Just a quick note to thank everyone who came to Saturday's session at the Firehouse. The ideas were flowing; the minds open. Quite an invigorating experience.
36 comments:
Anonymous
said...
why not make one side park and the other side parking? seems like a pretty simple solution.
The ideas were definitely flowing, and I was very impressed with the presentation given by Donald Powers. His demeanor is perfect for the task at hand, but more impressive is his willingness to acquiesce to the realization that parking must remain part of the landscape. Hopefully, a diminished part, but I am a realist and understand the importance of parking in our little city.
I also respect his professional and objective opinion that the waterfront can and should be improved, and that some small-scale development can enhance the waterfront experience in all seasons, not just during summer months. Not to mention fund the improvements that the park needs.
The chief argument of the protestors seemed to be around losing the aforementioned parking space. They fear that without adequate, convenient parking less people will visit the waterfront and it will also crowd the streets and other city lots. I would contend that there are very few occassions where the NRA lots are full, even in the summer months. I drive into town often, and I can only recall one time in seven years when I was unable to park there.
We have a precious commodity in Newburyport that people throughout the area deserve access to. It's just a shame that there is such a large contingency that fail to realize that the precious commodity is the waterfront itself, not the privelege to park next to it. I like the concept of focusing on improving the waterfront experience and capitalizing on the ways we can help fund said improvements. The status quo of dusty old parking lots should be, well, left in the dust.
Robert Uhlig, Parks Commission Chair was also there and spoke quite convincingly about the importance of considering some development as a way to improve the waterfront. I think I also saw some members of the Harbor Commission.
Brad Duffin, the chair of the Harbor Commission was there, as was Neil Blieken, also from the Harbor Commisson. Hugh Kelleher, chair of the Tree Committee was also in attendance, and he spoke very eloquently during the site walk.
Doug Locy and Joe Brown from the Waterfront Trust were there also.
First question, yes, the NRA is bound by and abides by open meeting laws. The Saturday event and the chamber event were both posted (and I believe listed in the Daily News.)
As for cable, we asked that the Saturday even be recorded and replayed, but as far as we know it wasn't.
We do, however, have a video. I've yet to check on the quality but if it's passable I'll try to put it up someplace for all to view.
Why? The waterfront has been a issue in every election for over 30 years. In the last election everyone who ran for office had a position on an open waterfront. It is important to know were our elected leaders are on this issue.
We know from the public record (press and debates) were are elected leaders stand on the over 30 year issue of the NRA waterfront. Why who was there,we need to know who is doing their homework.
One final question. How is the NRA paying for this planning service? From the press stories City of Newburyport 25K. Mass Development 25K. NRA zero. Is this correct?
Good question. I'm not sure what the press reports say, but the City and the NRA are splitting $50k of the costs. MassDevelopment is handling the rest (although it's late and I'm not quite sure what that total is.)
So it's $25K City/$25K NRA.
And the NRA is getting its money from parking fees as it has in the past. The only difference is the city now manages the parking and cuts the NRA a check for the meter fees on NRA properties.
As per the agreement, the city keeps monies from tickets issued on the NRA properties. And the NRA provides spaces for permit parking.
Thank you for your reply, however it leads to more questions. How much is the total project cost with Mass Development? Is or will the agreement with the NRA - City - Mass Development be post on the NRA blog or city web site?
Thank you for your reply. I am sorry that the words I used in my question were not clear. How much money is the program, current project with Mass Development cost? That is Mass Developments share in addition to the NRA 25K and City 25K shares. Is the agreement with the NRA-City and Mass Development available to view on line at the city or the NRA web sites?
Actually I messed up, the entire cost of the project you're speaking to is $50,000. MassDev came up with half. The city and NRA split the other half. If we go forward and develop the property we'll reimburse MassDev for its half as part of the proceeds.
I'm afraid I don't have an electronic version of the MOU but it's available in the planning department office.
Again, sorry for the confusion. I'll be more careful in the future.
