Pages

Monday, April 18, 2016

Hello Monday

Motivation folks, a quality if you will that one needs at times to kick things into gear, and that at times you have to wonder just what is motivating certain actions.

It seems there is a strong motivation to not go through with the latest proposal for the former Oxford School building. Now in fairness, I haven't paid enough attention to the details of the "deal". It could be the deal is no real deal for the town. 

But I am paying enough of attention to the fact that the motivation against it seems to have more to do with the deal another group got some time ago and which is endangered a bit by the new deal. That first deal by the way, well let's hope any new deal for the first deal involves the process you are suppose to use in making such deals in the first place.

But in the end, the story is really what should we do with the new deal for the old school?

At this point, there seems to be a growing trend to stay to hell with it. Let the damn thing crumble and rot.

You ever wonder how come this gift doesn't somehow receive the same love and devotion for salvation as the other gift? 

There is more concern about the historical fire thingy on the lot than the building. That's what drives the engine behind the resistance to the present proposal. Sure we have the neighborhood concerns about more "housing". Sure we had some self-centered arguments for the multi-use not for profit proposal. But the fuel in the engine behind all of it is that little building on the corner of the property.

So here we go, with another bell being rung signaling another round over that "other" gift.

Anyway, expect to spend more money on dealing with the problem. Hey, who knows though, we could see a decisive decision made in the best interest of the entire town. 

Moving on ... if only we truly could ...

One of the potential hot button issue for the TM or the STM, whichever it is in, will be the proposed by-law concerning used auto sale and repair shops and boat stuff.  The 4/12 Planning Board had an interesting meeting trying to calm the waters of those concerned about the overall effect. 

Now once again I will plead ignorance a bit.  I do need to read the darn thing before I side one way or another.  The most interesting tidbit about the whole meeting was an exchange between a business owner/resident with a Town employee. 

I actually watched the meeting because of what I was told had transpired. While not quite the dust up at a public meeting as was told to me, it was nonetheless interesting.  

What makes it more interesting is the background story. Apparently there was a prior "discussion" that was a bit less polite than the one at the meeting.

Now as I have often said, don't take everything you hear as gospel. Advice you should also follow when reading things reported/written by third parties (yes, that includes what appears on these pages).

For the meetings, we usually have the reliable tape. The tape doesn't take side. It just is. It would be very interesting to have a tape of the other conversation, if the content of the same are what is being rumored.

You want specifics, you will have to put your ear to the ground so to speak. You will also need to resist the temptation to report your third-party version of the same, at least on these pages. Just keep your ears perked up a bit, because I am hearing there is more to hear down the road on this one.

Anyway, the Town Warrant is out for the annual Town Meeting (and the STM). Could be I am misreading a thing or two, but ...

Anyway take a look for yourself, see if you you find yourself misreading a thing or two yourself.

One thing I do know, Chapter 389 of the Acts of 2014 was not an act relative to zoning.

Town Meeting this year will be a special one, that's for sure. First one under our new format, which will deal with attempting to amend our new format to take care of some of the pieces of our new format that don't apply since the new and improved BPW proposal was rejected by the voters.

Wonder what the tap dance for that will be if there is someone who seeks an explanation as to what the article is all about.

Hopefully someone will tell TM it needs to do the right thing and adopt the language to clean up the debris from the fallout of the two articles previously passed by TM.

Think anyone is going to argue we need to take another town wide vote on the BPW article?

Doesn't appear the term limit thingy made its way back to TM.  A  number of months ago it was reported that there might be an attempt to take another kick at the can on that one.  Of course that would have meant some one would have actually had to get up and argue for that one again. Which is probably why it isn't back on the warrant.

Anyway ...

A Massachusetts holiday or not, I need to get an early start today.  So ...

Until next time.







4 comments:

  1. The former school buildings, one loved, one not loved. Depends on which side of the tracks you're from I guess. I've lived on both sides of the tracks, both buildings are loved and not loved equally by persons with ties to them on both sides of those tracks.

