What do you want to read about?

This is the question that every reporter/editor/newspaper owner wants to know. So naturally, I want to know.

I'm asking - what do you care about?

I know Newburyporters love to talk and read about food, so we recently added a food section on Newburyport Business. This was mostly because once Loretta opened, the hits on my December story about the new restaurant went up, up, up. I noticed the same spike in hits on posts on this blog about Oregano, once Oregano opened.

Do you want restaurant reviews, or just plain stories? Do you want photos of the food? Do you want menus? What? Do tell.

City sues a CPC member

Oh good grief ... why does the Daily News insist on putting such interesting news stories in its Saturday edition?

Saturday is the lowest readership day ...

Now there's this whole thing about Norbert Carey and rail trail land and wow.

The piece does not say it, but Carey sits on the Community Preservation Committee - you know, the committee that decides who gets funding through the Community Preservation Act.

I looked on the city's website and it says his term expires in 2008 (I'm assuming that it has not been updated) so perhaps his new term is up in 2010, or sometime soon, I would imagine ... here's what Mary Baker Eaton had to say in April 2006, when Carey was re-appointed to the CPC:

First of all I couldn’t believe that Norbert Carey was on the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) in the first place. Mr. Carey is a developer, is developing a very controversial piece of land–the Russell Terrace project, and has had some not so good looking run-ins concerning land for the Rail Trail Project (whole other post.) All of this would, in my mind, create a conflict of interest. Seems to be a no-brainer to me.

It might be worth looking up who exactly was on the City Council and voted "yes" to approve this appointment.

And here is the original 2003 easement document, which I also found on the city's website after typing "Norbert Carey" into the little search box.

I'm not that up on easement documents but this situation is sort of reminiscent of the Host Community Agreement with New Ventures, for the landfill. Former Mayor Al Lavender also was in charge of that.

I have heard Carey's name several times in connection to the CPC and the land he owns over by the old access road for I-95 (another contentious parcel). It's a name that kind of sticks in one's mind.

Planning director

An anonymous commenter on this blog asked me about whether I had any knowledge of a possibility of one or both of the candidates for mayor bringing Nick Cracknell back as planning director.

I don't think, from a personal standpoint, that asking that question of the 2 candidates is very respectful to our current planning director, Sean Sullivan.

How would he feel if one or both of the candidates replied that yes, he or she would not re-appoint him and would instead bring Cracknell back?

I know, I know, it is an important question and someone should have asked it. But I was not assigned to interview any of the candidates for the paper, and I did not write the questions for the CEB interviews.

I'm a naughty, evil, bad blogger.

Having said that, I've done a little research and it looks to me as if both James Shanley and Donna Holaday strongly supported Cracknell while he was the Director of Planning.

I don't know Sean Sullivan all that well, but I have learned through experience that both he and Nancy Colbert (his predecessor) are/were creatures of the mayor (Sullivan perhaps a little less so than was Colbert).

I mean that in the sense that the person in the position does the mayor's bidding, not that they are actual "creatures" in a pejorative personal sense.

Nick Cracknell, from what I read in the aftermath of his not being re-appointed by Mayor John Moak (and which was right when I started writing for the Current), resisted being Moak's creature.

The Director of Planning is a political appointment.

Perhaps Sullivan is scrambling as I write, to find a new position.

I could guess that at least one of Holaday and Shanley would consider Cracknell, if not outright appoint him ...

You have to look at certain elements of the situation - those being who is all for some development along the waterfront and has expressed the notion that they have an "in" with New England Development and who perhaps is being a little more prudent (in my opinion) in that regard.

This all depends on whether voters like one viewpoint over the other, whether they liked Cracknell, and whether they want any more buildings on Merrimac St., along the waterfront.

I found it rather interesting that someone such as Mary Harbaugh (wife of Jim Stiles) would clap so much more enthusiastically for Shanley than Holaday at the last mayoral debate - he wants the buildings (not that many of them, but buildings nonetheless) and Harbaugh is all for open space.

(Of course, she can be fickle - she does not want the senior center to go at Cushing Park one minute because the parking lot there is "open space," but she objects the next minute to the parking lots on the river because they are not "open space." I don't know of much that's more open than a parking lot, but ... hey.)

