Anyone reading this blog knows where I stand on this (and that I sit on the NRA). I'm also quite familiar with the stance of the few people attending our meetings. What we'd like to hear is some fresh perspective on this vision for the waterfront.
The meeting starts at 7 pm.
18 comments:
Hey Ari, look forward to seeing you. I don't want to delve too deeply in particulars of the plan. But yes anything on NRA land would have to pass through any city board with jurisdiction. Just like any other project.
Thanks
Tom
where does the mayor stand on the issue? as the NRA is stacked with her appointees, i think it's fair to ask what her vision is and if thats the same as he appointees.
Ask her tomorrow. She'll be there. You probably won't have to ask.
For those keeping score at home, NRA appointees/apppointers are
Tom Salemi/Holaday
Adam Guild/Holaday
Patty Dorfman/Moak (reappointed by Holaday)
John Morris/Moak (confirmed by Holaday as member of City Council)
James Shanley (Governor's appointee, Deval Patrick)
Not sure that constitutes a stacking.
4/5 seems pretty stacked. Didn't she run on a platform of an open waterfront?
Will this meeting be on Cable TV for those of us who are unable to attend?
Sadly no. They weren't able to accommodate us.
However, we're having it recorded and should have segments for online viewing.
Keep an eye on the NRA Blog. newburyportra.blogspot.com
What an excellent, and well attended, presentation. I'm enthused and hope that we get to see this process through to completion. It will be a long road, but one that's worth taking in my opinion.
i have to say, after reading the story in the daily news, i don't like that the developers aren't required to comply with any part of the design. And, seeing how the only part of the waterfront Karp doesn't own is the NRA property, allowing developers to own the new buildings seems to work out wonderfully for him (assuming he buys them)...rather convenient it would seem.
Actually that's not true. We'll dictate the size, scope, space of the buildings in our request for proposals.
Developers will be able to come in with plans that fit that criteria. Yes, they may have a cracker architect who takes a crack upon coming up with something better than Union Studios.
But...
NRA members worked hard on developing this concept.
Many in the community seemed to have bought into this design.
Since the NRA will be making picking the project, I would think a shrewd developer would that into consideration.
Why start in the end zone when you can start closer to midfield?
As for the owning vs. leasing thing, that hasn't been decided.
As for Karp, I'm not sure what you mean by convenient. Expand on the point please.
Mayor Holladay was originally for an open waterfront. Karp owns all but the NRA lots. Karp contributed to Holladay's campaign last time around. Holladay selects NRA nominees. NRA develops plan involving the possible sale of land/buildings to a developer.
Doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to think that Karp will aggressively go after those buildings, thus allowing his waterfront holdings to be united. The only hurdle he had was the open waterfront people, none of which were selected to the NRA, or had any real input in to the final proposal. With the Mayor flipping to the side that favors development, nothing is standing in his way but a bid on the buildings. Worked out pretty well for him...
Unknown: Who will decide who gets the bid to develop the property? the NRA? the city council? the mayor?
Okay, you'll have to produce some proof to your statement about Karp donating to Holaday's campaign. I see no record of that in the state files or in the Daily News. So that's on you.
I'm not sure what the benefit of uniting the waterfront would be...you make it sound like a political state. Frankly, Karp hasn't shown much interesting in adding to his already considerable holdings. I actually believe he wants other stakeholders involved.
Finally, why stretch your imagination at all? Is it at all possible - dare I say likely - that the mayor recognized the cost associated with developing and maintaining a park was prohibitive so she began to look more closely at the NRA's plan? I don't understand how that isn't a more plausible scenario.
Anyway to your question, I suppose anyone can respond to a request for proposals since it is exactly that, a request for proposals.
But the NRA controls the land and has the authority to select the developer. Any proposal will be introduced and reviewed in public meetings so the public will see who has submitted bids. As a member of the NRA I'd certainly like to hear what others have to say.
one of his marina's donated money to the campaign, it was in the paper...
Be great if you can provide the link.
Course even if that's the case, and I'm not sure it is, I don't see how a reasonable person could point to a nominal campaign contribution as the primary reason for a shift in opinion.
The far more reasonable cause - and the one I believe when I hear - is she sees this as the most practical and achievable path toward completing the waterfront.
looking at the slides on the DN website it shows underground parking for the new buildings. Is this even feasible? The whole area is fill, not sure if they'll be able to dig deep enough to put in underground parking.
Hi, good question.
Yes, we had a geological study done and it is feasible. The parking would be for residences.
Ari,
We're in the concept stage. The digging is feasible. That's what I've got right now.
I can't speak to your assumptions but no doubt that will come up later in the process.
Thanks,
Tom
Regarding your second post, scroll up to the top where I answered your first question with, "yes anything on NRA land would have to pass through any city board with jurisdiction. Just like any other project."
Our statements are consistent. I feel I'm being completely transparent. Please tell me if you feel differently.
Thanks, as always, for your interest.
Regarding upcoming meeting....WATERFRONT PLANS CONTINUED...
One point. The NRA land is not an island State, nor are James Shanley and NRA members the Mayor and Council of the Waterfront. There is no real requirement that any improvements pay for themselves! Just think of the additional City revenue coming from another new restaurant at the Davis Electric site and the inevitable development of the Karp owned land. We CAN leave the waterfront OPEN, simply add more green space for now and continue to improve it's maintenance and manicuring as time goes on. More, not less green space will be precious as private development begins again.
Oh, and one more point. Why would we want to create City-owned or leased space that attempts to compete with new restaurants, office space or residences created by Karp or any other private developers? Seems risky to me. Might even discourage redevelopment of privately owned lands between Oldies and Route 1. We're not in the real estate business!
Post a Comment