Another fight over an "iconic" building

Things are getting hot in the issue of the one remaining clam shack in town and one man's right to make it into a home. As in, does he have the right?

The Daily News is right on it and this issue continues the battle between the Mayor and Ward 1 City Councillor Larry McCavitt, which was escalated a month or so ago when the Mayor called McCavitt "a bully" because he was trying to get folks to adhere to state laws regarding Commonwealth waterways (that's my take on it anyway).

The Mayor kind of backtracked to me and said he felt McCavitt was trying to force his views down everyone's throat (which he also says in today's DN story). But I notice that the tag "bully" is still being bandied about.

McCavitt, by the way, was involved in writing or at least re-writing Chapter 91 law regarding public waterways. So he's not an expert or anything.

I don't know who this Roland guy is or why the Mayor is taking such an intense interest in the matter. He got the city's legal advisor, Kopelman and Paige, to render an opinion (dated Sept. 18, 2007), which says:

"Without a court decree, Roland's claim of title by adverse possession is not record title and does not constitute proof of ownership ... Since Roland cannot even prove that he has any right of record to even enter onto the Property, let alone establish good title to the Property, it is difficult to see what hardship, if any, Roland would suffer were he not allowed to convert the summer cottage into a year-round single family residence ... it is my opinion that the ZBA may properly find that Roland is not entitled to a variance."

What the heck? We got REAL problems in this city and we're wasting time and money on this after a legal opinion has already been obtained? Unless Roland came up with some real proof that he owns the property, which it does not seem that he did, why not tell him to come back when he does have the proof?

And what's with all these meetings the Mayor has with special interests?

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.

First Moak raised a ruckus by proposing a private meeting between the City Council and Stephen Karp, now a major property owner in the downtown.

But I think even before that, he was meeting with marina owners to discuss matters relating to proposed new mooring regulations. Private marinas, if I recall correctly, rent the majority of the city's moorings in the river.

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.

Can a person who can't even prove he owns a property really tie up city government like this? Seems he can - the hearings start at 7:30 p.m. tomorrow in council chambers.