By the way (and not related to Harbaugh), someone recently used the term "dark sider" to me, and I had to ask what a "dark sider" is. Here is a part of the definition, as presented by the P. Preservationist (click on the link if you want to read the full explanation):

The dark side believes that Newburyport’s future lies in industry and not in eco-tourism and heritage tourism. A dark sider reminisces of a community with busy factories providing steady though not perhaps wealthy income to the workers in town. They imagine that after a hard day at work, the family could stroll the streets and live in a safe community where everyone knows everyone else. There were few outsiders. Dark siders after all are about family and financial security. It may be observed that they tend to have the money-like the Great Depression generation, the harbinger of poverty is ever before them – their mantra is jobs and growth. To them, craftsmen and bankers and developers must be given an absolute free hand to do whatever possible to generate money.

The dark sider sees no value in aesthetics – a manicured lawn is no value to them – a job is everything and the appearance of your house means nothing. They do not understand equity and care nothing of raising property values – to them it’s only an excuse to raise taxes.

Bringing in buildings that do not fit Newburyport is okay with them – we must build, build, build. Open space is wasted space – we must build, build, build to raise more tax revenue. To them, the act of construction and industry is the ticket for the future of Newburyport as the dark sider is forever seeking what was lost in the mid-twentieth century: seeking the old Newburyport of the past filled with large factories.

What do you all think?

Latest parking study

Today I came across this interesting post on the P. Preservationist blog.

Of course I wrote about the parking meeting for the Current but I did not get a chance to comment on here. It's been a hell of a week and frankly, I'm exhausted.

I agree totally with the Preservationist, except that I was surprised that at the very least Jim Roy did not JUMP all over the fact that the city may hand Mr. Karp a parking garage that would be paid for with public funds.

Just what I want - my tax dollars going to support a billionaire's business venture that I don't want to happen.

Of course our planning director Sean Sullivan told me that it wasn't giving New England Development anything because NED would be giving the land (they would be required to provie parking anyway, but not necessarily for the public - although NED would make more $ if it was open to the public).

Would this solve NED's problem of not having access to those 8 acres on Waterfront West? Would our tax dollars pay for that as well?

I have to say, though, that if this garage thing goes through, that would be the only place identified that I think it should go.

What a dilemma for me.

What's fairness got to do with it?

Tom Salemi has an interesting followup to my post about the NRA appointee.

"This is more of a question of process and fairness," Tom writes as he questions why Mayor John Moak did not wait on the appointment until a new mayor takes over.

Well ... I'm just learning that this nominee is a person with whom Ward 1 City Councillor Larry McCavitt has had - let's call them "differences" about waterfront issues in the past.

So I'm thinking this is mostly a (not loving) message to my ward councillor or a (loving) message to Newburyport Development, or both.

I really have to wonder - as I do when a president is on his way out the door - how much time these people spend in their final months in office nominating people for positions to twist a knife in someone else and/or to give a boost to an influential supporter.

Whatever it is - it's Moak's prerogative. (No time left for you, neighbors of the landfill; I've got other fish to fry.)

But do look for some meandering drive in the next set of plans for this proposed park, on the western side - a drive that leads to a certain 8 acres that at present has no access. You may have noticed that the plans presented were mostly for the eastern NRA lot.

More on White Hen

So I'm reading the story in the Daily News about last night's White Hen meeting ... yeah.

The piece conveniently leaves out anything Ward 3 councillor (and mayoral candidate) James Shanley said, how passionate the people were and how both Moak and Shanley advised people to move their prescription accounts over to another pharmacy if they are unhappy with what CVS (and by extension New England Development) are doing.

I have to say, I was pretty impressed with what the mayor had to say (although since he was sitting right behind me every time he said something I was hit by a cloud of mouthwash fumes) because when he said that about moving prescriptions, he also pointed out that some people are tied to a CVS under their health plans.

Isn't that interesting? And people think they have freedom to choose under the current health care system.

It's also pretty impressive that Shanley has his prescriptions at Lynch, the only privately-owned pharmacy left in town.

The deal has been done, and even if it hadn't, I don't know what the success rate would be of this group of people. But I love that they are doing it because Karp and the Lagasses need to know that people aren't going to just roll and while they are rolling all over the city.

