts on the short-lived Theory. In fact, the same owner will be running Hopscotch.
Sounds like he can recognize good advice.
The Daily News has a nice report on the new downtown eatery. Glad to see no one lost their shirts on the short-lived Theory. In fact, the same owner will be running Hopscotch.
Sounds like he can recognize good advice.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Why I love living here...
Reason #39
I've got an ice cream truck driving past my house.
God I missed that.
I've got an ice cream truck driving past my house.
God I missed that.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Anyone Else Notice..
ABC's cameras caught Steve Karp sitting in front of Magic Johnson at Game 2.
I honestly think the announcers had no idea who Karp was. How could that be?
Update: "Mr. X." beat me to it.
I honestly think the announcers had no idea who Karp was. How could that be?
Update: "Mr. X." beat me to it.
Thump
I had no idea this was the other shoe. According to the Boston Globe, the owner of New Ventures wants to haul his trash in Everett all the way to Newburyport so he can build a hotel or biotechnology center on his site in Everett.
Did I miss this somewhere?
I've got some other questions too.
(Update: Just to be clear, the shocking part is the development, not the hauling of the stuff. See comments.)
Did I miss this somewhere?
I've got some other questions too.
(Update: Just to be clear, the shocking part is the development, not the hauling of the stuff. See comments.)
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Quick Hits
Landfill: I'm not surprised by this. As I said, I'm convinced Monday's meeting--including the executive sessions--changed a few minds. Makes me proud.
A-frame signs: I walk downtown everyday, and I'm rarely inconvenienced or annoyed by an A-frame sign. Is this really a problem? I'm not a big fan of the North Pole signs. I think they're a tad nerdy (dorky? goofy?, you pick.) Is this a solution in search of a problem?
A-frame signs: I walk downtown everyday, and I'm rarely inconvenienced or annoyed by an A-frame sign. Is this really a problem? I'm not a big fan of the North Pole signs. I think they're a tad nerdy (dorky? goofy?, you pick.) Is this a solution in search of a problem?
Friday, June 6, 2008
Just Say No
I apologize for the delay in posting this. Busy work week, plus I wanted to take a few days to consider Monday's powerful meeting.
One of the benefits of waiting three or four days to write a post on the landfill mess is much of what you initially wanted to say already gets said. So read yesterday's Daily News editorial. Read Stephen Tait's excellent reports from Tuesday and Wednesday.
Gillian Swart has been covering this to death. I don't agree with her criticism or initial assessment of the council. But disagreement is a spice of life. And Ari Herzog has done his usual homework here.
Mary Eaton hit upon this issue in her welcome return here.
The Royless Current even ran a decent primer. It's only got one source, but the source, James Shanley, provided a clear picture from the Council's perspective.
I actually went to Monday's meeting thinking--and agreeing--that some sort of compromise was inevitable and imminent. But I left convinced the deal currently being offered this city isn't one worth signing, and I'm fairly sure several councillors agree.
The suffering neighbors did a superb job of presenting their case. Each speaker presented a fresh and powerful perspective. The City Council had wisely suspended the normal limits on public comment, but no speaker overstayed his or her welcome
Instead, they convinced me that the current proposal--at least what we know of it--would not bring an end to our nightmare. Yes, our nightmare. This issue really affects the entire community. We all may not be forced to close our windows in the summer time; endure nausea, nosebleeds and general ill health, but we're all being assaulted here whether we know it or not.
I do see wisdom in the council's patient approach. With the exception for Ward 5 Councillor Brian Derrivan, their overriding responsibility--and the source of their political power--comes from the city as a whole, not a particular ward or neighborhood.
Therefore, they must act on the interest of the city as a whole. And that's why they should reject this deal.
After the convincing testimony, I now doubt New Ventures can hold up their end of a deal without more assurances. Abutter after abutter presented examples of unkept promises and--even worse--shoddy practices that might ultimately fall upon us to repair.
Furthermore, this offering doesn't even provide us with any real protection from litigation associated with the landfill. Jim Stiles, speaking at the meeting, pointed out correctly that New Ventures wouldn't even release the city from any future liabilites. (The full letter is on Gillian's Blog.)
