Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Water Tower... was Dearborn responsible?

I have been looking into this matter a bit. I can't find anything available on the web, or in discussing this with a few people who might recall, that shows that the property developers promised to install a new water tower. The best explanation I heard was that during the discussions and negotiations concerning the development that many different options were brought up but that the only one set into the contract was the (around) $350k that was to be used for "area improvements" and that was earmarked for installation of the pumping station.

The Salem News: Liacos: Peabody shouldn't have to pay for water tower
Peabody Weekly News: Mayor looks to bond for water tower, library repairs
Remember Peabody Weekly web stories do not remain active very long

This development is one of the unfortunate artifacts of the State 40B "snob zoning" rules that allow a developer to circumvent local rules and regulation to build large, multi-family housing developments in Cities and Towns that do not meet State requirements for affordable housing.

The original proposals (I believe) were turned down, and then the developer came back with the ultimate threat... work with us to make our project happen (and have a little bit of say in the matter) or we will go to the State and get permission to build whatever we wish up on that site. It was blackmail pure and simple.

And blackmail that was sanctioned by the State in its zeal to force snobbish communities like Concord, Boxford and Weston to allow ANY multifamily development. However, like many "good deeds" the new rules had a different affect - one that affected more modest communities that often already had quite a bit of affordable housing... but just didn't meet the very high standards set by the State.

So ultimately it comes down to the fact that the City decided to play ball with the developers in order to get some say in (and some concessions from) the development.

I guess there is a bigger issue here, well two actually.

The first is the issue of who really should be paying for public improvements in a City like Peabody? I mean when my house was built, the original owner did not need to pay for a water tower or treatment plant in order to construct this house. He rightly so assumed his taxes would be his contribution to the systems that service all the homes in Peabody.

Likewise, if the City decides it needs to widen a portion of a road in West Peabody, I would assume that my taxes (I live in Ward 4) would be used to pay for this action... and that the City would NOT bill only the homes along the stretch of road being widened.

So why do so many people think that when someone else wishes to use their property (for a single house, or a business or a development) that they should be responsible for footing the entire bill for the City services that will be needed to accommodate these new additions?

Is this just another iteration of the NO NEW DEVELOPMENT mentality? You know... the one that says... "It was OK for me to build MY HOUSE... but now that I live here... there are too many other people! SO NO MORE HOUSING!" This is the main attitude I hear from many Peabody folks... sadly they forget that their neighbors didn't want them to build their house either!

The second issue revolves around who we elect to be the stewards of our City. I mean, and I can't say this any other way, but why do we elect stupid people? I call someone stupid when they agree to, and then sign a contract, WITHOUT READING IT TO KNOW WHAT IT SAYS???? Now, maybe Councilor Liacos wasn't personally responsible for signing the contract (or maybe even approving these conditions) but if he was so adamant about protecting the citizens of Peabody (and he is sure screaming about this quite loudly right now) WHY DIDN'T HE READ THE FINAL LANGUAGE IN THE AGREEMENTS??

And to come back now years later and say, "but that's what I thought I heard" is not an act of good governanace, it is an excuse... and a poor one at that.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

School admins get raises - What is wrong with these people?

So the Peabody school department in its illustrious wisdom has decided that the appropriate way to deal with the economic troubles that have caused the elimination of 50+ positions and the lower quality of education that comes with it...

The very best way to move forward and to improve the sad state of the Peabody school system is to.... HAND OUT EXTRA LARGE RAISES TO THE PRINCIPALS AND ADMINISTRATORS.

All the while raising the fees parents and students must pay and going back to the union employees with the expectation that they should give up some of their recent contract changes.

The Salem News: School chief gave administrator raises as others' jobs were cut

Frankly... this is an imbecilic move that unbelievably might even top some of Mayor Bonfanti's recent public relations gaffes! I mean WHAT WAS SUPERINTENDENT MILTON BURNETT THINKING???

I mean was he thinking.... This sure seems like the right time to give some of my top people raises that are more than 50% higher than what the rest of the people are getting? That the time sure is right with all the public support for teachers and the free flowing tax money?

Frankly... this is an amateur move. It is such a bad move I would consider this actionable... meaning it might be time for him to go.

At one time (and a different economic reality) I would be arguing that these people are probably under paid compared to some other folks and that retaining people should be a priority since we seem to play musical chairs with our school administrator in this City... but that is NOT the reality of today. To NOT recognize these real issues is to be ill fit for the position of power and authority required as Superintendent of Schools.

