I'm just concluding my reports on this issue with the news that the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the owner's (?) right to make changes in a historic clam shack so that he might live there.
You can read about it in the DN here and here, if you so wish. Also, Tom Salemi talks about it on his blog today, here.
Personally, I don't care about this issue except for the part about that Mark Roland may not legally own the property. If he (or anyone else) has established that he does, then I say let him enjoy his house on the river.
What interests me more than anything is how the mayor, with one unwise comment to a DN reporter about Ward 1 city councillor Larry McCavitt, really opened the door on these charges. Or maybe there was open hostility there before - I don't really know.
The mayor earlier this year called McCavitt a "bully" for fighting the Karp machine about placing those floating docks down at The Black Cow. McCavitt's big cause is preserving the water front for the public (well, it is state law).
The mayor subsequently told me that he had been traveling all day, the reporter called him when he was tired and yada, yada, yada.
The ZBA had previously denied Roland's petition but called another hearing after there were issues about the proceures followed (or not followed) in the first one.
"What's happened or what's changed between (the March meeting) and now? Nothing factually has changed in the application," McCavitt says. "So what are we to conclude here? I'm concluding that there is something rotten in Newburyport. And I believe there has been collusion all around here."
I'm not saying there was collusion, coercion or anything else other than normal procedure, but I am pointing out that the ZBA, along with the Harbor Commission and the Planning Board (among others), all are under the purview of Nancy Colbert, the planning director. And she, of course, reports to Moak.
Also, there has been some amount of private meetings with interested parties and other situations such as this one; enough of them to give me pause.
If all it takes to get something approved around here is a private meeting with the mayor, then why bother to have all these boards and commissions?
In this same vein, Moak is/was also in a pickle about something I reported on earlier this year - his promise to the owners of a landlocked parcel of property on Plum Island that the would get them access to their property. Read about it here.
As it is right now/was when I wrote the story, public safety vehicles cannot pull up to the house.
I haven't followed up on this because I don't get paid to follow up on things anymore, but I did offer the daily my services. I thought at the very least they would send Stephen Tait out to get the story.
Giving the owners access on the city's dime would open all sorts of doors, mostly that other developers who are responsible for providing access to their property could claim the city had set a precedent with this one on Overlook.
When I spoke to them in February, the owners were ready to hire a lawyer.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the mayor needs a press secretary to talk to the press for him (yeah, I know there's no money) and/or someone who goes around with him and stops him from promising people stuff.
15 comments:
Actually he called him a bully for opposing the private Karp meeting.
But to your point...
"I'm not saying there was collusion, coercion or anything else other than normal procedure, but I am pointing out that the ZBA, along with the Harbor Commission and the Planning Board (among others), all are under the purview of Nancy Colbert, the planning director. And she, of course, reports to Moak.
Also, there has been some amount of private meetings with interested parties and other situations such as this one; enough of them to give me pause.
If all it takes to get something approved around here is a private meeting with the mayor, then why bother to have all these boards and commissions?"
So you're not saying there was collusion. You're saying the chain-of-command and circumstantial evidence sure sounds a whole lot like collusion.
I just wonder how these marching orders would be enforced.
"Hey, you volunteer person, if you don't vote this way than I won't reappoint you in two or three years....if I'm in office, that is."
I'd have a hard time not snickering at such a threat.
Giving the owners access on the city's dime would open all sorts of doors, mostly that other developers who are responsible for providing access to their property could claim the city had set a precedent with this one on Overlook.
I disagree, this is an existing building with an addressed recognized by the city on an unconstructed way. It also appears that some of the abutters have encroached on city property.
You are correct though that the mayor shouldn't be making promises.
Tom,
I'm just giving food for thought. There are a lot of hard working people giving time on these boards and commissions and I am second after you in applauding them.
I don't think it's circumstantial evidence. I attended a lot of those meetings where incomplete/not entirely comprehensive info was passed down from the city to thoses volunteer members.
Didn't you find it odd, as I did, that some city councillors did not know about the harassment undergone by landfill neighbors at the hands of New Ventures? That they had never seen that contract about the sludge until a couple of weeks ago, when it was written about in the Globe nearly a year ago?
