#1 2009-09-01 14:15:48

I emailed Courier editor David Smith in response to his offer to have a counter-point Q&A to Sweet Brucey's about Westfield. I hope you will help me come up with some of the major concerns concerning Westfield on this thread. The response I received from Mr. Smith is as follows:

"Hi,
Thanks for getting back to me regarding my post. As far as questions, my reporter and I are gathering questions. The obvious (and general one) is, What are the drawbacks to this project? Are there better town-owned properties for this type of project (better as far as location, maybe lower cost, etc)? Does this type of housing meet the needs of seniors in town? I know Ruth is working with another person on this, but nothing says we can only have one reply. I am open to suggestions for questions, especially as you are tuned in -between your site and your familiarity with the others- to what some of the other issues might be.

Thanks again, and as I said in my post, we more than welcome as many views on an issue as we can get.
-Dave"

He seems interested in hearing what we have to add. Let's not pass on this.

PShooter

Offline

 

#2 2009-09-01 16:13:33

The biggest question is how does the BOS justify violating the will of the people and the BOS in 1977 to reserve that land for public recreational use?
Second question: What does your town counsel say about this after you have paid them tens of thousands of dollars?

Offline

 

#3 2009-09-01 16:23:12

I am looking for the link to the interview, will check the other thread.

Steve

Last edited by searay240 (2009-09-02 19:46:31)

Offline

 

#4 2009-09-01 16:57:15

searay240 wrote:

I am looking for the link to the interview, will check the other thread.

Steve

http://www.wickedlocal.com/wareham/news … -Sauvageau

PShooter

Last edited by PShooter (2009-09-02 18:57:54)

Offline

 

#5 2009-09-01 17:26:45

Dan,

Since you were there, you should be able to answer this question in some detail. Here is the first question posed to Bruce about the legality and the current Board's interpretation of the deed.

As a follow-up does anyone have a copy of the current deed from the Registry?

WC: Can you explain how town counsel said it is perfectly legal to put this kind of facility at that location despite the fact the land is deeded for recreational use only? Or is this a misunderstanding of the deed?

BS: The deed recorded actually only references municipal use. It is not specific to its use. The BOS (Board of Selectmen) at that time (1977) voted to add specific restrictions to it, and that has led to the confusion. In just the same manner that this BOS is required to go to Town Meeting for an adoption of use, that board should have done the same.
The only relevant legal document in operation therefore is the recorded deed. This issue is further complicated because a separate 15-acre parcel also associated with the Westfield parcel was set aside for the school department. Again, it was never properly restricted by both deed and town vote, but there is a memorandum of understanding between the BOS and the School Committee, which also would need to be perfected by Town Meeting.

Offline

 

#6 2009-09-01 17:38:04

The next three questions address the age and location in proximity to shopping etc.

Feel free to express your opinions.

Here are some follow-up questions:

1 - How many Seniors using the COA service are between the age of 55 and 65?
2-  Is a "no" vote depriving seniors? (What age do you consider someone a senior citizen?
3 - What will be the ratio of age groups living in this development?
4 - How much will these services cost?


Here are the questions and answers from the Courrier Q&A Session:

WC: A strike against the idea is that the proposed location is too remote.
BS: The property isn't really that far away from anything. It's in Wareham, closer to the mall and other shopping than most people, and age 55 is not old. Most of these residents still work, still drive and are living completely independently.

WC: What about people who don't drive or have access to a vehicle?
BS:   Transportation services are an integral component of the RFP. GATRA and/or other transportation services will (must) be part of this scheme for exactly that reason. We want to provide more services, not less. It won't be a problem.

WC: Who do you anticipate living in the facility?
BS:  Wareham senior citizens and residents over age 55. It is an age-restricted complex. That is where the critical demand for housing is, and affordability is an acute need of that demographic.

Offline

 

#7 2009-09-01 17:46:17

OK before you bark at me I know this one is a softball question but your input is requested.

