Well done, Newbury!
I thought maybe, just maybe, you would follow the lead of Amesbury and start purging Town Hall of whatever/whoever is making a mockery of municipal government.
I'm glad you weren't disheartened by articles in the Boston Globe citing questionable behavior by your Board of Selectmen. I'm glad you think the course the town is taking on Plum Island is the one most beneficial for the fragile environment here.
I supported you by not printing the 'dirt' I yesterday received about Joe Story. So, shhhhh, let's not tell David Hall about the tax lien.
Because, if you started thinking clearly and made positive changes starting yesterday, then I would have had fewer things to mock for the next year.
So congratulations. And by all means, boycott shops in The Tannery because you don't like Mr. Hall. The people running those shops are definitely the bad guys. And, of course, he's the sole owner of the property (not).
By the way - where do you people in Newbury go to shop, mostly? Could it be in ... let's see ... Newburyport?! We here in Newburyport all love that you want some of our dwindling supply of municipal water to build your little development. The one that will reduce your dependence on stores in our city. The one in which you plan to build a senior citizen center that you won't share with us.
We love it that you reject environmental initiatives and would have paved over all of Plum Island, if you'd had your way. Oh, and you really made a lot of friends at the DEP while trying to do that. Love the infill, too. The salt marsh isn't slowly dying because it needs nourishment it's not getting because of all the infrastructure between it and the ocean or anything.
We love it that you wanted Port taxpayers to support your hiring a lobbyist to get federal money to save your beach from itself, even though our congressman said the lobbyist couldn't do anything our congressional delegation couldn't do on its own.
Oh and we really loved that last one in light of the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers told you 30 years ago that you had to find private funding to do what was necessary on your beach; that they were out of the beach replenishment biz and only had funds to dredge at 'significant' locations.
I love ya, Newbury! Keep up the good work!
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
When did Newbury start boycotting the Tannery?
That was a comment from a reader on David Hall's letter to the editor, urging people to do so. I don't think it's an organized Newbury boycott.
Let me see....you do realize that
1) They paved streets on the Nbpt end of the island too.
2) There's an erosion problem at the Npbt end of the beach as well.
3) A large part of the marsh is at risk because Rt1 and 1A (both state roads mind you) cut through and starve its landward reach.
4) Some of us on the Nbpt end supported the hiring the lobbyist - which of course was rejected without any public council debate.
5) Building a few green buildings doesn't make someone beyond reproach.
6) Your statements about the Army Corps are incorrect.
Hello Anomymous,
Yes, I realize points 1 and 2. I have not and will not let Newburyport off the hook.
As for #3, this post was about Newbury.
#4. Well not enough Newburyporters supported it, apparently.
#5. I never said that David Hall is beyond reproach. All I've heard in criticism is some vague references with no backup. There are stories in the Boston Globe about the Selectmen, however.
#6. Excuse me, but I spoke with the Army Corps and that is exactly what they said to me. I was even told by a woman answering Doug Packer's phone (he was out of the office on a medical) that, "We're trying to get around that" when I called for a response. I take that as confirmation - what do you take it as?
Plus you can look up the report recommending the Army Corps no longer be involved because of the expense yourself, on line.
#3 Please explain how Newbury is killing the marsh ?
#4 It's not the lack of support tha bothered me, it was the lack of debate - how is that democratic ?
#6 Well I was at meeting at PITA hall and Mr O'Donnell had a slightly different story. But more specifically, dredging continued until 1999 and was only stopped after Bush took office. So while they may have been out of the beach nourishment business, they continued dredging. An amount $850K was appropriated last year for dredging. While Army Corps does not have funds for beach nourishment, they can use the funds appropriated for offshore disposal (of dredged materials) for beach nourishment.
Well, Anonymous, almost all, if not all, of the City Council was present at the meeting with Mr. Marlowe. I spoke to many of them after the meeting and they were not inclined to be positive about chipping in. The mayor, who had earlier that day spoken to Tierney, I assume took a straw poll and together with Tierney's unfavorable comments decided not to pursue the issue of supporting a lobbyist.