For those coming in late, the state designated the landfill a 21E site last year. This designation empowers New Ventures to sue anyone who has ever dumped somethin in the landfill, and that means the city. (Yeah, thanks a lot DEP.)
But the terms of the deal almost are secondary.
The health of our community is and should be the primary concern. I'm not talking about our physical health, which already has taken a hit, but our community's health.
Yes, accepting the proposed deal might stave off any lawsuits and preserve our fiscal house. But stability would come with too high a price if it means abandoning neighors in need.
So let's push for more. Eventually, we'll have to do business with New Ventures and the state to get this landfill capped. But let's demand for more assurances and safeguards.
And if the state brings down the hammer and forces us to accept some sort of unwelcome deal, fine. At least our community conscience will be clear.
All I can say is if that happens Deval Patrick's aides will have to do a better job briefing him next time.
.
One of the benefits of waiting three or four days to write a post on the landfill mess is much of what you initially wanted to say already gets said. So read yesterday's Daily News editorial. Read Stephen Tait's excellent reports from Tuesday and Wednesday.
Gillian Swart has been covering this to death. I don't agree with her criticism or initial assessment of the council. But disagreement is a spice of life. And Ari Herzog has done his usual homework here.
Mary Eaton hit upon this issue in her welcome return here.
The Royless Current even ran a decent primer. It's only got one source, but the source, James Shanley, provided a clear picture from the Council's perspective.
I actually went to Monday's meeting thinking--and agreeing--that some sort of compromise was inevitable and imminent. But I left convinced the deal currently being offered this city isn't one worth signing, and I'm fairly sure several councillors agree.
The suffering neighbors did a superb job of presenting their case. Each speaker presented a fresh and powerful perspective. The City Council had wisely suspended the normal limits on public comment, but no speaker overstayed his or her welcome
Instead, they convinced me that the current proposal--at least what we know of it--would not bring an end to our nightmare. Yes, our nightmare. This issue really affects the entire community. We all may not be forced to close our windows in the summer time; endure nausea, nosebleeds and general ill health, but we're all being assaulted here whether we know it or not.
I do see wisdom in the council's patient approach. With the exception for Ward 5 Councillor Brian Derrivan, their overriding responsibility--and the source of their political power--comes from the city as a whole, not a particular ward or neighborhood.
Therefore, they must act on the interest of the city as a whole. And that's why they should reject this deal.
After the convincing testimony, I now doubt New Ventures can hold up their end of a deal without more assurances. Abutter after abutter presented examples of unkept promises and--even worse--shoddy practices that might ultimately fall upon us to repair.
Furthermore, this offering doesn't even provide us with any real protection from litigation associated with the landfill. Jim Stiles, speaking at the meeting, pointed out correctly that New Ventures wouldn't even release the city from any future liabilites. (The full letter is on Gillian's Blog.)
All claims associated with New Ventures' demands for response costs under M.G.L c. 21E for past costs to cap and close the Landfill except those attributable to sewage sludge or any other hazardous material deposited by or
arranged by the City, even though a portion of the capping and closure costs may be attributable to the municipal waste that the City dumped at the
Landfill...
For those coming in late, the state designated the landfill a 21E site last year. This designation empowers New Ventures to sue anyone who has ever dumped somethin in the landfill, and that means the city. (Yeah, thanks a lot DEP.)
But the terms of the deal almost are secondary.
The health of our community is and should be the primary concern. I'm not talking about our physical health, which already has taken a hit, but our community's health.
Yes, accepting the proposed deal might stave off any lawsuits and preserve our fiscal house. But stability would come with too high a price if it means abandoning neighors in need.
So let's push for more. Eventually, we'll have to do business with New Ventures and the state to get this landfill capped. But let's demand for more assurances and safeguards.
And if the state brings down the hammer and forces us to accept some sort of unwelcome deal, fine. At least our community conscience will be clear.
All I can say is if that happens Deval Patrick's aides will have to do a better job briefing him next time.
.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Take a dip in the Merrimack
Jim Roy (correction Jim Stiles) floated (heee get it) this idea in his Current column a year or so ago. Sounded like a fine idea then, and I'm on board (wooo, look at this flow of puns) even more after reading this.
I miss that column.
I miss that column.