And then the absolute WORST part of the article was when High School Principal Edward Sapienza opened his mouth and made sure we all knew just how DAMN LUCKY we are that he is willing to LOWER HIMSELF to work in a place like Peabody... That is my interpretation of his words which are here:

Sapienza said even with his $106,424 salary he still earns less than high school principals in Danvers, Lynn, Marblehead and Swampscott and oversees more students than his counterparts.

"If somebody wants to begrudge that, go ahead," he said.

The high school principal said he has 37 years of experience and two master's degrees he paid for himself.

"I've got a wealth of experience," he said. "I think I'm a very good bargain."

Administrators don't have unions to negotiate their contracts and must individually make the case for salaries, Sapienza said. They, like the unions, seek equity in pay and benefits.

Sapienza said he sympathized with people who were losing their jobs. He chose to be an educator while others opted to go into the private sector.

"It's still America," he said. "You can still choose to be whatever you want to be."
Well said Principal Sapienza, well said indeed. I however think that if you are really so darn smart... you should have known better than to have mouthed off like this making the Peabody school administration, and yourself, look foolish.

I can only guess that the real fool here would be the Principal who accepted a job that pays too little in the first place. I do not begrudge people raises, but I DO begrudge them to BITE the hand that feeds them.

AT THE VERY MOST... these administrators should have received the same raises as the unions did... which is exactly the way it works in City Hall (and elsewhere in the City I believe.) But to be FIRING TEACHERS while GENEROUSLY REWARDING the administrators (people who will rarely have a direct impact on a student's life) is simply terrible.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Peabody should join into the new North Shore Technical High School

Peabody needs to join into (and be a leader in) the new North Shore Technical and Agricultural High School (NSTAHS).

The State (finally) seems eager to move forward with the NSTAHS (the combination and expansion of Essex Aggie and the North Shore Tech HS) with at least $77 million dollars.

While the other cities and towns involved still need to finalize their involvement, they are all on the way to getting it done.

Except for Peabody which is dragging its heels and putting up false protests in order to delay the process... which will mean that Peabody will end up NOT participating in this most worthwhile endeavor.

Peabody Lynnfield Weekly: Peabody wants more info before joining voke merger
Remember, PLW stories are only online for 1 week
Salem News: New voke school will get $77.5 million from State

Peabody should stop the endless debating and commit to joining (and being the leader in) the new NS Tech HS. Peabody has the largest number of students in technical programs and people are turned away each year. The current facilities at the Higgins are woefully inadequate AND the State has denied funding for the Higgins in the past specifically because the Peabody Voke is located there! The current program is not currently meeting the needs of its students and the equipment and programs are quite far out of date. This program needs to be expanded and modernized and Peabody can not (and will never) do it alone. This is the perfect way to join forces with other cities and town to share the costs, as well as get the State to shoulder much of the responsibities for this good idea.

Now, I am not saying that the City is wrong to want good information about this project (and especially the costs the City will need to provide.) But the fact of the matter is there ARE no guarantees in this world and estimates are just that... subject to change without notice. The idea that in this one instance the City would need such a super fine level of detail in order to make a decision is NOT the usual way things work in this City.

Thus, the delayed decision making seems much more like a stalling tactic than good financial prudence. Basically... if the City waits long enough, the project will simply GO AWAY because the State will pull the funding and we can go back to underfunding the current crappy program we offer our students today.

And if you think this is simply my opinion... read Dave McGeney and Beverly Dunns comments (from the PLW):

School Committee veteran David McGeney, acknowledging that vocational instruction likely incurs higher costs, argued that Peabody’s current course offerings are poor, at best, and should have been addressed years ago.

“Under serving our kids to save money is not what we’re about,” he said, adding that vocational education is often viewed as a “stepchild” to traditional schooling, which he feels has been the case in Peabody as well.

“We’re doing a terrible, terrible disservice to that portion of our student population,” he said.

Dunne agreed, pointing out that vocational programs have been on a “shoestring” budget for decades. She said many of the teachers have to buy simple supplies for students, such as Band-aids and gloves, out of their own pockets.

Sadly these School Committee members can see the folly in underfunding programs when they occur OUTSIDE the School Committees budget - but they were only too happy to be part of the committee that has underfunded the Peabody School System for several years in a row, including this most recent kick in the teeth to the students of Peabody.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

The Destiny of Route One?

In a recent Salem News story, Ward 5 Councilor Dave Gamache opines that one of the reasons for the lack of interest in Route One properties is the onerous and time-consuming Peabody regulations

The Salem News: Hard Times on Route One


That's his ward, and that's his opinion, and he's entitled to it. Is there more going on here, though, than the "over regulation" of private capital by the public sector?