Hey, I wonder if Karp has found a way to get access to his property on the waterfront yet? The paid parking area on the parcel owned by the Waterfront Trust would suggest, "Well, not through there at any rate."

But of course, the development wouldn't be there for years and who knows what could happen in the interim?

White Hen meeting tonight

According to the Daily News, there is a meeting tonight, at 7 p.m., about the White Hen Pantry/CVS debacle.

City Council President and mayoral candidate James Shanley said last week he hopes to see the White Hen Pantry find new retail space to lease next spring when they are forced to vacate the space at the Pond Street shopping plaza to make way for an expansion by CVS.

Shanley represents Ward 3, the area where the store is located and said he does shop there.
"I'll miss it," Shanley said. "I hope they find a place."

The news about the shop's closing has sparked controversy in the city as over 2.000 people have signed a petition urging the property owners New England Development and its local office, Newburyport Development, to reconsider the plan.

Shanley said he has reached out to Newburyport Development to talk about the situation. Shanley added that he is unsure as to whether he will attend tonight's meeting at the library, which was organized by shop owner Liz Frame, who is spearheading an effort to save the store.

That meeting begins at 7 p.m.

How many available commercial spaces are there in Ward 3, I wonder, that have parking? Of course, maybe the people in Ward 2 might appreciate another Ward 3 evacuee, since everyone has adopted the video store that was once in the Pond St. plaza and which is now in The Tannery.

I will be attending the meeting. It will be interesting to see if more people turn out to fight this than turn out for the landfill or the beach erosion or any other issue I make a big deal out of on here.

Like I said before - the first thing I missed about Boston when I moved out here was the corner store I used to patronize for the odd item.

Harborwalk restrictions approved

Well once again a City Council with serious issues with the state DEP approves something because the DEP thinks it's a good idea.

I got nothing else here because I just cannot believe they did this AGAIN.

OK, so there will be no lights on the boardwalk so it's a safety issue to say people can go on there at night. Fine.

Why are there no lights? Aren't there lights at that private marina?

Oh heaven forbid the residents should have people walking by their windows; it's not as if the city wants to allow a giant windmill to be built practically right outside ... oh, wait. Never mind.

Council President James Shanley relinquished his chair briefly to speak in favor of this whole thing and said it would not set a precedent for "Steve Karp" ... yeah, right.

Karp is not going to say, "Well it's what you did over there, so why am I being treated differently?"

By the way, I do believe the public docks (such as they are) at the Black Cow have a similar "dawn to dusk" restriction, so I guess the precedent was already set.

I think it's interesting what while Larry McCavitt (Ward 1) brought up the fact that the River's Edge condos operated for years without a Chapter 91 license, he didn't bring up that the reason the boardwalk is going by there at all is because the place didn't pay the fines for not having a license and had to cave on the Memorandum of Understanding in exchange.

Talk about not taking advantage of the upper hand ... and using the DEP like a little hand puppet.

So I was wandering around town on Wednesday morning, in the damp with my new friend from Dallas, reporter Stewart Lytle.

His wife owns, or partly owns, that new store there on Pleasant St. next to the new Three Sisters place (is that its name?).

I notice that someone (Waterfront Trust?) has marked off and numbered parking spots, including ones right up against Davis Electric. This must be in preparation for paid parking, which by the way I think is a bad idea.

It will give the appearance that you can't get down to the waterfront without paying, which I'm sure is not going to be good for the Black Cow or PI Coffee Roasters. I don't think too many people from out of town are going to pull in and wonder, "Oh, is there free parking at that restaurant down there, beyond this paid parking?"

There is free parking at that restaurant down there. And what about people going to the Chamber of Commerce? I mean, it's good that it's hourly, and $.50 is peanuts ... so maybe it won't be so bad.

I keep forgetting that everywhere else under the sun, you have to pay to park (except a mall, of course, but malls don't generally offer whale watch cruises).

So I'm guessing the right-of-way to the former Lagasse property/now Karp property is the little alleyway running along the west of Davis Electric.

Oh the drama.

NRA and park planning

Of course I was at the big NRA meeting ... that would be the Newburyport Redevelopment Authority, not the National Rifle Association ... on Tuesday.

I wondered why Rick Taintor introduced himself as the "acting chairman."

