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.
Farewell Dark City....
11 years ago
30 comments:
IF you have 500 people moving into your house then yes you should provide some city services...
Now do you not find it strange that nothing can be found about this deal. Everything has been lost, bids, proposals and recordings of all meetings pertaining to this development. Check it out call city hall for yourself.
Anytime there is something that is questioned things come up missing. This is now the second case of documentation that has been lost at city hall in the last month. Anyone else smell what is coming out of city hall?
One more thing thanks for the quick reporting on this. Its only been 5 days since the SEN printed this.
You may recall how I was given much grief by several people over repeating what the Patriot had already posted about someone running for office.
So I choose to look into the matter myself and asked around before making my comments.
Notice I am not a reporter. I comment on things when I have something to say or share my knowledge and insight when I have some to offer.
This site was originally planned to have multiple members posting items. In fact, I was asked to start this by others who planned on joining me - they later declined to participate. The only other moderator is Needham's Corner and sadly there are too few posts from that person (Post More!)
I do like to offer a place to discuss the issues, but if you are simply looking for a Peabody Clipping service... you can look elsewhere. I think posting the news articles anyone can get online with little or no added content is rather boring.
What do you think? And is anyone interested in also posting? Drop me an email at peabody_insider@yahoo.com
Anon July 22 5:40:
There are no bids. This is not a public project. Before you make random, wild accusations, know what you are talking about.
If you really want to play Sherlock Holmes, here's what you should be looking for:
The minutes of the Council public hearing and the Plg Bd public hearing (advisory to the Council only) that created a new zoning district, "Designated Development Residential Overlay District," and allowed residential use BY RIGHT in it.
That means that once the City Council adopted the zoning, the developer could do what he/she wanted, as long as it met the (minimal) dimensional standards. Ain't nuthin' about water towers there - but you can read it for yourself in the zoning ordinance that is available online - as is the zoning map.
So before we allege conspiracies, anon, let's do the homework. Are you really saying that the minutes from these two public hearings are not available?? Call me naive (many do) but I find that hard to believe.
And what's the other case of missing documentation, Anon? I don't smell anything yet except nutso conspiracy theorists. Eww. They smell bad.
Hey NC... calm down dude! :-)
While I don't like the accusations without any "proof" the idea that this was allowed to happen as badly as it did is a pretty sad commentary on our City.
And Anon is RIGHT about the other "missing" documentation...
It is the supposed agreement between the Podiatrist on 114 with the flashing light and the building department.
Maybe somebody down in the inspectors office should FIND THE DAMN AGREEMENT before they start trying to enforce it!
This is a pretty bad move on the City's part.
I should just shut up and go to bed, but really, attorney bloggers:
tell me what legal standing an agreement b/t the building inspector and a property owner would have?? The BI can issue permits. He can issue notices of violations. But enter into legal contracts? Hm....
Help me out here...
NC if there agreement was there then maybe the city would have a leg to stand on. Nobody knows what the agreement said, it could have been we the city agree your sign proposal is not allowed.
As for the Dearborn sorry about the bid thing I made a mistake. Do your homework and call city hall. Ask them for anything in regards to this project from way back. None of it can be found, if there was an agreement saying the developer builds the water tower it is gone now.
PI you are right 350k was used for new pipes. This information can be found and the developer agreed to it. I do not find it very far fetched to think the developer agreed to building the tower as well. Hell West Side agreed they would not go for a Beer and Wine License.
"Fundraiser at Latitudes (Rt. 1 South Peabody). Date is July 22, a Wednesday night 6:30 to 9:00, possibly later. Adult donation is $25 and college age adults are $15. the money is a donation only, NOT mandatory. 17 and under free! the facility should be fun for everyone. I really would like to see the youth more than the old folks, my age. Thanks everyone, and I look forward to seeing you all there!"
-Ron Sheehan
Did he really approve this invite? Are you kidding me, Ron the older folks are the ones you want to impress not shun. You had a tough road anyway now I think you are just waisting money.
Can that place on RT 1 even be open.
Temporary occupancy permit was granted despite the PEabody Fire inspectors walking out after a five minute inspection denying the safety of the building.
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?
It looks like we have another member of the good old boy network trying to take back Ward 6.
Who gives out a Temporary Occupancy Permit?
The good old boy network in Peabody: trying to keep the council seats they have and trying to get back the seats they lost. Vote them all out!
According to a source at city hall,
Inspector Goggin was pulled into the mayor's office and told to pass an inspection upon which he was accompanied by the fire chief.
These blogs really need to get active again, can't someone get the old patriot blog back?
People have NO IDEA what is going on in this city! All kinds of paperwork, tapes...etc. missing from city hall on the water tower! It is true... I CHECKED!
I am confused... you claim to know something and then tell me to go find it out? WHY?
If you know something TELL US don't tell us to go find it out.
