But this shouldn't really be a request. The NRA needs to say, "Talk about your plans on June 29 meeting or we will." The NRA members clearly saw something. Chairman James Shanley suggested in the Daily News that he saw some sort of model, so I'm guessing each NRA member saw the same in their individual meetings.
Shanley said he never saw the hotel plans that were submitted for that location many years ago, but he was shown a schematic of the latest hotel and a site plan.
"It's really about the same size I think," Shanley said. "I never saw the original plan so I have nothing to compare it to."
So if the BMM can't send Tony Green or another designate, the NRA can simply tell us what they saw, what they said, and what was said to them.*
Finally, if Tony Green is gracious enough to attend the meeting.
[Update: The NRA meeting will be held in the Council Chamber at 7 pm on June 29.]
*Note: I haven't attended any NRA meetings so perhaps this was done. But since the Daily News made no mention of such a discussion I'll assume it didn't happen. Please let me know if I'm missing something.
6 comments:
I agree that Shanley and the NRA are being too cagey here. If NED won't talk, NRA members owe it to us to reveal what they learned in their private meetings. Shanley should have said that weeks ago and could have avoided all this. That is the proper "remdial action," despite what their lawyer says.
so, it would appear from this post, that Shanley did in fact meet with NED, despite his "misgivings". that, coupled with today's piece in the daily news, makes this whole situation seem more sketchy.
Oh no it doesn't. Let's calm down here folks. The NRA has been talking about this for over a year. It was a central plank in Shanley's campaign (and one I endorse.) So let's not go crazy.
I need to be clear.
I didn't like the private meetings, but I'm not claiming anything untoward was done. The NRA is an abutter, not a regulatory body that oversees Waterside East or West so I have less of an issue with these meetings than I would have with the Planning Board.
And Shanley made it clear from the start that he met with NED.
Nothing is "crazy" about wanting the chairman of the NRA to stop being coy and to reveal what was discussed in a meeting that deasl with such an important topic. It's disingenuous for him to say he's "uncomfortable" with the private meeting and not tell us more. Karp is leaving Mr. Shanley in the lurch. If his company is not forthcoming, it's time for him to step up and let us know what was told to him. This whole issue could get out of hand very fast. He can help defuse this.
My crazy comment was aimed at the suggestion that the private meetings were tied to the RFP news in the paper yesterday.
I think my post is inline with your comment, Clipper89.
it's disingenuous for shanley to claim he has misgivings after he already met privately with NED. That's like saying I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway.
Post a Comment