He does that, you know. Why waste the City Council's time with an issue you know they are going to defeat?
As for Mr. O'Donnell, I can only repeat what he said to me and what I heard from the woman at Town Hall, which backed up what he said. I was not at the meeting at PITA hall.
Maybe someone raked him over the coals for the comments to me. I got an email from Mr. Marlowe after my story was published disputing almost everything I wrote. Also, I will note that I spoke to another person at the Army Corps before I spoke with Mr. O'Donnell, who told me pretty much the same thing, only "off the record."
The funds that our congressional delegation got pushed through (but not fully funded), if I'm not mistaken, is different $$ for the same project: dredging.
As for the marsh, I cannot imagine from all I've read about salt marshes that anyone could think that the (in my mind, excessive) buildup of PI helps the marsh in any way. It's a delicate ecosystem that has to include the beach, the dunes, the flat and the marsh.
Also - dunes are built up by sand blowing around. How can it blow around to the dune if there's a house on the dune? I know, some of those houses have been there for a long time. But the buildup in the last 15 years has been tremendous.
How can you possibly argue that this helps?
All I see and hear from Newbury is almost blatant disregard for environmental issues, to the point where I understand that the former Newburyport bike trail coordinator was told to "get the hell out of Newbury Town Hall" by Selectman Story.
And in this general disregard I exclude the beach committee, which I always mention and applaud for their valiant efforts to restore the primary dune at the center - with little or no financial support from the same people who are now whining about their houses falling into the ocean.
Someone I know on the ocean side of the island told me that they would never have laid their asphalt driveway if they had known then what they know now. This was before the massive push to build houses anywhere and everywhere in the Newbury section, which began as soon as the water/sewer system went in.
I don't think the homeowners "deserve" this. They deserved to be told the straight story before they built their houses.
Gillan,
I think you might feel differently had it been an issue you supported. What it showed was that the mayor is learning on the job.
Your post seemed to imply that there was never going to be money for dredging - that it ran out 30 years ago. The 'significant' locations provision (commercial harbors including gloucester) came about in 2001.
Where exactly did I say development was good for the marsh ?
In all but a few rare instances solid foundation homes are being replaced with homes on pilings - the DEP and FEMA consider this an improvement. While I don't like the size of some of them, it's the only thing that makes flood elevating them cost effective.
The place where the marsh is in real trouble is further south where roads (1, 1A, etc)constructed with too few culverts are causing the marsh to become de-salinated.
As for street paving, the W&S equipment manufacturer required it as part of its warranty.
I don't think that's entirely fair. I neither supported nor didn't support the project. What I wanted, and still want, is for the town or the city to hire a geologist or someone besides a lobbyist to assess the situation an then decide what to do.
That was the recommendation of the Woods Hole scientist I spoke to while writing my story for the Current earlier this year.
If hiring a lobbyist is the right thing to do according to an 'expert,' then great. All I've seen so far in the Daily News are opinions from the lobbyist, the Newbury police chief, a high school science teacher, etc. I was the only one, I think, who actually went to a scientist.
And I think it's entirely proper for the mayor to not send something to City Council that he knows will fail. In fact, he would have been faulted had he done so.
And the marsh is in trouble everywhere. I made a link to the Globe story by Dave Rattigan, and I wrote a story on the same subject, only just about the marsh here.
I did and still do research my stories quite extensively. I do not just depend on what someone said. Not saying that you do that; I'm just defending my own writing.
As for the warranty, I thought I read somewhere, or wrote somewhere, that a rep from the company said it was absolutely NOT a condition of the warranty that the roads be paved. But I could be wrong about that.
In any case, the warranty ran out shortly afer the roads were paved.
I think that you and I have to agree to disagree on this one.
Post a Comment