Common sense would have to tell everyone wether Dearborn put up a/the water tower the city at some point would be responsible for its use. The water and maintenance would fall on the taxpayers no matter how one slices it. There is no doubt there is a need for one othered than fire supression at Dearborn alone. A high enough water tower can be a money maker to help defray the cost of it over time. Renting space atop of it to communication corporations and free use of it for our local fire and police departments is just a few things to defray the cost in the interest of safety. There is a definite need to fix the West Peabody water pressure problems so why not use this opportunity to do it.
maybe Carnevelle pocketed the money like he did with all the citys scrap metal ? SSSHHH, don't say anything !
I am hoping that Bev Dunne is pondering a run at the corner office. I am one of the few that know the contents of that "secret" conversation had between her and Bonefanti when he pulled her aside and stopped the Sc meeting.
Bev, you have more support than you think, YOU CAN DO IT! People are fed up!
Anyone else have any ideas? Why are we still stuck on one topic here? It seems like people are creating their own posts? We need a moderator...
Anonymous @9:17 am , What the heck does a School Committee problem have to do with a water problem in the west section of the city ? Does the city Water Department run the schools or vice versa? Education has its place in survival but you can't survive with out water. Write in the proper site place for your concern but not here on a site place that is of a different subject entirely.
If I am building a house for me, then it is part of the construction cost for me to pay for the services that come into my new home. The city provides a water line up to the shut-off in the street in front of my new house. The rest is on me. The city provides a connection to the sewer but from my house to that sewer is my cost. Electric light will bring a wire to the weather drop on my building but from there down it's again, on me - if it's underground, then they bring it into the junction box at the edge of my property, but I have to pay for the rest.
As a single home, none of these services should have any detrimental effect on the rest of the system, either in my immediate new neighborhood or the city. However, when a developer decides to build several new homes, apartment buildings or business buildings, this COULD have an effect on the system as a whole. Particularly in the immediate area of the development. When you construct a development like the Highlands at Dearborn, in an area where the water pressure is already compromised due to the lack of sufficient water towers, it is NOT an unreasonable request nor an unreasonable condition to impose on the developer to have to build a new water tower to rectify the situation that his development will have on the city's services. If there is a current water tower that just needs to be improved in its size and capacity to satisfy the needs of the new development, then the builder should be required to pay for those improvements because it is his development that is creating the burden on the system. These developers are making tons of money from these projects while we the taxpayers are stuck with the fallout of trying to make up for the increased strain on our infastructures. A single home or business? Fine. We can handle it. A whole new neighborhood? Put it on the one doing the building.
We can all rant and rave that this should have been teken care of by the developer when the project was built, but it didn't happen.
It was a very poor decision on the behalf of the CC (back then) ta allow this to happen. Unfortunately, once again, the tax payers are on the hook to correct another WRONG situation.
So due to the lack of better government we can bond for:
SPRING POND
WATER TOWER
AC IN LIBRARY
...ETC.
All while we have !0 Million in the bank!
Great leadership, vote for change.
We can all rant and rave that this should have been teken care of by the developer when the project was built, but it didn't happen.
It was a very poor decision on the behalf of the CC (back then) to allow this to happen. Unfortunately, once again, the tax payers are on the hook to correct another WRONG situation.
So due to the lack of better government we can bond for:
SPRING POND
WATER TOWER
AC IN LIBRARY
...ETC.
All while we have 10 Million in the bank!
Great leadership, vote for change.
I agree Anon, that it is too late for getting any kind of payback from projects already built. Water under the bridge, so to speak. But there is no reason why this and future city councils cannot learn from these lessons and provide the city with some relief to the strain put on public services by making the developers responsible for the initial improvements needed to support their building plans. There is still a new development of houses slated to be constructed off of Bartholomew street that will impact that area of the city tremendously. What is the contractor going to contribute to reduce the impact this will have on the city and its taxpayers? Have the CC members even considered how this will affect the city as a whole? The developer wants only to make money. He is not concerned about anything beyond that. Power, water, sewage, road upkeep, flooding concerns all have no bearing on the developer, as long as he gets his profit. The environmental impact on the wildlife alone, deserves consideration by the CC. We are seeing more and more, coyotes, fox, deer and other animals that we never used to see in our neighborhoods because of the development of our ever-declining open space. How do these developers get these large tracts of land in the first place? Somebody had to have owned it, or it was city property? If it was city property and was sold to be developed, then limits on the size and scope of what can be allowed should have been part of the sale agreement in order to protect the city's resourses and the strain put on them by the development. This all goes right back to the need for re-zoning in this city. It must be done in order to protect us from careless development.
I agree with whogaf. The Council talks all tough, but they don't make the tough decisions. Why did they allow residential at Dearburn in the first place? It was supposed to be an industrial park district!
What are they willing to do to stop overdevelopment in South Peabody? Why can't they figure out the best (or an acceptable) future for Downtown, and then work to make it a reality? I am seeing 11 reactive, rather than proactive, people, many of whom (no offense) are too old and have been in office too long, to really act in the best interests of the citizens. Leaders? I don't think so.
The current re-zoning being sought by The Mayor and Community Development will only look to increase residential development downtown. What we want is NO to the re-zone plan.
Add more residents to the downtown, while adding more businesses to the outskirts!
Is this guy crazy?