New Joint
My sources tell me a new restaurant, called Hopscotch, is moving into into the former Taffy's site.
It'll serve breakfast, lunch and do some catering.
Okay, my source is the sign. I walked by it this morning.
Good to see. Looking forward to having a new lunch place.
The previous restaurant, Theory, seemed to be just that. I only saw that place open once.
It'll serve breakfast, lunch and do some catering.
Okay, my source is the sign. I walked by it this morning.
Good to see. Looking forward to having a new lunch place.
The previous restaurant, Theory, seemed to be just that. I only saw that place open once.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
An Absolute Outrage
No, not the landfill issue. I'm working on that one.
I finally made it over to 10 Center Street this weekend. They completely eliminated all the booths that faced Center Street, replacing them with a single bench and three or four small tables along with opposing chairs.
What the hell?
Not only did this reconfiguration destroy a uniquely intimate setting, one worth forgoing all other settings. But the new bench blocks half the windows making a dark room darker. Plus, I'd swear there are fewer seats in that part of the restaurant.
I just don't understand.
.
I finally made it over to 10 Center Street this weekend. They completely eliminated all the booths that faced Center Street, replacing them with a single bench and three or four small tables along with opposing chairs.
What the hell?
Not only did this reconfiguration destroy a uniquely intimate setting, one worth forgoing all other settings. But the new bench blocks half the windows making a dark room darker. Plus, I'd swear there are fewer seats in that part of the restaurant.
I just don't understand.
.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Landfill, a retrospective
As I've noted before, I'm a bit late to the landfill party. So I sought a little perspective in the archives of the Daily News.
Here are the headlines over the past year-plus when searches the archives for "New Ventures." I'm sure there are some articles missing. I didn't have time to do multiple searches, but this gives a pretty good overview of what's transpired over the past year.
Things looked so hopeful for a time....
May
Landfill deal would double truck traffic Council to discuss latest offer Monday night
Council puts off landfill request to special meeting
Owners want embattled landfill to accept more waste
Newburyport: Landfill settlement near; city in dark about contents
April
Letter: Residents must take action to end nightmare at landfill
March
Our view: An outrage that deserves punishment
DEP: Landfill owner shut off odor control City calls action retribution for latest order
Newburyport shuts down landfill... again
Letter: Get very angry that state not fixing landfill problems
February
New Ventures fined again for odors Monday
Landfill stench overwhelms neighborhood; New problem with equipment blamed
Landfill operator appeals fines as smells persist
September 2007
State makes right move on Port's troubled landfill
Judge orders fast action on landfill
'Blame the victim' game is playing out at landfill
August
Landfill owner demands Port pay him millions
State asks court to let it finish work at landfill
February
State should take over Crow Lane landfill
Landfill shut down again
January
Landfill stench lingered for nearby residents
Residents optimistic dump will be capped
For more landfill talk, go over to Gillian Swart's blog.
Here are the headlines over the past year-plus when searches the archives for "New Ventures." I'm sure there are some articles missing. I didn't have time to do multiple searches, but this gives a pretty good overview of what's transpired over the past year.
Things looked so hopeful for a time....
May
Landfill deal would double truck traffic Council to discuss latest offer Monday night
Council puts off landfill request to special meeting
Owners want embattled landfill to accept more waste
Newburyport: Landfill settlement near; city in dark about contents
April
Letter: Residents must take action to end nightmare at landfill
March
Our view: An outrage that deserves punishment
DEP: Landfill owner shut off odor control City calls action retribution for latest order
Newburyport shuts down landfill... again
Letter: Get very angry that state not fixing landfill problems
February
New Ventures fined again for odors Monday
Landfill stench overwhelms neighborhood; New problem with equipment blamed
Landfill operator appeals fines as smells persist
September 2007
State makes right move on Port's troubled landfill
Judge orders fast action on landfill
'Blame the victim' game is playing out at landfill
August
Landfill owner demands Port pay him millions
State asks court to let it finish work at landfill
February
State should take over Crow Lane landfill
Landfill shut down again
January
Landfill stench lingered for nearby residents
Residents optimistic dump will be capped
For more landfill talk, go over to Gillian Swart's blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Friends from Afar
-
-
-
-
-
How to Compare Cell Phone Plans6 years ago