In a related note, I was interviewing Tom O'Brien for a Townie Tuesday column and a story in SeaCoast Scene, and he was saying that when he was a kid, you couldn't see the river for all the businesses that used to be in downtown.

I asked him if there were buildings right there on Merrimac St. where the NRA is proposing to put 2 new buildings and he said "yes." Of course, that whole area was taken by eminent domain and leveled during urban development.

A couple of people at the meeting brought up the history of the waterfront vis-a-vis businesses being down there and someone said that it depended on what century you were thinking of.

I think that it does NOT matter what century you're looking at. I think the only century that matters is this one.

Someone else said that this park (if it's ever built) would attract people from around the world.

I did not like the plan, by the way. I agreed with the people who thought it was too busy. Jim Roy's comments were especially amusing and as he pointed out, there is a tot lot on Inn St. and a skating pond at Bartlet Mall.

Roy said he didn't see "the subtlety" of the Boston Public Garden, the Boston Common, Central Park or Hyde Park (London) - you know, parks that really do attract people from around the world because they're in big cities that attract people from around the world.

A couple more people pointed out that the city can't even keep the fountain on Inn St. going.

I also agreed with At-large Councillor Barry Connell, who told me after the meeting that he thought there should be more amenities included for boaters (restrooms, showers, etc.) to include people coming off the water, not just those going to the water.

You may notice that there is no story in the Current about the plans. That's because I didn't write one. Can't say why because I don't know why. Maybe I think it's just a boondoggle.

But I have a story to tell about the other NRA.

Many years ago, I received in the mail a piece of literature from the National Rifle Association.

Of course I promptly rang them up and demanded to know why they were sending me stuff and told them to take me off their list.

The man on the other end of the phone hung up on me.

Harborwalk ordinance goes to two committees

Well this - not the regionalized health services - was the hot ticket on the City Council's agenda tonight.

The general government and public safety committees will mull over the ordinance, which I've already described here.

Although the vote tonight was only about which committee(s) to send the ordinance to, Barry Connell, Greg Earls and Tom Jones sneaked in some editorial comments.

Question from Mr. Earls: Is it even legal to confiscate someone's fishing gear?

Resident Dick Monahan (yes, our Dick Monahan) spoke during comment, saying that he agreed with the previous commenter, Jerry Mullins, about the rule concerning the hours the boardwalk will be "open" (dawn to dusk) and that he thinks it's kind of fun to talk to people who are fishing.

As I said previously, I agree totally. But apparently the safety of the people in the condos there (the ones with the private marina) may be in jeopardy from flying flies with deadly hooks, said harbor commissioner and city council candidate Bob Cronin.

He actually did not saying anything about deadly hooks, but since I just bought a fly from that kid at the farmers' market yesterday, nasty-looking hooks are in my head. Cronin added that the ordinance would not "preclude any fishing where people typically fish at Cashman Park."

I'm not sure where that would be. Doesn't the harborwalk begin at Cashman Park? "Westerly terminus at Cashman Park," it says. That, I guess, could mean the terminus is at the easterly edge of the park.

So .... the city is building a harborwalk that only runs in front of those condos? I think there's already a walk in front of those condos so I guess I'm confused.

From the DN (Oct. 1, 2008):

The new 335-foot-long and 8-foot-wide boardwalk will run from Newburyport's North End neighborhood at Cashman Park, past the River's Edge Condominiums and underneath Route 1 bridge to the area known as Waterside West, beginning at Michael's Harborside restaurant.

It's a shame

I am just now reviewing the City Council agenda for Monday's meeting. Verrrry interesting.

You know? One of the things I enjoy seeing while walking along a jetty or a boardwalk, let's say, is people fishing. I used to go to Castle Island (South Boston) just to watch such activity - and hope a plane would be approaching Logan Airport really low since I love that kind of stuff.

But this is not what will happen along Newburyport's pending Harborwalk, if the City Council approves proposed "use regulations."

I should say here that, according to the memo from Snr. Project Manager Geordie Vining, the city has permanent easements with the Rivers Edge Condominium Association and the Windward Marina that includes restrictions on public night-time use and fishing "for the boardwalk portion of the Harborwalk."

