Bond: “Shawn, What say You?”
By Shawn on Jul 16, 2009 in Dracut
I’ve been away for a couple weeks, but you don’t have to be around Dracut for long to see what is going on. Sommerville with trees.. you can still feel the tendrils of political machinations by just taking a walk in the park.
What I have here are a number of clips from last Saturday’s 980 WCAP Saturday Morning Live radio program.
We had Bob Cox come in to discuss the Louisburg Square project. Its three or four years now into the project, and suddenly there are people trying to scuttle it. Brian Bond called in to chime in, and then Ken Martin of Dracut Housing (who wrote that letter to the editor in the Lowell Sun last week).
The project will cost the taxpayers nothing more in taxes. Almost three million will be a grant from the state, the remainder fulfills our requirement for Affordable housing spending under the CPA.
I beleive there is a move to drive the price down, and get the property owner to back away from the deal with the town.
There’s a short article in the past Lowell Sun Political column as well.
We made a deal, and now some want to force the town to back down on that. Once again, we’re not looking at the big picture, but are focussed on the immediate political gains rather than the needs of seniors, the need of the town to get closer to that Affordable 10% (with little impact on town resources), and the ability of the town to make agreements in the future because we can’t be trusted to keep our word.
Are we overpaying? I’m not sure. At the time we made the agreement we weren’t. But do I have the right to go back to my bank now and tell them that I want my deal changed because the economy changed over the last few years?
I also see that if we walk away from this deal, the state is not going to join us on another one for a long time.. so that 2.9 million GRANT will be lost to us.
I see two things going on here.
Once again, there are people looking at the Community Preservation Act funds as a pot of gold for thier own projects. I’ve been warning about this since its inception. We agreed at town meeting how the money would be spent, but once again others see it as money they want (listen to the call from Ken Martin, and even Brian Bond who’ve got their eyes on this cash)
I don’t like that we took an option of bonding the Canney Farm work when we have the cash sitting there.. it just leaves more people looking at that pot-o-gold for themselves. I say spend it on what town meeting said to, and lock up as much as possible on this project so that we can at least end this group’s efforts to go after that cash.
I also agree with Shaw that there is a long term political movement going on in town to try to get control over the Board of Selectmen (and other boards in town). With Town Manager Piendak;s eventual retirement, it will be important to have the right people on that board when selecting a replacement. Every BOS election will be about this issue for the next couple years.
After the spring election, I expected a movement to come from the direction of the the Housing Authority. I just didn’t think they would go after a housing project as a way to try to discredit the selectmen.
Of all the selectmen on the board, O’loughlin has the most experience and uses it well. I’ve said that many times. I’ve disagreed with him on many things as well (such as the recent DATV mess). We’ve all joked about “Bad Jimmy.” But, until I see a candidate appear that sees the Dracut big picture as clearly as he does, and makes decisions that are clearly in Dracut’s best interest and not for some other purpose, I think he will be one of the most important members on that board when selecting a new manager. And, I think he’s the long term target.
All this scheming, I believe, has to do with people moving their pieces onto the table.. on the Housing Authority, the Finance Committee, the “Government Rules” committee, and possibly other boards.
The school committee moves over the last years seem to have been scuttled by the voters.. and I’m sure there are those who aren’t too happy with that.. but I see a much more productive board there now that seems to be focused on the schools rather than politics.
Yeah, I don’t see our town leaders working together to get things done. I see different players setting up their strategies.. sometimes succeeding, often times getting knocked down because the voters catch on.
All we can do is keep requiring transparency, pointing out the facts where we can, and once in a while pointing out our opinions as I have here.
Bob Cox summarizing situation [3:37m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Shaw and Cox discuss Louisberg issue [2:03m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Brian Bond calls in [8:09m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Ken Martin chimes in too.. [12:49m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Loading ...
Dan | Jul 16, 2009 | Reply
You make a couple of interesting points…especially “Yeah, I don’t see our town leaders working together to get things done. I see different players setting up their strategies.. sometimes succeeding, often times getting knocked down because the voters catch on.”
With all of the new residents moving into town, myself being one, I must say I’m extremely happy at the great financial condition our town is in compared to many others in the area. Again, KUDO’s to all of the elected officials involved in that.