Follow-up question:

1 - How many police, summer cops, teachers, a police station, lifeguards, road repairs, municipal maintenance, bike path, and additional services busses, transportation etc for the development, can be funded with $250,000.00 per year?

2 - Will this $250,000.00 be placed in a special fund and not be placed in the General Fund for everyday use?



Here are the Q&A's

WC: What would you say to those opposing the project as a means to get them to be open-minded about it?
BS:   I would say please look at it from the perspective of a win-win. First, what's in it for you?  This project is fairly projected to produce about $250,000 per year in tax and service revenues, net of expenses. The investment we make will be $500,000 in CPA funds that have been sitting in accounts unutilized for that purpose because there has been no such opportunity for it until now. That's a 50 percent return every year for the foreseeable future. Our risk money is completely removed in two years.
That is an astounding return on investment, especially in this economic environment. Those additional revenues can fund more police, summer cops, teachers, a police station, lifeguards, road repairs, municipal maintenance, a bike path, etc. In other words, economic development is the solution to many problems. By helping others, we can help ourselves; a win-win.

Finally I would say to those who question the need or demand for this housing; consider the fact that Wareham has a higher demographic of seniors compared to the region, and a lower income. The reality is that Wareham is among the poorer communities statewide. If the demand isn't here, then where in the world would it be? We need it. It will resolve a lot of suffering; the best return on our investment of all.

Last edited by searay240 (2009-09-01 17:47:44)

Offline

 

#8 2009-09-01 18:40:28

Steve,
I respect what you say. I will only tell you that the BOS in 1977 did not want the land used for anything except recreational use by the people of Wareham. Recreation meaning parks, play areas, nature walks, etc.
Yes, there was a set aside for a potential school, but I am sure that use is no longer necessary.
Agawan Village and it's expansion I think warrants a good look.
One of the biggest problems will be to find a developer who wants to buy and develop the land as low income or senior only or an ALF, or whatever.
The supposed net income of $250,000.00 is not going to be consistent once the infrastructure of such a development deteriorates, people don't fill the project, developer goes bankrupt, etc.,etc.
I believe it is a violation of the intent of the Board of Selectmen and the Town Meeting in 1977 to have anything other than the use described.

Offline

 

#9 2009-09-01 20:39:13

Dan,  Do you really know who you are trying to quide  or direct to do the right thing for this territory?  Please if you have nothing to lose.  Please retreat.  So we may possibly have a chance to save our town.  You do not live here or vote.   What is your interest ?  We have established that you were against Chief Joyce . Ok.  No big deal.   Please stop causing trouble.  I think Capt C. would agree with me. 
Cease and desist.  Card tell em.

Offline

 

#10 2009-09-01 20:51:59

Au contraire, pinkie my dear. I, for one, STRONGLY welcome DanO's knowledge, experience and insight.

Offline

 

#11 2009-09-01 20:56:14

Pink,  I find Dan's comments useful and informative.  Because he is an outsider with former involvement with Wareham, he is not as emotionally involved and can present another view for us to consider.

Offline

 

#12 2009-09-01 21:12:54

Let me get this straight, Pinky.  Dan, a former Wareham resident and selectman, shouldn't say anything, but Bobo the Dumbass can shoot his mouth off from his home office in a far away town all day long?

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-09-01 21:15:11)

Offline

 

#13 2009-09-01 21:41:09

PinkPanther wrote:

Dan,  Do you really know who you are trying to quide  or direct to do the right thing for this territory?  Please if you have nothing to lose.  Please retreat.  So we may possibly have a chance to save our town.  You do not live here or vote.   What is your interest ?  We have established that you were against Chief Joyce . Ok.  No big deal.   Please stop causing trouble.  I think Capt C. would agree with me. 
Cease and desist.  Card tell em.

pink i for 1 take in and respect the knowledge and widsom of my elders.. slager should be gone he has NEVER lived or voted here waaayyy before dan leaves..