Thank you for your answer. Total project cost $50k City share $12,500. (25%) NRA share $12,500. (25%) Mass Development $25,000. (50%) Does Mass Development get 50% of the say/vote on what happens on the NRA waterfront lots? "He who has the gold makes the rules".
Additional question. Did the NRA control the RFQ/RFP to hire the consultants who are working on the NRA waterfront lots? Who is paying (writing the check(s)) the consultants who working on the NRA waterfront lots?
Things that Confuse - the Answers. Mass Development is paying 50% of the project cost. Mass Development supplied the consultants and Mass Development is writing the checks for payment to the consultants. He who has the gold(Mass Development - 50% of the cost)makes the rules.
I think it's hilarious that state agencies can be crafted as either highly ineffective or overly powerful depending upon the narrative.
Anyway, I'm sure you read that MassDev would be reimbursed for its costs so I'm not sure where the golden rule thing comes from, but I guess that's your take.
Thanks for the interest. Next time I want to meet I'll put a flag in the flower pot.
36 comments:
why not make one side park and the other side parking? seems like a pretty simple solution.
The ideas were definitely flowing, and I was very impressed with the presentation given by Donald Powers. His demeanor is perfect for the task at hand, but more impressive is his willingness to acquiesce to the realization that parking must remain part of the landscape. Hopefully, a diminished part, but I am a realist and understand the importance of parking in our little city.
I also respect his professional and objective opinion that the waterfront can and should be improved, and that some small-scale development can enhance the waterfront experience in all seasons, not just during summer months. Not to mention fund the improvements that the park needs.
The chief argument of the protestors seemed to be around losing the aforementioned parking space. They fear that without adequate, convenient parking less people will visit the waterfront and it will also crowd the streets and other city lots. I would contend that there are very few occassions where the NRA lots are full, even in the summer months. I drive into town often, and I can only recall one time in seven years when I was unable to park there.
We have a precious commodity in Newburyport that people throughout the area deserve access to. It's just a shame that there is such a large contingency that fail to realize that the precious commodity is the waterfront itself, not the privelege to park next to it. I like the concept of focusing on improving the waterfront experience and capitalizing on the ways we can help fund said improvements. The status quo of dusty old parking lots should be, well, left in the dust.
What (who) elected officials and appointed officials were at Saturdays
meeting?
Anonymous said...
What (who) elected officials and appointed officials were at Saturdays
meeting?
Mayor Holaday, Councillors Cameron, Cronin, Heartquist, Herzog, Planning Staff Andy Port and Geordie Vining
Thanks ECC. Crazy busy. Had some planning board members there too I think.
Robert Uhlig, Parks Commission Chair was also there and spoke quite convincingly about the importance of considering some development as a way to improve the waterfront. I think I also saw some members of the Harbor Commission.
Brad Duffin, the chair of the Harbor Commission was there, as was Neil Blieken, also from the Harbor Commisson. Hugh Kelleher, chair of the Tree Committee was also in attendance, and he spoke very eloquently during the site walk.
Doug Locy and Joe Brown from the Waterfront Trust were there also.
What (who) elected officials and appointed officials were at Fridays
meeting at the Oak Mission Grill?
I can tell you what has two thumbs and wasn't there.....THIS GUY! I was traveling.
But I believe the rest of the NRA was there. Meeting was posted.
is the NRA subject to open meeting laws?
Since this issue is so important. Will the NRA meeting be on cable?
First question, yes, the NRA is bound by and abides by open meeting laws. The Saturday event and the chamber event were both posted (and I believe listed in the Daily News.)
As for cable, we asked that the Saturday even be recorded and replayed, but as far as we know it wasn't.
We do, however, have a video. I've yet to check on the quality but if it's passable I'll try to put it up someplace for all to view.
Again the question - What (who) elected officials and appointed officials were at Fridays
meeting at the Oak Mission Grill?