This amendment to an existing ordinance will set up special use areas and specific use regulations:

(1) The Harborwalk shall be available to the general public from dawn to dusk; night-time use is prohibited; trespass on private marina and residential property is prohibited.

(2) No persons shall fish, swim or dive from the Harborwalk; no persons shall cause fishing gear to inferfere with the safety or enjoyment of the general public.

(3) The above prohibitions shall be posted in plain view along the Harborwalk.

(4) through (6) are about trash, graffiti, motor vehicle use and solicitation.

(7) The general public shall not be charged any fees for use of the Harborwalk.

(8) All vessels operating near the Harborwalk will do so at headway speed.

(9) No vessel shall be secured to the Harborwalk.

(101) Typo? Violations of this section ... yada yada ... $100 per person per incident, as well as confiscation of illegally used fishing gear.

I guess fishing is too plebian an activity for the new Newburyport, which made its mark on the world in large part by fishing.

I know fishing off the existing boardwalk is also prohibited - actually, I don't know that for a fact; I'm just guessing because I never see anyone fishing - but this is not downtown, per se. This is the area from Cashman Park east to Michael's Harborside.

I observed a lot urban kids being taught how to fish from Castle Island.

What about romantic midnight strolls along the river?

I object.

Some comments on Cronin

I'm not a huge fan of the Harbor Commission - way too much testosterone at those meetings.

Well, at the one meeting I actually attended. I think it was just the one.

They were talking about floating docks and Chuck Lagasse (of Newburyport Development and a local bigwig) stood up and started yelling at, I think, Larry McCavitt, who was addressing the commission and talking about (what else?) Chapter 91 rules and regulations ... those are the ones that govern state waterways.

I'm not sure if Bob Cronin was at that particular meeting, though.

I do know that he, as did all the harbor commissioners, opposed the re-appointment of Cliff Goudey to the Waterfront Trust and that he is a Moak supporter (or was, when he wrote this letter to the editor of the Current in 2007).

I think those 2 things are contradictory in the case of the Goudey appointment, since Mayor Moak put Goudey up for re-appointment.

Why am I singling out Cronin for comment?

Because the harbor and the waterfront are places that are near and dear to my heart. And the mayor is all for development on the river.

I look forward to hearing from him on these two "challenged" aspects of our city.

Plus I think he's a real challenger for the post, as is Andrea Jones.

Clarification/correction

A reader sent me this clarification, after I had declared in a previous post that the Waterfront Trust was established to stop development on the waterfront:

Actually, the Waterfront Trust wasn't established to stop development on the central waterfront.

Establishing a trust was part of a settlement of a court case brought by the Friends of the Newburyport Waterfront in 1973. The case wound its way through the courts until its was decided by the state Appeals Court in 1980. The Appeals Court decision found that three ancient "ways to the waterfront" -- public pathways from the downtown commercial district to the river -- had never been legally extinguished and remanded the case back to state Land Court.

City Solicitor Richard Jones, now the city clerk, and Friends member and attorney William Harris, who lives on Lime Street now but was in California then, negotiated an agreement that set up the trust and five "ways," the three from the court decision and two more that could be moved to accommodate buildings as long as they began and ended at their historical locations. (The Friends had originally sought to preserve 11 ways.)

The Land Court then incorporated the settlement into its final decree. The trust was set up to own and manage the ways and the NRA threw in the boardwalk as well. The point of the ways case was to control the shape of development, not halt it completely. If the ways exist, a developer has to position building perpendicular to the river, preserving some visual and physical access. If the ways are extinguished a developer can put up buildings parallel to the river, cutting off the public. A parallel design, chosen by the NRA, is what got the whole thing going in 1973.

I would guess that all those "ways" kind of prohibit much development, though, whether it be parallel or perpendicular. But I guess if you allowed one of those "ways" to be used to get to an abutting development that is parallel to the river ... that would be okee-dokee.

I also wonder about the words "own and manage." Apparently there is some research going on as to whether the Waterfront Trust owns the land and/or the "ways," or merely manages it and the "ways," for the city.

Now you can see a little bit of why the re-appointment of Waterfront Trust chairman Cliff Goudey was such a hot one - even though all anyone would do was hint at this aspect of it.