Offline

 

#14 2009-09-02 08:29:32

Thanks for all of your support to let an old Selectman, born and raised and still in love with my Town, an opportunity to express my opinions.
Thank you Liz for referring to me as your elder. The Chinese are well known for listening to their elders.
Again, learn from history or be doomed to repeat it.

Offline

 

#15 2009-09-02 09:51:26

WC: Can you explain how town counsel said it is perfectly legal to put this kind of facility at that location despite the fact the land is deeded for recreational use only? Or is this a misunderstanding of the deed?

BS: The deed recorded actually only references municipal use. It is not specific to its use. The BOS (Board of Selectmen) at that time (1977) voted to add specific restrictions to it, and that has led to the confusion. In just the same manner that this BOS is required to go to Town Meeting for an adoption of use, that board should have done the same.
The only relevant legal document in operation therefore is the recorded deed.

The chairman is absolutely correct.  Where he misses the mark (by a mile) is that the title (deed) recorded at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds in Bk 4323 / Pg 111-113 is quite clear.  Now, either he hasn't read it or doesn't comprehend it, clearly.  I've also heard counsel's opinion read into the record and it's clear that the BOS need a 2/3's vote of Town Meeting to allow for a housing development use.  I've also heard Ms. Jane's interpretation that somehow the BOS back in 1977 didn't act appropriately with the "order of taking".  I'll go on record here to suggest I think she's wrong.

Dan, would you care to weigh in ?

Also, for all tuned in last night, it sounded like the consultant, Mr. Heaton, has submitted three more invoices totaling nearly another $27,000 to be paid from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which the BOS have NO authority to spend from.  Now they are scrambling to appoint a board of trustees to cover their incompetent asses.  They simply don't do anything by the letter of the law.  Like Ms. Jane stated on town meeting floor, and I'm paraphrasing,
its okay to break the law as long as no one challenges it.  So much for her oath of office too, to uphold the Charter, By-laws and laws of the Commonwealth.

I also heard it noted last night that one of the invoices submitted identified a charge for having met with me.  I did meet with Mr. Heaton after he returned from vacation back the first week of July.  Prior to my request for a meeting to discuss several issues he had not seen the most current title on record.
Why ?  I don't know.  Someone didn't do their homework.  Regardless, this BOS are of the mind set that this is exactly what a "further study" vote has
"mandated" them to do.  I don't recall the discussion on town meeting floor telling them to come back with an RFP.  I recall the discussion saying that this site is not ideal for senior housing.  I'll review the tape.

The question that needs to be answered is why is there such a rush on this ?
And, why not take  the time needed to do it right once ?  We're now into our second, modified RFP with hasty parameters for October TM.  That's no way to handle a matter of this nature, whether it's on the Westfiel site or another town owned site.

Last edited by bbrady (2009-09-02 09:54:40)

Offline

 

#16 2009-09-02 10:14:04

searay240,  I have copies of the deed.  They are available through the Assessor's office by the address 4 Westfield III or I can meet with you to
get you a copy.

Offline

 

#17 2009-09-02 10:35:17

Bob,
I have said before and I will say it again. The Board of Selectmen in 1977 imposed those restrictions on the Westfield property to ensure that the people of Wareham and their children and grandchildren would have a pristine, beautiful environmentally protected piece of property that would be used for recreational use for all to enjoy.
I defy anyone to tell me that we didn't "perfect" it by either going on Town Meeting floor or to order the Town Attoney to do his job and perfect it.
It is inconceivable to me to think we did, or would have done, any differently.
Are there any records, written or audio, that go back that far to verify what I have said?
I hope so, because it will put to rest what I have been saying all along.
The Westfield property is for PUBLIC use, period.

Offline

 

#18 2009-09-02 12:12:03

Dan and Bob,
I think it would be imperative to FOIA a transcript of the town meeting in 1977. I think I have a copy of the Town Report and can give Bob Brady the specific article number, so he doesn't need to request a transcript of the entire meeting, just the transcript of discussion on that articlle.