I don't think it's necessarily the boards/commissions/committees, I think it's the POSSIBLE circumvention of these that MAY be of concern.
Look at how the mayor formed a task force to advise him of possible uses of Kelley School and then he went ahead and offered it to Youth Services, all on his own. The members of that board were not happy with that, let me tell you.
Anyway, I stand by my statement and I still applaud the citizens who volunteer to serve on the boards. I just say let them do their work without private meetings in the picture.
But Bubba, the building was part of a family "compound," or development, before being sold. Hence my assertion, to which, by the way, I was alerted by a city official. So it was not baseless.
By the way, Tom, Moak's name calling WAS in reference to Chapter 91 waterfront issues.
Here is what it said in the DN story:
McCavitt, the president of the Newburyport Citizens for Chapter 91 Committee and an open waterfront advocate, is fighting against the proposed expansion of Hilton Marina, a company owned by Karp. It is not his first run-in with Karp's development team on the waterfront.
"The Ward 1 councilor says the marina expansion would blocks the public from the waterfront and is also the beginning of the "incremental" development of Waterfront West.
Waterfront West is the 8-acre plot of land between the Black Cow Restaurant and Michael's Harborside that Karp is looking to develop. Plans for that development have yet to be finalized. Karp, CEO and chairman of New England Development, made his fortune through developing malls.
Moak said McCavitt's opposition is little more than a bullying tactic to get his way.
"He is a bully," Moak said. "He tries to use his interpretation of the law to bully people into things he wants them to do."
I think we're both right. Still I withdraw my statement about the bully.
Not about the boards though.
NEWBURYPORT — A second city councilor, Ed Cameron, said he will not attend a closed-door meeting with Stephen Karp and the City Council tomorrow since he considers it inappropriate. But the mayor stood by his decision to arrange the private meeting, saying it would be impolite not to do so.
Mayor John Moak also said Ward 1 Councilor Larry McCavitt's objection to the private meeting is just another example of McCavitt's bullying tactics. McCavitt said the meeting borders on illegal under the state Open Meeting Law and is not appropriate.
"He is always trying to intimidate and always trying to bully people," Moak said. "It is starting to wear thin, and it is getting old."
McCavitt said he is unsure why the mayor would describe his actions in such a manner.
---I attended a lot of those meetings where incomplete/not entirely comprehensive info was passed down from the city to thoses volunteer members.
I'm not sure what this means exactly but isn't it possible, and perhaps even more likely, that someone is being careless rather than sneaky?
Didn't you find it odd, as I did, that some city councillors did not know about the harassment undergone by landfill neighbors at the hands of New Ventures? That they had never seen that contract about the sludge until a couple of weeks ago, when it was written about in the Globe nearly a year ago?
-Actually, no. I mean, perhaps they should have. But I didn't have an "AH HA!" moment. As for the contract, should the sequence of events been 1) contract is reported in Globe 2) mayor reponds to article by distributing contract.
If the councilors thought it germane they should have requested it. I'm assuming it was publicly available unless I hear otherwise.
I don't think it's necessarily the boards/commissions/committees, I think it's the POSSIBLE circumvention of these that MAY be of concern.
--Look at how the mayor formed a task force to advise him of possible uses of Kelley School and then he went ahead and offered it to Youth Services, all on his own. The members of that board were not happy with that, let me tell you.
Well that would piss me off too. But I don't see the connection.
Bottomline, I'm fascinated by people--and I'm not directing this at you entirely--who see order and grand plans (or schemes) in everything.
Anyway, I was going to post on this so I'll go now before I use all my C+ material.
Ah, yes, we're both right! Sorry about that, Chief.
Well, Tom, as you always say, or once said, and in any case I'm paraphrasing - disagreement is not a bad thing, since if we bloggers didn't disagree on at least some points, there'd be no point in all of us blogging.
A friend of mine suggested that all of us bloggers should hold a public forum ...
Gillian,
I never said it was baseless. I think there's a distinction between an unconstructed way (with a home with its own address - ie not 21-R but 21) and some random lot somewhere demanding a city street to access it. The city's own GIS system shows the unconstructed way.