Hopefully there are people watching this blog that can spot a wolf in a sheep's suit!
If you can, vote for change!
Judge hears arguments in Niz case
Former coach at Peabody High suing city for age discrimination
By Julie Manganis
Staff writer
PEABODY — Ed Nizwantowski, the former Peabody High football and baseball coach who is suing the city for age discrimination, wants a judge to find the city liable without having to go through a trial, arguing, among other reasons, that the city should be penalized for changing its story about the decision to replace him.
Meanwhile, the city wants the same judge to toss out part of Nizwantowski's lawsuit, arguing that he failed to bring the issue of his lost football job first to the state agency that investigates discrimination complaints.
Nizwantowski, who is now a member of the Peabody School Committee, did not attend the hearing where those arguments were made yesterday in Lawrence Superior Court. Judge David Lowy did not immediately rule on the motions, known as requests for summary judgment.
Nizwantowski was 58 when he lost his two longtime coaching positions.
The judge was asked to rule on two basic legal issues yesterday. First, Nizwantowski claimed there were discrepancies between the explanation former Principal Patrick Larkin, who dismissed Nizwantowski, gave to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and his later statements in a deposition. The judge must determine whether there was a change in the story so significant that the city should be penalized by having the case decided in Nizwantowski's favor.
Second, the judge must decide whether Nizwantowski's failure to first file a complaint with MCAD regarding his removal from the football job precludes him from going to court until he does.
Bill Sheehan, who represents Nizwantowski, argued that the School Department's process to replace Nizwantowski was a "sham" aimed simply at removing the longtime coach, and that when cornered in a deposition, the principal "recanted" that initial version.
The city's attorney, William Bogaert, argued that Larkin's version of the events did not change, but that he simply elaborated more fully on it during a deposition.
Larkin's initial account, he said, was intended to spare Nizwantowski from a public airing of the principal's concerns about the coach. Those concerns included an article in Sports Illustrated that focused on drug and alcohol issues among Peabody High athletes, Nizwantowski's angry tirade over officials' decision not to delay a game in Lowell because of the SATs, and comments from parents.
Larkin had initially said only that the replacement of Nizwantowski was done as part of a routine reassessment of all the coaching positions in the school.
"The school was tired of the focus being on Mr. Nizwantowski for his behavior," Bogaert argued. At the same time, he said, the city did not want to "demean" Nizwantowski.
Sheehan argued that the initial version of events offered by Larkin to the MCAD led to a finding of no probable cause for his complaint over losing his baseball coaching job.
That decision was later reversed, but Nizwantowski then withdrew the complaint anyway and went to court.
The judge questioned whether Sheehan can show what benefit the city gained, given that the MCAD decision was reversed and MCAD found probable cause for the discrimination complaint.
Meanwhile, the city argued that Nizwantowski failed to exhaust all of the available administrative options — in this case, a complaint to MCAD — before he filed suit over the football position (for which he was passed over twice after 17 years in the job).
Sheehan countered that the city was already on notice that Nizwantowski was preparing an age discrimination case and had plenty of opportunity to prepare for the lawsuit.
Lowy did not indicate when he will rule on the two motions.
This blog is useless. No good stories and no good insight. News is posted here days after it is in the paper. Hell, the SNEWS even has more interesting discussions. I hope that Keith can successfully revive the Patriot...because the roundtable is a lost cause.
I am glad that the Patriot has returned in yet another form. I am sure Keith will do a good job trying to continue the original intent of that blog.
Keith had promised to try and post everyday and it is clear he has now decided to post a version of "the Rumor Mill" and that makes many people very happy in this City.
I never intended to be the only place, and sadly for this blog, this is the time of year when I have very little free time for anything but work and family - so yes, the blog suffers.
I hope you enjoy the new Patriot and participate there. I visit as well. I am not closing this blog down however, as this is a place where I can add my insight and commentary when I feel it is advantageous.
Then again... My blog has been here through at least 6 iterations of the Peabody Patriot and numerous starts/stops of Keith's blog, not to mention the few other Peabody sites of interest.
OG says...
1) no need to pick on P1 his blogging efforts....you have a choice...either visit this site or don't...let me help you along...see ya later...
2) and all these 'vote for change' chants amuse me....while I admire your individual disdain for the current status of things please realize that it takes collective voter interest and turnout on election day to enact the change you yearn for..and here in Dark City you will continue to get what you accept and you will continue to reelect the wrong people....why??? look at your track record folks...welcome to the land of incumbency-01960.
OG is right. Nothing will really change this election. Hochman and Bonfanti is the only change this city will see. I predict -
All incumbent councilors, ward and at-large, will keep their seats.
Everyone on the SC will remain, although Hochman WILL be taking Motsoulas's place.
Bonfanti WILL get elected to LC.
There you have it. The results of the November election provided to you in July!
Anon 9:33
I think you're wrong. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in the first Batman movie, what this city needs is an enema. People have reached their tipping point. The Me politicians that are currently in office need to be replaced with the We.
The people of Peabody have a chance to really shake things up this November. My prediction - they will.
Post a Comment