Seems to me that there was considerable discussion on town meeting floor with regard to keeping that area as open space for recreational purposes. I  believe if my memory serves me correctly that the town could not take the property for a specific purpose, hence "general municipal purpose", but once it owned the property, it could put restrictions on the use of it. It could not be amended on town meeting floor to be used as open space, but the BOS could add the restrictions when filing the deed. Based on the overwhelming sentiment and discussion on town meeting floor the Board of Selectmen agreed to the madate of Town meeting and once the town took possession they filed the deed with restrictions. It was not a willy nilly whim of the Board of Selectmen to make that choice. It was a mandate by the voters and I believe if you go back and listen to the tape, it will be very clear that the reason why the deed has those restrictions was because the community wanted it preserved for open space and recreation.....

Last edited by Maturevoter (2009-09-02 12:13:07)

Offline

 

#19 2009-09-02 12:31:36

Mv,  That's also my recollection as recreation committees over time have presented recreation use plans.  It's just nice to know that there are others besides Dan and I that can weigh in.  Excellent work.
I'll visit Town Hall to see if a transcript and the recording is available.

Offline

 

#20 2009-09-02 14:51:46

Maturevoter...you are obviously an old coot like me. I must know you.
I am glad to hear someone besides me remembers back to those Town Meetings ( I think this was discussed at two Town Meetings).
Also good to know that gray matter is still OK, at least with you and me.
Thanks for your recollections.

Offline

 

#21 2009-09-02 15:17:22

Yes, Dan, we most likely do know one another although I may be just a year or two younger.

Offline

 

#22 2009-09-02 17:43:28

again to all my elders on this hate blooging power elite site and brothers and sisters from another mother thanks for all your widsom and knowledge to help all of us youngns' make our town something to be proud of again...much respect..

Offline

 

#23 2009-09-02 17:46:37

Dan and Mv,  Gray matter doesn't count when it's your hair.  He he he

Offline

 

#24 2009-09-02 17:48:05

Bless you, grasshopper, Liz.
Perhaps we will sit together someday and I'll tell you everything I know.
Then, after the five minutes, Larry can make us a nice southern dinner.

Offline

 

#25 2009-09-02 17:56:33

By the way, I hope your t-shirt sales are going well so that you can afford to fight a very hard battle coming up VERY soon.
You can't allow yourselves to be outspent or out maneuvered.
Time is short!

Offline

 

#26 2009-09-02 18:38:29

Thanks to those who have added to this thread. I defer to your knowledge on this, and many, subjects. I'm aware of some of the issues with Westfield that are common knowledge (at least to readers of this site). As is usually the case, I learn more by reading what you, thankfully, share.

Like many of the issues discussed on this blog, Westfield appears to have been mishandled by our leadership. This pattern needs to stop in order for the town to flourish. I would support a recall, but by listening to individuals through this site and elsewhere, I feel maybe the town is better off waiting. It's just a question of how much more can they screw up our town. I blame them for putting us in this predicament. I would hope they'd resign. If they were to say "Who me?", trust me, the answer is "Yeah, you."

I received a response to another email I sent to Courier Editor, David Smith concerning a counter-point Q&A on Westfield. I directed him to this thread, and the responses posted here. He replied, "..I do appreciate it. I will check it out and start putting this all together". I hope he finds the information here useful. The BOS, etc. are always saying they welcome public opinion, and such. Well, here it is.

Please add your thoughts on the Westfield project, be they supportive or not.

PShooter

Offline

 

#27 2009-09-02 18:51:04

Thanks, PShooter...
You don't have the time, money, candidates or energy to recall the current board.
Your concern is to elect two new Selectmen in April.
Before that, your mission is to stop nonsense being proposed for Town Meeting.
Be patient.
Be smart.
WIN!!