I do agree that this should have been resolved before the property was sold.
As for McCavitt, perhaps the mayor's opinion was formed when McCavitt was allegedly removed from the B.I.'s office by the police a few years back.
Tom,
Well, you're right about my seeing order and/or grand schemes and/or hidden designs in some things (it used to drive my sister crazy when I said that some baseball games had to have been "fixed"). But mostly I do it only based on evidence. I'm always astonished that hardly anyone else sees the evidence ... like "some" (according to Ari) accusing Kay Lazar of being prodded by Thibeault or his minions into writing that piece.
But I don't agree with the totally 'Pollyanna' - and I'm not directing this at you entirely - view, either.
The fact is, I've seen a lot of municipal/governmental skullduggery going on, not just here and now, but all of my adult life.
Because I look for it, if it's there, I find it. I don't get paid for looking for it anymore, so now I theorize based on what I know from when I was being paid for it.
I always hope I'm wrong, by the way.
Maybe it's that generation gap I talked about in another post ...
Well, Bubba, people do get angry and upset. Does that make them a bully?
And from what I understand, the former building inspector (if it wasn't Calderwood you're talking about) was known for antogonizing people and also was pretty much a vindictive person (in that people are still afraid of recriminations coming down from the B.I.'s office if they protest anything coming out of there).
I'm not defending McCavitt's bad behavior (only heard about, have never seen it myself) ... again - I just don't think public officials should be bad mouthing each other or citizens in public and it seems to have reaped repercussions.
Moak told me he regretted having said that about McCavitt to, I believe, Stephen Tait.
Of course, being the 'Negative Nellie' seem to be, I thought he only retracted it because the comments made him look silly.
Well, I was simply noting that you became "soured" on a person because of what he said and I'm suggesting that Moak might have become "soured" on someone who lost his temper to the point of requiring police intervention. It's also my understanding that it was Mr Calderwood, perhaps you can confirm with your sources.
I agree that the mayor shouldn't have used to word bully. But I agree with the sentiment that Mr McCavitt over-applies the law to get his way. He is however, one of the more intelligent members of the council.
Bubba,
Oh, right ... I didn't make the connection. That's a fair point.
McCavitt can be pretty out there. And for the record, I'm not condoning the repercussions; these are adults, elected officials, who should be above that.
Hi Gillian,
I thought I submitted this reply earlier, but I guess it didn’t get through.
Well, I’m not sure whether to be insulted or flattered that you’d lump me in with the earlier generation you wrote about. For the record, you were right about the Karp meeting thing. They were wrong. The mere fact he was coming up here was news enough. No date was needed. As a result I remember the Current story being embarrassingly late.
As far as news not requiring a vote, I’m on board with that too. I’ve got the clips to prove it.
You needn’t worry about the future of the industry though. Young reporters just need to learn to trust themselves before they’re willing to include insights in their articles. That comes with age and familiarity of subjects. They lack both.
The problem is not the youth. The problem arrives when the youthful and inexperienced are being put in charge of papers. That isn’t to suggest a young person can’t be a good editor, but they’ve got to be wise beyond their years.
To your point, we’ve all seen skullduggery and questionable actions. I’ve seen it as a reporter and as a member of a town board (not my board thank goodness. We were the good guys.)
But I know there are more good people out there than bad. So I choose to trust these folks until I hear or see facts that violate that trust. I haven’t seen that here, not even close. If you’ve got some facts please share them, and I’ll do the same.
BTW, I’m 39 next week. I’ve been to a few rodeos.
Good stuff
Thanks, Tom! Did I lump you in with a group? Didn't mean to. I was referring more to what I guess is called Gen Y, the 20-somethings. And I agree with you about the youth and experience being put in charge.
And AGAIN you're right, there ARE more good people out there than bad. But I've always been an Andy Rooney type ... speaking of which, do you ever wonder why Jonathan Papelbon, who never gives up hits, suddenly gives up a home run to tie a game in the 9th - a game that's on national television? And Kevin Youkilis, a Cincinnati native, hits the potential winning homerun in the 10th, with his family watching?
Does anyone else besides me find this to be suspicious?
Post a Comment