It was late in the evening

Isn't it kind of an afterthought for Karp's crew to be meeting with McCavitt's crew to discuss the future of the waterfront?

From today's Daily News:

Two active leaders in the Citizens for Chapter 91 Committee met with representatives from Stephen Karp's New England Development recently ...

Chuck Lagasse, a longtime waterfront landowner and partner with Karp's team, did not take part in the meeting but said it was arranged to discuss the comments raised by McCavitt about the waterfront plans in a recent Daily News article, and how the two groups can work together.

I wonder what "recently" means - aside from meaning it happened while no one was watching.

The group discussed potential public access and ways to the waterfront as those development plans for the Karp property moves forward.

Sure, this has noting to do with Karp needing to go through the Waterfront Trust park/NRA parking lot for access to the development ...

"We discussed what, if anything, New England Development could do prior to the actual development of the site to enhance public access down there," McCavitt said. "We had a very positive meeting."

According to the paper, Planning Director Sean Sullivan served as a "go-between" to get the meeting going.

First former Planning Director Nancy Colbert had to literally force Karp to address the citizenry last year (and don't let anyone tell you anything different) and now, a year later, her successor has to get Karp's people to meet with local waterfront advocacy groups.

Someone needs to read between the lines ... not me, I'm too worn out.

Bus stop

First an update: When I got home just now, I had a message from Peggy Brown, chairwoman of the Licensing Commission. (1) Chief Cutter has no problem with Oregano barriers, as long as they are not permanent and can be moved in case of an emergency and (2) the application was forwarded to the ABCC with the caveat about NFD approval attached.


So on to the parking study.


There have been a few comments to the story in the Daily News.

In light of my previous post, which I actually composed this morning, the parking study and the (perhaps) entrance to Karpville might conveniently coincide, if the Green Street lot is selected as the spot for the garage.

With the mixed retail/parking scenario mentioned in the DN piece (see below), I can't see any other viable city-owned spot for it ... except on the waterfront, of course. Don't think that's on the agenda, though.

The consultant will determine a site for public parking that will be most cost effective and provide the most benefit, Sullivan said, noting that a structure would be a more likely outcome than an open parking lot. The parking facility could be modeled after a new structure in Lowell that has retail space on the bottom level and parking beginning on the second floor, he added.

And the coincidences keep mounting. They could just be coincidences ...

Here's another question: how much retail can Newburyport support?

And here's another point: this garage is supposed to be intermodal, which stands for transfer to and from personal transportation to public transit.

Does that mean it could be a bus station for the MVRTA, like the one in Haverhill?

It's possible, according to the MVRTA guy I spoke to last fall. That would be fun, huh?

Bah humbug.

No way out?

There is a trend emerging here, to my mind ... my earlier post was about the brewing Oregano debacle.


Now here comes attorney William Harris, protesting the mayor's re-appointment of Cliff Goudey to the Waterfront Trust. Harris claims this is all about Goudey's lack of fiduciary responsibility, but somehow it emerges that there is some other debacle here, about access to Waterfront West ...


And it makes me wonder if the real problem with Waterfront West is that it turns out Karp & Co. have no way to get to any proposed development, without the cooperation of the Redevelopment Authority and the Waterfront Trust.


It's not easy to get financing for a project that is land-locked, even though it is on a river ...


Dear Readers, it has been proposed that perhaps the old central way to the waterfront should be re-established to allow one-way access to this (on hold) development because it turns out that a private entity may own part of the drive that runs along the Davis Electric property.


In fact, the owner(s) of Davis Electric appear to own 40' of it. It's all there, in the Essex Co. Registry of Deeds. The Lagasses had a right-of-way only through the drive, to access their property at 38R Merrimac (the building where the Chamber of Commerce is located).


And you will recall, said owner(s) put the Davis property up for sale last year, but NED (New England Development, Karp's company0 did not bite. Perhaps that decision has bitten them on the butt.


The Redevelopment Authority (locally known as the NRA) wants to make a park out of its parking lot, which is also right there in the fray area.


This central way would cut right through the parking lot/park - the original opening to the street is across the street from the entrance to the Green St. parking lot - and then swoop through Riverside Park, which is owned (or is it merely managed, questions the new planning director) by the Waterfront Trust.