Offline

 

#28 2009-09-02 19:19:13

dan is right as residents and voters we need to be well informed and knowledgeable on the topics that will be put before us to vote on at fall town meeting..

my grandpa always told us as young kids "KNOWLEDGE IS POWER"

this site has banned together many small groups and individuals for something greater than ourselves and our opinions....WAREHAM

WAREHAM is more than a place to pull of 495 and get gas or food before coming to the cape

WAREHAM is a splendid and beautiful place and so are its people

WAREHAM is diverse beaches, camping, history, preserved open space and its people diverse

WAREHAM..

just the tip of the iceberg as to why i love wareham. i grew up in this town i left but i came back because this is my home and where i wanted my daughter to grow up and call here home.
WAREHAM...

Offline

 

#29 2009-09-02 19:51:02

I understand that some that view this thread may be concerned about posting answers to questions, please feel free to send me an email and I will compile your answers so that no one will know your identity.

This is a very serious issue, and your input is needed.

Thanks
Steve

Offline

 

#30 2009-09-03 09:50:43

I've dug through my "collections" from town meetings (yes, I keep these things) and have come across something that makes me want to ask a more pertinent question, but not on this thread. I will contact Bob Brady and perhaps Dan, since he was a Selectmen at the time the land was aquired and ask if they can verify something.  If neither of them can remember I will contact former Selectmen Claire McWillams and Richard Post, who were Selectmen at the time this land was taken. A little research may shed some light.

Offline

 

#31 2009-09-03 10:02:09

Contact me anytime, mature...
Make sure you tell Claire that I said hello if you see her. I'll be seeing her and Tuey in a few weeks when they return to Florida.
I am glad to know Dick Post is alive and well. Please tell him I said hello.

Offline

 

#32 2009-09-03 10:34:40

In the past, when the town does a formal study, it first presents an article on Town Meeting floor, authorizing the expenditure of any funds to do the study, and is required to go out to bid if the study will cost more than $10,000. I understand that the contract with Mr. Heaton was for $15,000 and has already exceeded that dollar amount by well over, double the amount, plus more.

When did town meeting vote to do a formal study and authorize the expenditure of funds? When did the RFP for the study go out to bid? Who were the responsive bidders? What was the program and scope of the study? What were the qualifications for a responsive bidder and did Mr. Heaton meet those? Was the process for awarding the contract properly followed?

Were there addendums to the contract for  this additonal work and if so, were those legally done or should the contract have been rebid as an entirely different study? Taking out assisted living, if it was included as the original scope of the project, now makes the project a new and different project and should it have been rebid as a new study? If the scope is different, perhaps it should? All questions that a procurement officer would be concerned with.

If the contract the Selectmen are using was the same one initieated by Community Development a couple of years ago, was Mr. Heaton a bidder at that time? Seems to me, I remember seeing a BOS meeting where Mr. Cronan simply asked the rest of the Board if they could invite Mr. Heaton in and have a conversation with him about affordable housing. How was Mr. Heaton hired? If they are using that old contract and he was not a responsive bidder for that contract, then is the contract valid? Did the Board violate the procurement process?

Someone should ask these questions.

No one is against senior housing. No one is against affordable housing. The process followed for doing this study is questionable.

Offline

 

#33 2009-09-03 15:30:12

I have been to every town meeting and believe me, we did not vote to do a formal study nor did we authorize the expenditure of funds. And since the funds they used came from the Affordable Housing Trust, the trustees for that fund would have had to authorize it. Oops, no trustees. What's a little Mass General Law to these people?

Offline

 

#34 2009-09-05 01:48:11

bbrady wrote:

WC: Can you explain how town counsel said it is perfectly legal to put this kind of facility at that location despite the fact the land is deeded for recreational use only? Or is this a misunderstanding of the deed?

BS: The deed recorded actually only references municipal use. It is not specific to its use. The BOS (Board of Selectmen) at that time (1977) voted to add specific restrictions to it, and that has led to the confusion. In just the same manner that this BOS is required to go to Town Meeting for an adoption of use, that board should have done the same. The only relevant legal document in operation therefore is the recorded deed.

"..Where he misses the mark (by a mile) is that the title (deed) recorded at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds in Bk 4323 / Pg 111-113 is quite clear.

