Wouldn't the situation clear up considerably once that is up and running again? And wouldn't it go even more smoothly if the proposed CVS project led to a reconfiguration of the intersection of Low Street and Storey Ave?
Probably a moot question. I'm wondering if the proposal has a chance with Ward 6 Councilor Tom O'Brien apparently switching his vote from yes to no. The measure needs eight votes to pass, so three former no votes will need to shift over to the yes column.
UPDATE: Councillor-at-Large Ari Herzog paints a telling picture of the Storey Ave issue.
Number one thing I didn't know: A CVS could be built in the area with or without the Council's approval, albeit on different lots.
I'm now even less sure I understand the no votes.
Number one thing I didn't know: A CVS could be built in the area with or without the Council's approval, albeit on different lots.
I'm now even less sure I understand the no votes.
21 comments:
You're right that the current traffic situation will improve when the Chain Bridge reopens. You're also right about this being a great opportunity to improve the traffic configuration, at little or no cost to the City. And, if the traffic situation does need to be improved (I don't think it's as bad as some claim), why not do it at a cost to the developer, while at the same time rezoning the parcel to a more appropriate use, getting some open space as a result, and increasing the City's tax base? I'm not sure the City will ever get a better deal.
As I see it, the votes line up as follows:
NO - Ives, O'Brient, Cameron, Cronin (4)
YES - Heartquist, Connell, Derrivan, Earls (4)
RECUSED - Sullivan (1)
UNKNOWN - Herzog, Jones (2)
Even though he initially voted yes, I have Jones in the Unknown list because of the letter at
http://www.newburyportnews.com/opinion/x1253555650/Why-a-new-CVS-and-why-on-Storey-Ave
which, presumably was written by Councilor Tom Jones (not "Ted" as identified in the DN). I suspect that Herzog's initial no vote was a well-played tactic to allow for re-consideration, so his could turn into a yes vote, but that would still require 3 no's (or 2 no's + Jones) turning into yes.
So, unfortunately, the situation may be leaning more to a No vote than you believe.
Not surprising, but does Woodman Way being an unaccepted street tend to support passage or denial of the rezoning?
another reason we should have the foresight of how over development will effect our town, traffic problems are just one of many negative effects. wait until Karp builds his project and see how much worse the traffic gets on merrimack street during the summer.
BTW, now Ward 4 Councilor Tom Jones did not write that letter.
Not sure what happened there....
Another reason to build the roundabout at Merrimack and Spofford.
But let's not get too far off-topic. First, has the CVS in Salisbury Center added significantly more traffic to that area?
Second, if City Council believes that the Storey/Low area traffic configuration can be improved as a result of rezoning, then they would only be succumbing to Woodman Way residents' knee jerk reaction if they don't vote to rezone. Do those residents understand that this may be their last, best opportunity to improve the situation, or are they just assuming that the traffic will worsen, without reason for thinking so?
City Council has a chance to act, get some benefits for the City and the area residents, and do so affordably, all while improving the area's overall zoning.
there was already a business where the salisbury cvs is, and the traffic there was already unbearable in the summer due to the beach. also, a rotary on spofford street will do nothing to help the traffic caused by karp's development, or the cvs for that matter.
Joe,
You're taking over the blog next time I take a sabbatical.
Well said.
The other element of the argument is the Planning Board. The City Council isn't voting to approve the project, just rezone the properties. It's up to the Planning Board to ensure this or any project answers any concerns from the community.
The "business" at the Salisbury CVS site was an abandoned gas station. My question was, did the Salisbury CVS significantly increase traffic. Beach traffic will be there, regardless of whether CVS was built or not, so your comment is specious.
My comment about the roundabout (not rotary), addressed your concern of potential additional traffic on Merrimack Street, which, presumably, will increase at Merrimack and Spofford if/when Mr. Karp builds a project. It has nothing to do with CVS. Please stop trying to scare readers. Things change, its how we deal with change that will determine our success as a City.
Informative post by Ari Herzog.
http://ariherzog.com/councilblog/the-real-story-on-storey-avenue/#comment-7451
Given Councilor Herzog's explanation, can any City Councilor, in good conscience, vote no? Maybe I missed something, but why didn't we know this sooner?
Councillor Herzog:
Those "residents" are also constituents. You don't live down here. We do. This is a big issue with us.
"A Resident"
joe, the business was a functioning gas station before it was an abandoned gas station, comparing an empty lot to one that held a business is specious. and the traffic on merrimack street will increase at the gillis bridge, heading into downtown, not at the chain bridge, miles away, it is already backed up from state street to the bridge during the summer.
Yes, of course it was a functioning gas station before it was abandoned. The point is, the Salisbury CVS hasn't, in my experience, negatively impacted the traffic in Salisbury Center. Yes, during the summer the beach traffic can be horrendous in Salisbury Center, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the traffic generated by a gas station or the new CVS. But, immediately prior
I compare the Storey Ave property to Salisbury Center because prior to the CVS being built in Salisbury, the lot on which it was built was generating zero traffic (since it had been abandoned), and since that time, I've not noticed little to no impact on the traffic in that area.
Anonymous, you're right, in the summer the traffic at the Gillis Bridge can be tricky, but that's part and parcel of being a tourist destination. If we, as a City, don't want to be a tourist destination, then we need to figure out how to support the businesses in Newburyport, how to bring revenue in that will add to the City's coffers, and how to provide the services that the residents need and have come to expect.
I know it's hard to understand, but responsible development of Storey Ave can improve the traffic situation. Talk with the Planning Department, attend Planning Board meetings, and it will become apparent to you. I understand the reluctance to over-commercialize our City, but the City has undergone change for over two hundred years and has learned to adapt. If we have the right people in place, and I think we do, then development of this site can provide a lot of benefits and improvements to the area and City as a whole.
For Joe,
Do know why [RECUSED - Sullivan (1)] Dick Sullivan would recuse himself from the vote.
Mary
Mary - According to the article Tom linked to in this post, "because the real-estate agency that his family operates has represented the Woodman family, which owns some of the land involved in the rezoning."
Hi Joe,
As I remember it, Dick Sullivan Sr. represented the Woodman family in 2006 when this first became an issue, but I have no idea if the real estate firm still did.
joe, the best thing that could happen to the citizens of Newburyport would be for it to not be a tourist destination.
Anonymous - I respect your opinion, but if you believe it hurts Newburyport to be a tourist destination, I'm afraid we can't agree on much about how Newburyport can remain viable as a city and affordable for its residents.
it would just be nice for the city council/mayor to do whats best for the residents first, not what's best for the tourists. not to mention that basing your economy on something as fickle as tourism is a recipe for disaster, we'd be better off focusing on creating jobs that residents could work and earn a wage that would allow them to live in newburyport still, which currently our tourist based economy doesn't really allow.
My guess is that Tom Jones is voting yes and that he did not write that op ed piece but rather Ted Jones.
That's correct Auntie Kim.
Post a Comment