    You know who didn't love these buildings? The school department. Decades of neglect, purposely letting these historic building fall into a state of disrepair that left them unsafe for students and essentially valueless on the open market. Argue my point if you want but the lack of any meaningful proposals on these properties tells the story.

    Proposals with NO backing or concrete plans and requests for 2 years to get financial backing without any meaningful upfront investment or potential loss to these bidders show the reality of these burdens to the town. Historical gems, gifts from our benefactor. Our benefactor placed a large burden on our beautiful town for many generations with all his generosity.

    Lets face the facts folks. You need to take away at least 50% of the terrible additions to these buildings to get back to the original footprint. Then take a moment and step inside, what's left. There is very little original fabric remaining. And what is, is covered in lead paint, mold and asbestos. Remove that and how much do you have left now?

    With actions like removing the Oxford bell tower and bell with zero consideration to preserve some of the remaining originality of the building shows those in charge and on all these committees really haven't a clue of what they are doing. Now they want to do the same to Rogers? At least that can't use a chainsaw to get access to the bell there.

    The tiny fire station garage on the Oxford property, that can probably be placed on a tiny trailer and be put in the same undisclosed secure location with the Oxford bell and bell tower to be somehow displayed, reused, repurposed at a later undisclosed date after 15 separate committees, with 15 separate agendas over the next 15 years decide the fate of these treasures.

    It's time to face reality. These buildings are burdens on the town, this never ending cycle has to stop. No we do not need a town hall annex and to relocate the school dept. We don't need and don't want to pay for this. How many years has it been now? Let's start placing ads for a RFP for companies to demolish and recycle the reusable materials from these buildings. We can then have more open space in this town. I know of some organizations who actually buy properties to preserve open space on the south coast, maybe they would be interested in placing them into their land trusts after the cleanup is completed, or maybe even help with the cleanup costs, maybe we can use our own CPA funds, open space and outdoor recreation are part of the goals, expansion of these two parks should meet the requirements.

    One can dream I guess. Like the dream of keeping the remaining Atlas Tack building standing at the hopes of ever regaining the back taxes on that property owed. There is another building that needs to be demolished for serious immediate safety reasons. Wake up Fairhaven, you're not going to get those back taxes and have the building demolished on the owners dime, that ship has sailed. Foreclose on it and come up with some solutions, not pipe dreams.

    The leaders of this town, both on the payroll and elected, and the concerned citizens on all the committees and in the general population need to get on the same page, or hey here's a thought, let's just try reading the same book at this point and come to some sort of agreement on these town burdens.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with a great deal of what the previous commenter posted.

    Unfortunately, the Atlas Tack issue is problematic. If you think the Town has enough problems with the school buildings, taking any part of Atlas Tack would make the School situations look tame. If the Town took that property for any reason, it would also inherit environmental liability. That would be an extremely expensive proposition, considering the property was a Superfund site!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A point most overlook regarding Atlas Tack. The Feds and State need to change the law to allow towns/cities some protection relative to taking over such sites. the could structure the changes to maintain pre-existing liability for prior owners, especially when the situation is like this one, where the determinations have been made and the issue is essentially money.

      Delete
  3. The one thing I will say on the school building conditions, present condition is not a problem brought on solely by the school department. This town for decades ignored infrastructure needs for the schools. Indeed the attitude as always be a prevailing blind neglect by EVERYONE. Simply put the resistance of changing anything, especially the "historic" buildings was constantly fought. But for saving the "Castle" i wouldn't have bet a plug nickle this town would have voted to support any initial override back in the 90s. I spent nearly two solid decades dealing with people who started each and every budget process with essentially looking no further to chopping the school department requests as their preferred method of balancing. Around the turn of the century (I love being able to use that phrase), when the original needs assessment was done for the elementary and middle school, it was essentially dismissed by the vast majority of non-school people, because of the price tag, with the ironic argument of essentially why ould e dumped any real money into such old buildings.

    ReplyDelete

Prior to posting a comment, please review "Comment Rules" page.