The Deed is worded as, "..do hereby take in fee simple for school or municipal buildings, and/or recreational, playground, and park purposes.."

That's not what Sweet Brucey told the Courier.

PShooter

Offline

 

#35 2009-09-05 07:51:58

Any lawyer that misinterprets that wording should be disbarred.

Offline

 

#36 2009-09-05 08:15:29

Any law student who misinterprets something that simple probably won't pass the bar.

Offline

 

#37 2009-09-05 08:29:15

Someone said that the Chairman of the BOS is a law student, is that correct?
If it is, and he actually graduates, make sure we know what school it was so we can have it looked at for certification and accreditation.

Offline

 

#38 2009-09-05 10:22:59

PShooter wrote:

The Deed is worded as, "..do hereby take in fee simple for school or municipal buildings, and/or recreational, playground, and park purposes.."

Here's a thought!  Maybe that means the land can only be used for school or municipal buildings, and/or recreational, playground, and park purposes...and if you use it for anything else, you're not only sticking up a big middle finger to the person that donated the property to the town (who specified what they wanted it used for) but you're also opening up the town for a lawsuit because that donater's heirs are still around, the property legally belongs to them once the town starts using it for another purpose other than what was specified!

Do you think when Brucey took the bar whenever he saw a question of "What does the law say about?"  that he just wrote "The law is whatever Sweet Brucey says it is, damn it!"

Offline

 

#39 2009-09-05 12:37:32

I believe if you go back to the meeting discussing the lawyers opinion they used the term municipal use.

Offline

 

#40 2009-09-21 06:29:09

Molly wrote:

I have been to every town meeting and believe me, we did not vote to do a formal study nor did we authorize the expenditure of funds. And since the funds they used came from the Affordable Housing Trust, the trustees for that fund would have had to authorize it. Oops, no trustees. What's a little Mass General Law to these people?

I witnessed the act of appointing members to the Wareham Affordable Housing Trust "Fund" at the last Tuesday Night Live session.  To my way of thinking, and I'm no lawyer or a "wanna be" lawyer but those appointments should have been made to the "Board of Trustees" OF the Wareham Affordable Housing Trust Fund.  Further, it should be known that as per the Town of Wareham By-laws : (Division VII, Article III subsection 3.
Composition), "The Trust Fund shall have five (5) Trustees at all times.  At least one of the Trustees shall be a member of the BOS.  The BOS shall appoint the remaining Trustees.  In making the appointments, the BOS shall endeavor to provide a broad-based membership including legal, banking, financial and real estate professionals, other members of the local business community and affordable housing advocates".

Now, having reviewed the applications of those appointed, not one of them has any qualifications as suggested in the By-law.  At least none were noted.  But just like with the hasty actions for the project itself this act is also not well thought out.  They are scrambling to cover their butts because they have illegally spent funds to pay the consultant with NO authority to do so as per MGL Ch. 44 Sec 55C.
And why are we not including OUR Housing Authority member's input ???

Last edited by bbrady (2009-09-21 06:31:31)

Offline

 

#41 2009-09-21 11:03:09

We have a selectman  who is justifying  his improper and possibly illegal actions by making himself into a modern version of Robin Hood:"Robbing the rich to help the poor".  He maintains that we need the Westfield Project to relieve the pain and suffering of Wareham citizens. That sets up  anyone who challenges him to be  portrayed as a crass person with a disdain for helping people in need.

There's talk about  demographic support for the plan but  I see a common sense contradiction: For the Westfield project to help Wareham residents the new residents of Westfield will be moving out of...what? And who will be moving into the places they have been living in? Can someone help me with that? Doesn't it seem as if we will  just be adding to the problems that are being used to justify it?

In 1977 the Town of Wareham seemed to be united in favor of  using the land to improve the quality of life for young people, perhaps because they had the wisdom to see that what they were proposing would not only help current kids, but could serve as a lure for new families in search of a town that had its priorities straight.

Good playgounds benefit everyone. If you doubt that, ask a cop. He/she is going to give you a resounding,"Yes."