As for the structure of the board when the next town manager is selected, hopefully the collective knowledge and experience of the Selectmen under the gun for that decision will have them up for the task. The voters will watch the process closely I’m sure and hopefully a decision in the best interest of the tax payers of Dracut is made.
While experience is nice, first impressions of Mr. O’Laughlin don’t give me the same warm and fuzzy for him that you have. I was horrified an elected official representing me would swipe at the TV people as he did. I was glad he apologized as he clearly was out of line. As a newer resident, Mr. Zimini is more on par with my ideals and that is the mold I would look for in my future votes on Selectmen. The Chair has been entertaining in trying to control things….and he was spot on that the former selectmen with the cell phone rining the other day was out of line…and clearly doesn’t respect the office he previously held by his actions. Hopefully no other selectment are in that mold and no future town manager would be either.
I have a Comm. Preservation Fund question that maybe could be answered by a reader. Don’t the voters get to re-assess the tax situation every 5 years? I, for one, would have a hard time voting to renew if the state keeps upping my taxes as they are doing…..there is a point of pain for all of us and tough choices are going to be made. As the voters do have a chance to directly make a decision on these specific funds, I could see a voter reaction if the economic situation doesn’t change. If that occurs, would the Hosuing project be in trouble funding wise for future capital repairs or would it default back to the general town fund and then the quality town services would suffer?
As the agreement clearly isn’t final (not paid in full), yes, changes could be made and should be made if there are major issues. Hopefully, the cost of repairs being explored by the Housing Board will be low enough to justify the completion of this purchase, maybe with no changes, maybe with a slight tweaking.
If major issues arise, I would hope that all of the involved elected officials would make an assessment together. If the cost of repairs and the value of these units towards the 10% affordable housing stock is more cost effective for the town than providing services to 150 new units in town, then the elected officials should find a way to make the project work while protecting the Housing Authority from going Bankrupt over the capital repairs discovered.
I look forward to seeing this resolved soon.
Jeanne | Jul 17, 2009 | Reply
Dan states:
“I have a Comm. Preservation Fund question that maybe could be answered by a reader. Don’t the voters get to re-assess the tax situation every 5 years? I, for one, would have a hard time voting to renew if the state keeps upping my taxes as they are doing…..there is a point of pain for all of us and tough choices are going to be made. As the voters do have a chance to directly make a decision on these specific funds, I could see a voter reaction if the economic situation doesn’t change.”
From what I understand, until the debt is paid off on these projects, we cannot opt out. Maybe what we can do is lower the surcharge percentage.
Dan | Jul 17, 2009 | Reply
So, based upon Jeanne’s answer and the CPA regulations, tax payers in town could be forced to shoulder a tax burden for issues that arise on this project in the future as we can’t opt out.
…thanks Jeanne, I was looking for that information.
From the CPA website:
(b) At any time after the expiration of five years after the date on which sections 3 to 7, inclusive, have been accepted in a city or town, said sections may be revoked in the same manner as they were accepted by such city or town, but the surcharge imposed under section 3 shall remain in effect in any such city or town, with respect to unpaid taxes on past transactions and with respect to taxes due on future transactions, until all contractual obligations incurred by the city or town prior to such termination shall have been fully discharged.
Shawn | Jul 17, 2009 | Reply
Brian Bond sent an email listing a couple links explaining what the law allows for use of CPA funds.
http://www.communitypreservation.org/enews/DOR_Allowable_Uses_Chart.pdf
http://www.communitypreservation.org/enews/CPA_Allowable_Uses_Chart.pdf
Of course, these are the legal limits. Each town decides for itself what use it wants to make of CPA funds within those limits.
Jeanne | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply
Dan states:
“So, based upon Jeanne’s answer and the CPA regulations, tax payers in town could be forced to shoulder a tax burden for issues that arise on this project in the future as we can’t opt out.”
Dan, I believe the 3% surcharge we pay now can be changed and reduced to 1% through a town meeting vote and then a ballot vote.
Karen | Jul 21, 2009 | Reply
We currently pay a 2% surcharge, not 3%.
Shawn | Jul 21, 2009 | Reply
Thats what I thought, I just didn’t have the time to look it up and I figured one of the CPC guys would respond.