Top Stories-Vol. I

Last week was filled with last minute shopping, shoveling, wrapping, cleaning and, finally, celebrating. I hope every one of you enjoyed whatever holiday you celebrate. I'm a Christmas guy, and we had a mostly excellent day.

I did manage to post the Top story poll to the right. It's a cliche question, I know, but one I thought was worth tossing out there.

I haven't voted yet. I'll save it for the last few days, but if I had to vote today I admit it'd be a tough call to make.

It's interesting how the year played out. I'll review the many issues over the next few posts.

STEVE KARP COMES TO TOWN: I'd say Steve Karp was clearly the story of the year in the first four or five months of 2008. The speculation and worry drove everyone a bit bonkers. Hell, even the Daily News kicked in some dough to buy Stephen Tait a ferry ticket to Nantucket.

The March meeting was THE single biggest event of the year, forget about Yankee Homecoming. But he grew largely irrelevant as the year passed and the economy sag. He's still out there, no doubt, but I'm sure he'll be sitting on the money making enterprises along the waterfront for the next few years.

DEBT EXCLUSION FALLS SHORT: This was clearly the biggest story that wasn't. In this blogger's humble opinion the mayor's campaign for the override was feeble. At several times I asked no on in particular--and sometimes people in particular--if he really wanted the thing to pass.

His retail sale approach made sense if it was done in concert with a larger, more headline driven campaign. But that never happened. Instead, the front pages of the paper were filled with headlines about squabbles over city contracts and solar deals.

Still, the damn thing almost passed. I might be wrong but I firmly think it would have passed if the mayor helped create a larger political movement. And I'm sorry I have no patience for blaming the state because the required wording on the ballot was so confusing. The ballot requirements have been in place for years and should have been part of the entire equation.

Oh, and I won't be voting for it if the city seeks and received special permission to send out "informational" fliers on the city's dime. I don't think that's proper use of city funds.

CLAM SHACK: Okay, this one isn't a winner but I thought it was worth a mention. At least it gives me the opportunity to ask a few questions, again:

1. Does some or all of the Clamshack sit on city land?
2. If yes,how is this legal?

Personally, I don't care if the fellow lives there or not. But if that is city property I'd like to see either a) him buy the land he needs from the city at some price or b) an explanation from the city as to how we can allow a privately owned structure to rest on city land. That just seems like an immensely dangerous precedent, particularly after reading about all the small scale land takings by residents along the city's rail trail in a recent Liberator.

Another Voice to the Chorus

The Daily News editorial today asks the same questions about who owns the clam shack property.

But McCavitt does have a legitimate point that ought to be fully investigated by the city. The city's Geographic Information System maps — which are based on assessor and zoning data — seem to show quite clearly that the building is mostly on land owned by the city, while Roland owns an adjoining piece of land. Meanwhile, the city's attorney has stated that neither the city nor Roland "can establish ownership of" the lots in question.

But here's the real question: Is ANYBODY in city government--elected or appointed--looking into this?

Would You Want to Call This Home

Clam Shack

I really have one question about this clam shack controvery, and it relates to the issue of ownership.

Has Mark Roland been paying taxes on this land since he bought the house in 1994?

If he has been paying taxes on the land I'd say he owns it. If not, I'd guess he doesn't.

I'm not suggesting he still shouldn't live there if he doesn't. But he'll have to pay something in lieu of texes.

The city's Vision database suggests assessments for both property and building, if I'm reading them correctly.

Any answers out there?

More on the clam shack

I'll blog more on this later, but for your reading pleasure.

Some folks ain't happy.

I know. Stop the presses.

This does answer our question about the ownership issue.

His proposal has been marked with controversy from the start, including when it was questioned whether Roland even owned the riverfront land or if the city owned it — something that remains unanswered but outside the purview of the ZBA.

Now the question is, who would challenge that and where? Would it be the city's challenge? Or could abutters raise an argument.

.

Clam Shack, Baby

Look.

I like secret meeting talking as much as the next guy, maybe even more, but I have a hard time coming down on the mayor for meeting with the Clam Shack owner. And I certainly can't buy into the "secret meeting" charge put forth by Larry McCavitt in Today's Daily News.

McCavitt says the new hearings are the result of a "secret" meeting in which Mayor John Moak and a city solicitor met with Roland and his attorney. He said the meeting was designed to find a way to get the matter back before the board.

McCavitt said that the meeting was at the least inappropriate, and could also be illegal under the state's conflict of interest law.

"There is something stinky about this and it is not right," McCavitt said. "And that is what gets my Irish blood boiling."

The city councilor says for a city solicitor to "intervene" in such a matter is "highly extraordinary." He said it is not a right applied to other applicants — or even himself in this case. He said, for example, why he does not have the right to also solicit the city's attorney for an opinion.

But Moak — who has previously butted heads with McCavitt on other issues and questioned his tactics — said the councilor's claim "is again one of Mr. McCavitt's interpretation of the laws."

Moak said a taxpayer came to him who didn't believe he received a fair shake at the hearing because of filing errors. The mayor said since he is not an attorney and stays neutral in such cases, he called in the city solicitor to help make a determination, which was to have new hearings.

"It is extremely appropriate," the mayor said. "It would be extremely inappropriate not to listen to that. If somebody feels aggrieved, it is my responsibility to listen to that.

"That comment about unethical, ... it is Mr. McCavitt's style of trying to put a point across without all issues being reviewed," Moak said. "My job was to make sure that if (Roland) had a problem with the procedure, that the procedure was followed."

First off, let admit I know next to diddly about this clam shack issue. I know where it is. I know what it is. I understand the pros, cons and the stuff in between. But as far as behind the scenes machinations, well, I've got no clue.

Amazingly enough, I still have opinions. The primary one being this: McCavitt is way off tossing around a "conflict of interest" charge unless he's got some dirt tying the mayor or ZBA members to this particular piece of property or this particular property owner. That's a pretty big charge and it's one that implies that there's something untoward or even illegal going on, and, of course, that's exactly what he said.

Perhaps my Italian-Iberian blood just has a higher boiling point, but I really don't have an issue with the mayor meeting with an aggrieved property owner, particularly if he or she may be aggrieved enough to threaten legal action. Let's be clear. I'm not sure if that's what happened, but the fact that the ZBA--in the words of Chairman Ed Ramsdell--has to "reset" the hearing to "make sure that the i's are dotted and t's are crossed" suggest the proponent might have a case.

"It is us doing it to make sure it is being handled properly."

Good for them for making sure this is done right.

As usual, Gillian Swart raises some good points in her post today.

Since she's been involved in this directly, I concede she has a closer feel for the situation. But it seems to me her point about the legal opinion misses the mark. From my reading of the News, the question isn't with the decision the ZBA took but rather whether or not the ZBA took every necessary step before reaching that decision.



.