For me there are two reasons for "staying the course" with Westfield: one is that the stated  wish of Wareham in 1977 must be honored for moral and legal reasons, and the other is that their reasons for  limiting the use of the property are just as sound today as they were then.

If there is ever to be a "municipal building" on that property, my vote would be for a covered hockey rink.The housing plan would make more sense on land that "perks", and which is already served by public transportation.

Offline

 

#42 2009-09-21 13:46:57

Perfect point Dick. If you say that on Town Meeting floor, the argument will be won in your favor.
As A Selectman who served in 1977, you are absolutely right about that too.

Offline

 

#43 2009-09-21 13:53:50

bbrady wrote:

I witnessed the act of appointing members to the Wareham Affordable Housing Trust "Fund" at the last Tuesday Night Live session.  To my way of thinking, and I'm no lawyer or a "wanna be" lawyer but those appointments should have been made to the "Board of Trustees" OF the Wareham Affordable Housing Trust Fund.  Further, it should be known that as per the Town of Wareham By-laws : (Division VII, Article III subsection 3.
Composition), "The Trust Fund shall have five (5) Trustees at all times.  At least one of the Trustees shall be a member of the BOS.  The BOS shall appoint the remaining Trustees.  In making the appointments, the BOS shall endeavor to provide a broad-based membership including legal, banking, financial and real estate professionals, other members of the local business community and affordable housing advocates".

Now, having reviewed the applications of those appointed, not one of them has any qualifications as suggested in the By-law.  At least none were noted.  But just like with the hasty actions for the project itself this act is also not well thought out.  They are scrambling to cover their butts because they have illegally spent funds to pay the consultant with NO authority to do so as per MGL Ch. 44 Sec 55C.
And why are we not including OUR Housing Authority member's input ???

Excellent point. "Going by the book", is not exactly the BOS's track record.

Sweet Brucey is all ready to start cutting checks to Dick Heaton again.

...and what happened?
The ITA was supposed to have the lowdown on what exactly, was the deal on Heaton's payments due, on services performed above the original contract. Everyone on the BOS made sure to tell him at the 9/1 meeting, to have explanations ready for the 9/15 meeting. Then, nothing.

NO WESTFIELD                        KEEP CIVIL SERVICE                       NO MAYOR

PShooter

Offline

 

#44 2009-09-21 14:04:27

One of the points that Bob has made is that our current affordable senior housing is in deplorable condition. Why would we pursue a new project when we need to repair what we currently have? Are we considering those who live in these conditions? If we are concerned with affordable housing for seniors, and we are, let's concentrate on fixing what we currently have BEFORE we consider constructing and promoting new housing.

The statement by Bruce, that he cannot undertand why anyone would be against affordable housing for seniors is so out of joint with reality!  If he really cared about affordable housing for seniors, he would put his efforts into fixing the current housing for our seniors!

Offline

 

#45 2009-09-21 14:10:31

Larry McDonald wrote:

The statement by Bruce, that he cannot undertand why anyone would be against affordable housing for seniors is so out of joint with reality!  If he really cared about affordable housing for seniors, he would put his efforts into fixing the current housing for our seniors!

Suggesting that we are against affordable housing for seniors is as "off-base", as calling us racists. It's a label/smear campaign, plain & simple. I have seen NO evidence to suggest either off these assertions is accurate.

"Get the Raid"--for you DanO.

PShooter

Offline

 

#46 2009-09-21 14:26:24

It makes me curious as to why he is so behind Westfield that he is willing to break MGL to accomplish this???  What is the missing piece?????

Offline

 

#47 2009-09-21 15:28:04

Follow the money!!
Thank you brother, PShooter.
I am seeing a lot of people carrying cans of Raid now. You are blessed that you all have such a depth of qualified, caring, foresighted people that can be candidates for the offices you know you must replace.
I love my TAKE BACK WAREHAM t-shit.
I can see it happening.

Offline

 

#48 2009-09-21 15:45:03

I am trying to follow the money.

