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.

Peabody in the News Spotlight Again

Well it seems that the executive director of the Peabody Housing Authority has been spending some quality time NOT at his desk... but in a local bar while on the clock. At least that is the story according to WHDH...

WHDH Video: Jonathan Hall Uncovers: Peabody Housing Authority
WHDH Article: Peabody Housing Authority
Salem News: Housing Authority to consider allegations against director

I know only two things that might matter here. The first is that people are innocent until proven guilty... even though this guy seem like he admits to the situation. And remember... it is this reporter's job to FIND and REPORT this stuff to GET RATINGS... so everything is always SPECTACULAR!


The second thing is that the Peabody Housing Authority is NOT a City function alone. In fact, the PHA does not report to the Mayor or City Hall at all. This doesn't mean that the City shouldn't be concerned about this behavior... but when folks go to hand out the blame... this really isn't a City Government issue.

Of course... WONDERFUL! If this is true we have yet another Public Employee behaving badly and we have more fodder for the media to beat up on all the good honest hard working public employees.

Now... I am not declaring this man guilty... in fact I was impressed with both his candor and his (partial) explanation for his being away from his duties. So I am interested in seeing what transpires over the next few days.

It is just sad to have PEABODY dragged through the mud in the press yet again.

Thanks to the Anon who posted the link!

Council gives $500,000 to Habitat for Humanity

The Peabody News article: Grant for Park Street rehab project OK'd after council grilling. (Ignore the headline, someone goofed)

I want to start off by saying I have nothing but respect for the Habitat for Humanity organization and the people who support them. They offer a much needed service and an interesting way for people to become involved in their community.

However, I am unhappy that the City Council has decided to scrap the rotating loan program (outlined by Community Development) in favor of a one time gift of $500,000 to Habitat for Humanity. This is not the best use of these moneys and it will only garner 8 new affordable residences. They will also be destroying one of the existing (historic?) buildings in favor of saving two others (5 & 12 Park St will remain, 14 Park St will be demolished and replaced with a new 4 unit condo building).

Now, this is a blighted neighborhood that certainly does need a shot in the arm. But I really was impressed with Jean Delios and her plan for a revolving loan program to assist developers in the renovation of existing properties in especially blighted areas. I feel that just a few months was certainly not a fair trial for such a new program. The City Council should have given it much more time to work.

And I also believe that Habitat for Humanity simply looked around for the deepest pockets it could easily find in this circumstance. A well targeted campaign to raise the funds for this project might well have netted $500k or more even in these difficult financial times. There are a great many people who have a vital and vested interest in seeing downtown not just survive, but thrive – these are the folks who could have stepped up if given the opportunity.

Now I will make 80% of you really angry when I add this next bit… Here is yet another reason we need a new zoning plan for the City of Peabody. To be spending half a million dollars of Peabody money (yes, it is targeted for affordable housing but it is still money) on a project that is NOT part of a comprehensive new plan for the Downtown is reprehensible. It is a waste of taxpayer opportunity if not money.

I am all for new affordable housing in this City. We will need it soon enough if we hope to thwart new 40B projects being railroaded into the City. But to spend precious money on an non-integrated solution for our ailing Downtown is sad and regrettable.

Peabody can NOT use affordable housing funds for fuel assistance program

Salem News: Lawyers say no to using affordable housing money for fuel assistance.

I have mixed feelings about this situation. While I still think that Ted Bettencourt was both unprepared and grand-standing when he made these proposals I like that he was 1) recognizing that people in Peabody are hurting in this financial crisis and 2) trying to solve a problem in an innovative way.

Now he really should have gone about this in an entirely different manner, but perhaps this speaks to the kind of person he is… I don’t know as I do not know the man. But my advice to him (or anyone in his position) is to NOT get people’s hopes up if you don’t do your dam homework first.

Councilor Bettencourt, next time you have a good idea why not run it by the experts in the City who understand these matters better than you do? I mean why not go and discuss this matter with the finance and legal teams we have in the City? Talk to the Mayor and your fellow Councilors. Find out what other programs already exist and see if your idea can actually be done legally BEFORE you need to go and announce an IMPOSSIBLE SCHEME to the PRESS… and through them, a needy public, all in an effort to LOOK GOOD.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe you simply were excited about a good idea and didn’t think through the whole thing before you yelled it to the world. Okay. That I understand. I actually like to see people having some passion about their jobs. Good for you. But let’s consider this a learning experience and maybe next time you can see if your idea is feasible before someone who is truly in trouble and really needs that assistance you promised hears about your plan and thinks help is on the way... when... it really isn’t.