* Keep that "merely managed" thing in your mind as events progress - because they will. This is about larger issues that no one is talking about, perhaps even larger to some people than whether Karp has access to his development. Although I'm guessing the access will be the eventual outcome. *


Now you might ask, as did I, why can't they (NED) just come in from the other direction?


I'm guessing that they can't make a 2-way roadway through there (wetlands), so they can only do a one-way drive.


Although it seems inconceivable to me that Karp's people did not 'vet' all this beforehand, it does appear to be somewhat of an issue.

Tiptoeing down Toppans Lane

I have to say, I was happy to read this in today's Daily News - the Planning Board rejected the proposed development on Toppans Lane, at the site of a former farm.

I know that development is part of (financial) forward progress, but honestly - I was driving through Newbury as usual for a Thursday (coming back from Gloucester) and I was paying attention so I noticed how much of the farmland has been broken up for development.

I'm not blaming anyone; I just think it's a shame.

Especially now, when local farms are coming back through community supported agriculture and other initiatives that are being embraced by people looking for food not tainted by chemicals.

On a related note, I can't wait for the Farmer's Market to open, in June. Boston has - or had - one at Copley Square every week and I used to bop over there after work to pick up fresh veggies and baked goods.

And even Flint, when I lived there oh so many years ago, had a permanent market in an old mill building on the river ...

I'm happy to see that, at least for now, some open space has been preserved.

My morning joe

Well of course I've got lots to whine about, having been too busy yesterday to blog.

Today is no different, actually - except I'm in a funk.

I was thinking a while ago, in my favorite thinking spot (bed), about the exchanges I've been having with reader Bubba about Larry McCavitt.

I guess I can relate to McCavitt because, in my experience, nothing gets done unless you scream about it. Then you take your losses along with your victories.

That's the way it works: you scream about every little thing and hope something fundamentally wrong will be changed as a result.

Why do you think a Ron Klodenski has been screaming about the landfill for 20-odd years? Because he likes spending all his free time working on matters relating to a stinky pile of shit?

Well ... maybe ... I don't know Ron that well ... (that's a joke).

Why do you think I carry on about the Daily News? It's not because the paper is a competitor to the one for which I write, it's because I WANT it to be better.

McCavitt wants it to be better. Ron K wants it to be better. Note that both these people are up against the DEP. I think we can all agree that the DEP needs to do better.

Whatever good the DEP has done here after kicking and screaming all the way is because people like that are willing to take them on when the rest of us aren't.

They are not whining - they are trying to fix what's wrong with the system for you and for me.

Without them and others like them, we'd probably have a vacant hotel/inn next to the Custom House Museum (one without adequate parking), we'd have a landfill that never closed (we might still have that) and an owner who wasn't called to task for not following the rules.

And private citizens would have no access to the river at all.

That's my morning joe.

Can't wait for the response to this

A while back, a Townie (note he uses the term "local") wrote this to me:

In my opinion that's the real difference between the locals and the outsiders: The locals love where we are, the outsiders like to complain about EVERYTHING.

Note that this person is someone in his 40s.

And I have to ask: why would you move somewhere that you want so much to change?

It reminds me of a person marrying someone who really doesn't suit them but thinking they will change the other person after they are married.

That rarely, if ever, works.

I can appreciate Tom Salemi's comment about being able to enjoy the waterfront the way it is while also not being opposed to Mr. Karp's plans to change it.

But if you really, really love something exactly the way it is, you don't want it to change.

Conversely, things change and some people embrace change.

But I have to wonder if those people who came from somewhere else have stability in that somewhere else?

Can you at any time go back to the house you grew up in, or at least your old neighborhood, with full assurance it will still basically be the same?

(I cannot because every place where it could be said I grew up has changed dramatically, in that one house was taken for eminent domain and was torn down or moved and the other burned after we moved away.)

Having a luxury hotel and condos on the waterfront as opposed to being able to watch boats being put into the river every year and being able to walk along the river without feeling like you don't belong in the town where you've spent your entire life is such a lovable concept ... you just want to hug the dickens out of it.

Every time I think about this, I think about my brother-in-law, who grew up in Medford, and us being at Revere Beach a few years back ... the look on his face, and the tinge of sadness in his voice, when he shrugged and said, "Eh, it's not the same as it used to be."