The Route One properties have opportunities (intense visibility, excellent highway access) and constraints (weird parcel sizes and shapes, quirks of ownership arrangements, and of course, zoning).

Zoning in its most basic philosophical definition is the idea that the community, not just the individual, ought to have some say on the land uses and physical configuration (setbacks, height, etc.) of a parcel of land. That is why there is NO zoning whatsoever, for example, in Houston, TexASS, where it is assumed that the rights of the individual trump the rights of the community. (I'm kidding! really! Houston has a lot of PRIVATE regulations of land that are embedded in deed restrictions.)

I have always been curious: what does the blogosphere think are the most desirable land uses and configurations of these Route One properties? Simple tax generators like chain restaurants (eg Hooters, gack, can't we do better???), retail, and hotels? Industry? Or what?

To what extent should our local government (legislative or executive) be fighting for development of these parcels, or just letting the "free market" (which isn't free, believe me) operate? Should development be encouraged strictly to increase tax revenues? For other public uses that meet the public good?

I invite your reflections!

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Happy Birthday America!

Have a safe and patriotic 4th of July
And with a nod to an old Patriot...
"Let Freedom Ring"

Thursday, July 2, 2009

A short (true) story for the weekend

When I was in 10th grade (American history) our teacher assigned us to poll local residents on their degree of agreement with the following statement, by hanging around the polling places in our town on Election Day. The statement was this:

"..to secure these rights [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [But] whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the RIGHT of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

What a ration of abuse we took in our poll! Voter after voter opined that we were crazy kids, bent on revolution (yeah!), and that such ideas had no place in a law-abiding society. (It was the 70s, but the memory of the 60s was still fresh.) A few tried to have our little polling experiment shut down by the authorities.

And that is how Needham's Corner, at the tender age of 15, realized that the electorate had no idea wtf they had tacitly agreed to by being citizens in this amazing country, and a part therefore of this amazing experiment in democracy. (Mrs. Doyle was an inspired teacher - what would happen if teachers assigned this today??)

So, beyond the fireworks, and the flag, and the hot dogs and good ol' 'merican beer, I invite you to take a moment this weekend and reflect on the last 233 years. We have not been invaded, nor our villages fire-bombed and our people massacred. We are free to gather in the streets and in meetings and online to express our opinions about our leaders and government. Our press (when they are not hunting the elusive almighty dollar: Nelson, nota bene!) can report the facts and express their opinions. We can worship as we like. We can petition the government about our grievances. All these freedoms are guaranteed to us in our Constitution.

Perhaps we take them for granted, yet these freedoms were hard-won and defended with blood. These blogs (annoying as they can be) are symbols of these freedoms. Blog on, patriots!

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

"I can do anything I want" --Mayor Bonfanti

There has been a sad streak of mis-steps here in Peabody lately. And most of them coming from the actions of our Mayor. Mayor Bonfanti has repeatedly acted like a high priced lawyer by skirting the letter of the law... while clearly violating the intent.

This most recent outburst of arrogance at the School Committee meeting (where Bonfanti halted Beverly Dunne from speaking - and in fact recessed the entire meeting - in order to discuss something in private with her before proceeding.

His one sentence answer SHOULD haunt his re-election bid (but sadly it will not)...

"I can do anything I want"

Well that pointedly sums it all up in a nice tidy package.

It is often said the most efficient and effective form of government is the Benevolent Dictatorship. And while that may be true... here in America (as Needham's Corner pointed out in a recent post) we are NOT under a dictatorship.... and, frankly, Mayor Bonfanti's actions too many times can not be seen as being benevolent.

I certainly and not the first to notice or comment on this. Here are some links to this issue...

The Salem News: Bonfanti stops meeting for private chat
Lynn Item: Peabody school board scoffs at library proposal

The Salem News Editorial: Our View: Mayor can't do anything he wants

The change in leadership so many on these blogs seem to crave is not looking good and certainly when it comes to our Mayor. However, with no challengers how can the Mayor think anything except that the people approve of his actions, tactics and style.

Even Nelson Benton seems surprised (Salem News: Nelson Benton: Half-year in review) that the man who takes credit for the 9-11 pay and slashing the school budget to shreds is facing no challenges in the fall.

I will go on record saying that I do not like this swaggering style of arrogance. I expect a higher level of purpose and intention from those who ask to lead. Please Mr. Mayor act like the leader the people need and expect.
 
Elegant template from BlogMundi
Photo credit: Elizabeth Thomsen, CCL