Bettencourt Plan is Wrong Move

* - - - UPDATED - - - *

The "complete" version of the Bettencourt Plan was presented to the City Council and it includes specifics such as income requirements and the need to be current with all City charges. The problem still is that this is using money already earmarked for a different purpose... and using it to duplicate many programs and services already offered to those in need from federal, state and local programs. Read the Salem News article here. And... a Salem News editorial is here.

Ted Bettencourt and the whole City Council want to spend AFFORDABLE HOUSING MONEY, after scolding the City for NOT using it to build new units, to help people pay their heating bills.

Read the Salem News story here.

Now, don't get me wrong... I have been accused of being so liberal I make Obama seem like a Republican (I would dispute that but there you go) and as a champion of the less fortunate, I would gladly support helping people in need during the cold winter months.

But the utter disdain that the City Council has for both the rule and spirit of the law is quite startling. This money is supposed to be used by the City to create AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. It should NOT be used to install new backstops at the ball fields; it should NOT be used to buy the Fire Department a new engine; it should NOT be used to pay for A FULL ROUND OF DRINKS at the City Council Christmas Party.... AND IT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO FUND A CHARITY.

I am all for charity - heck I have given to the local institutions every year since I can remember. But this money IS NOT and CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be used for this purpose.

And wouldn't you agree that this is just a tiny bit disingenuous. Less than 6 weeks ago, the City Council voted to REMOVE the ability of the City to collect just such a fee from developers. The reasons for doing this?

The inclusionary zoning buyout option was intended to give flexibility to developers and the city, which could use payments to fund affordable housing programs or directly develop housing for low-income residents. But City Council President Arthur Athas highlighted its limited impact during a meeting last week. "We have actually nothing to show for it," he said.

...Councilor Rico Mello said he could see the advantage the buyout gives developers but not the benefit it offered the city.

The vote was 8-2, with Dave Gamache and Barry Osborne objecting. Getting something was better than nothing, they both said. "We might as well take the money," Osborne said.

So 8 of these so called leaders were angry with the City for not having created affordable housing with this money... even though Community Development is creating a revolving loan program to help create affordable units out of foreclosed and abandoned properties in Downtown.

I guess a whole lot can happen in 6 weeks time.

And don;t even get me started with the way the brain trust of some on the Council works... You come up with a tiny fragment of an idea... and instead of researching the rules and regulations, instead of seeing the feasibility of such actions... instead of DOING YOUR HOMEWORK LIKE YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO...

You make a grandiose proposal in order to garner LOTS OF ATTENTION ON YOU... and then hand it off to someone else to put the lipstick on your pig.

And if they bother to point out all the PROBLEMS you never even bothered too address... well then THEY ARE SIMPLY NOT TRYING HARD ENOUGH.

Such 3rd grade politics. I opine for the days when Peabody was considered an actual hotbed of political energy and was filled with politicians worth of the public trust.

City Council Blasted for Actions & Inactions (again)

The Salem News certainly likes to beat up on Peabody. Some argue it is only in a Pro-Bonfanti way, I disagree and feel that the Salem News, with its libertarian anti-government at all costs ultra-right wing point of view simply HATES Peabody.

Read the Salem News editorial here.

Now, they actually DO have a point here. I was totally against the move by the City Council to limit the Cities options when dealing with proposed developers. They took away the ability of developers to "buy-out" of the affordable housing requirements by making a cash payment to the City.

The argument from some City Councilors against this one option was that the City had not yet created any affordable housing with this money (which, if I recall correctly) was only from the DeerBurn complex). The fact that the City was initiating a rather smart plan to use these funds to help support revitalizing abandoned or foreclosed properties in poorer sections of the City - with the creation of affordable units... was not considered good enough for the ever forward thinking City Council.

Thankfully the Mayor vetoed this action and the option remains in place when the City is in negotiations with any developer.

But now the Salem News is using this vote against the buy-out as evidence that they are "pandering" on the issue of the old School Administration building on Endicott Street. They are wrong in my view.

Now, the City Council is also wrong on this issue. But the Salem News is pretending that all the developers who have shown interest in the property were going to make these affordable housing units. THEY WERE NOT! McNiff was going to build 4 freestanding single family homes on the property and the other developer was going to build 32 market condos (with, probably, a buy-out from the affordable housing requirement.)

Shame on the Salem News for distorting this already ridiculous probelm into something completely ludirous.