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.

Mayor to ask City Council to Prioritize To-Do List

* --- UPDATED --- *

The Boston Globe North section has an article about the City's plan to FINALLY address the Crystal Lake/Elginwood Pond problems.

Read the whole story in the Boston Globe here.

The more interesting part of the article though deals with Mayor Bonfanti's plan to give the City Council a list of PRIORITY ITEMS for BONDING. The City can only bond about $8M according to the Mayor, but the list now totals more than $14M (down from an original wishlist of $170M).

So the Mayor is bringing this list of items to the City Council for them to discuss and advise him on their priorities for the coming year.

Frankly, wow. This is one of the first really positive moves toward some UNITY within the City that I have seen in a long while. In recent actions I have been quite critical of the Mayor (especially in the negotiations with unions), but this seems like a rather bold (and unexpected) move and one I applaud.

Now, of course, this good will must move from the Mayor to the City Council. And in a very uninformed way, Councilor Gamache has already declared that the City needs to do more than the $8M that the finance department has calculated.

Ward 5 Councilor David R. Gamache, who represents West Peabody, said that if Bonfanti offers a priority list that exceeds his bonding target, "I think we should look at the possibility of including more money over and above the $8 million to get these projects done." He said this might be a favorable market to borrow for capital projects.

Another uninformed and un-researched headline grabbing statement from someone on the City Council?? Perhaps Councilor Gamache has researched the financial situation in great detail and is somehow aware of more funding options that the City Finance Director, but I think not.

And if this is how they will proceed with this issue... as adversaries and not colleagues, I fear it is destined to become business (or rather gridlock) as usual.