I'd prefer that the NRA members didn't accept the invitation from Karp's team to meet individually at the Newburyport offices, although I can understand the interest in hearing what they had to say (and see an early schematic of the hotel project being eyed for the Waterfront East lot.)
According to Chairman James Shanley....
... NED was looking to NRA members to find out what their plans are for the NRA's East and West lots, which are known in local circles as "the dirt lots." The NRA has held public hearings on various plans for the lots but has not made a decision on what to do with them.
I concede there's a difference between their meetings and the proposed meeting with the Planning Board. The NRA is an abutter, not the political body that will be ensuring any projects abides by our city's regulations.
Karp's questions are legitimate, and it makes good business sense to find out what the NRA has in mind. The article suggests that New England Development wanted to understand how much parking might be available on the NRA lots to support a hotel on the East Lot (the current site of Oldies.) Just write a letter; schedule a meeting.
But the process just is bad political move. These private meetings with the NRA comes a week or so after the Daily News reported that the the Planning Department was open to private sessions between individual planning board members.
The thought behind both efforts would be to obtain a better understanding of what we're thinking without opening themselves up to a public meeting. I don't believe either set of meetings would violate the wording of the open meeting law but they certainly flout the spirit.
NED's consistent push for private meetings casts an unseemly pall on the early beginnings of Karp's Waterfront moves.
I'm not surprised the Shanley seemed to recognize the same.
Shanley said he wasn't entirely comfortable with the closed-door meetings and said not much emerged from them. Members of the Planning Board have also expressed a desire to hold all meetings in public session to ensure an open deliberation of Karp's plans to develop the city's waterfront.
"I wasn't thrilled with it, to be honest with you," Shanley said. "And I wouldn't certainly make a habit of it. No promises were made. No deals or action was taken. I just wish they'd come to our meetings."
I trust that was the case. I just wish the push for private meeting would stop. It's time we find out what they're thinking.
6 comments:
if "the" shanley as you put it, thought it was a bad idea, why did he allow it? seems like he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar so to speak and after the fact has come out to say he's against it...suspicious.
Congrats! You're hired as my copy editor.
Sounds to me like he's admitting to a mistake in taking the meeting.
Your "hand in the cookie jar" comment and your suspicion speaks to your perspective.
I don't happen to share it. I'll take him at his word.
why did he allow the meetings then, if he feels its a bad idea? More importantly, did he himself participate in one of those meetings?
I don't know. His quotes in the article suggested he had concerns from the start but went anyway. Again, maybe he realized it was a mistake.
The article suggests he did participate.
Again,I don't like the meetings either but the NRA is an abutter, not a regulatory body. It just happens to be a quasi-public abutter. So I have less of a problem with this then the Planning Board.
if he had a problem from the start why'd he go? Better yet, since he's a regular visitor to the blog, why doesn't he just explain?
Fair question by you.
Post a Comment