Answer again. I don't know. I wasn't there.
If someone else wants to chime in, they can go right ahead. Not sure if the Daily News article mentioned it.
I'd guess because it was a Thursday morning meeting there weren't many since elected/appointed officials also have jobs.
Might I ask why this is important to you? Just curious?
I'm told Mayor Holaday was there.
Why? The waterfront has been a issue in every election for over 30 years.
In the last election everyone who ran for office had a position on an open waterfront. It is important to know were our elected leaders are on this issue.
Fair point, and you obviously should ask where they stand.
I just don't think that is made clear by their attending these meetings.
I took your tone to be more conspiratorial than it was. Mea culpa.
We know from the public record (press and debates) were are elected leaders stand on the over 30 year issue of the NRA waterfront. Why who was there,we need to know who is doing their homework.
I agree.
are there minutes from all the NRA meetings?
Yes, they're available on the city's web site.
http://70.88.218.49/weblink7/Browse.aspx
There is also a link on the NRA blog listed below.
One final question. How is the NRA paying for this planning service?
From the press stories City of Newburyport 25K. Mass Development 25K. NRA zero. Is this correct?
Good question. I'm not sure what the press reports say, but the City and the NRA are splitting $50k of the costs. MassDevelopment is handling the rest (although it's late and I'm not quite sure what that total is.)
So it's $25K City/$25K NRA.
And the NRA is getting its money from parking fees as it has in the past. The only difference is the city now manages the parking and cuts the NRA a check for the meter fees on NRA properties.
As per the agreement, the city keeps monies from tickets issued on the NRA properties. And the NRA provides spaces for permit parking.
Thank you for your reply, however it leads to more questions.
How much is the total project cost with Mass Development? Is or will the agreement with the NRA - City - Mass Development be post on the NRA blog or city web site?
I'll do my best but please define "total project."
Always welcome to come to a meeting too. We have a public comment session and welcome questions.
Thank you for your reply. I am sorry that the words I used in my question were not clear. How much money is the program, current project with Mass Development cost? That is Mass Developments share in addition to the NRA 25K and City 25K shares. Is the agreement with the NRA-City and Mass Development available to view on line at the city or the NRA web sites?
Actually I messed up, the entire cost of the project you're speaking to is $50,000. MassDev came up with half. The city and NRA split the other half. If we go forward and develop the property we'll reimburse MassDev for its half as part of the proceeds.
I'm afraid I don't have an electronic version of the MOU but it's available in the planning department office.
Again, sorry for the confusion. I'll be more careful in the future.
Thank you for your answer.
Total project cost $50k
City share $12,500. (25%)
NRA share $12,500. (25%)
Mass Development $25,000. (50%)
Does Mass Development get 50% of the say/vote on what happens on the NRA waterfront lots? "He who has the gold makes the rules".
Additional question.
Did the NRA control the RFQ/RFP to hire the consultants who are working on the NRA waterfront lots?
Who is paying (writing the check(s)) the consultants who working on the NRA waterfront lots?
No, the NRA didn't relinquish any authority; neither did the city in zoning oversight. And the consultants were provided by Mass Development.
But the consultants' work is part of the entire agreement with Mass Dev. They're mentioned in the MOU, which is available at the Planning Office.
Things that Confuse - the Answers.
Mass Development is paying 50% of the project cost. Mass Development supplied the consultants and Mass Development is writing the checks for payment to the consultants. He who has the gold(Mass Development - 50% of the cost)makes the rules.
I think it's hilarious that state agencies can be crafted as either highly ineffective or overly powerful depending upon the narrative.
Anyway, I'm sure you read that MassDev would be reimbursed for its costs so I'm not sure where the golden rule thing comes from, but I guess that's your take.
Thanks for the interest. Next time I want to meet I'll put a flag in the flower pot.
what kind of influence will MassDev have over their consultants?
None really, we're really paying for them.
MassDev does a nice job facilitating but that's really it.
Post a Comment