My first thought was that with the amount of back taxes owed by Bruce, he would be left in foreclosure and looking for affordable housing. I doubt it is that simple. (it never is)

My guess is to start with Mr. Heaton and developers to see where the connection is.

Offline

 

#49 2009-09-21 15:54:32

Exactly, Larry...what is the connection between the person named and any entity that is thinking about the development.
All developers have shot down the idea so far. When one pops up, then you will be able to follow the money.
I think it is all academic, because I believe that you will knock the proposal down at Town Meeting.
But, you can believe that the other side will be spending a lot of time and money to make sure you are not successful on Town Meeting floor.
That's why you are doing the right thing by establishing a grass roots effort and this web site.
You will win.
I have no question in my mind.
I thank you ahead of time for protecting the Town and it's future.
You will TAKE BACK WAREHAM...

Offline

 

#50 2009-09-21 17:05:13

Larry McDonald wrote:

It makes me curious as to why he is so behind Westfield that he is willing to break MGL to accomplish this???  What is the missing piece?????

Sweet Brucey is a Financial Advisor/Insurance. Elderly people are prime prospects. A lifetime of earnings to invest, and insurance products abound. These people are looking for someone who sounds like he's looking out for their best interests. He wants to be viewed as the guy who cares about them. They take a back seat to concerns for himself.

PShooter

Offline

 

#51 2009-09-21 17:13:01

Good point, PShooter.
I can well imagine that a self-absorbed, egotistical, rude, narcissistic numb nuts would take advantage of the elderly.
My opinion, of course.

Offline

 

#52 2009-09-21 19:15:18

I would be remiss if I didn't point out he has a tax problem. That certainly doesn't bode well for his career as a financial advisor. Lest we forget his disregard for the rules, which you can see from the number of lawsuits he has either lost for the town or ignored advice from town counsel.

yep, he is the man I want to invest my money with!! Not.....

Offline

 

#53 2009-09-21 19:25:00

You're not old enough to hoodwink, Larry.

Offline

 

#54 2009-09-21 21:10:22

a wise person gave me thier take on the PUSH for westfield today...
maybe if the bos builds the housing and our town quota is reached.. they then in turn can refuse any other builders ie.. makepeace and others from building in wareham..

Offline

 

#55 2009-09-21 21:25:29

LIZ  THE QUOTAS CAN BE CHANGED BY THE STATE AT ANY TIME ,HOWEVER I DONT TRUST THESE INCOMPENT FOOLS TO DO ANY THING RITE ,WAIT FOR ANEW BOARD OF SELECTMAN AND HOW ABOUT EXPANDING AGAWAM INSTEAD, HOWEVER I THINK  WE SHOULD WAIT ,THESE SELECTMAN ARE CROOKS AND FOOLS.

Offline

 

#56 2009-09-21 21:59:29

ihateliz wrote:

LIZ  THE QUOTAS CAN BE CHANGED BY THE STATE AT ANY TIME ,HOWEVER I DONT TRUST THESE INCOMPENT FOOLS TO DO ANY THING RITE ,WAIT FOR ANEW BOARD OF SELECTMAN AND HOW ABOUT EXPANDING AGAWAM INSTEAD, HOWEVER I THINK  WE SHOULD WAIT ,THESE SELECTMAN ARE CROOKS AND FOOLS.

my lil birdie did talk about the housing study done and asked WHY the bos are ignoring that study and the findings...?

Offline

 

#57 2009-09-21 22:34:41

It appears that there is enough information in regard to the wishes of the people, the original land owner and the 1977 BOS to prove that the town meeting voted to keep the land open for the people of Wareham.  Even if every I  and T weren't dotted and crossed, the vote remains the same.  Open space for Wareham.  This BOS has repeatedly stated the need for affordable housing for the elderly, and what percentage of residents are seniors.  When they come up with the count of seniors in town, is this from the census?  If I am correct, we have 5 manufactured home (trailer) parks in town for over 55, along with the Swifts Beach units, and Redwood and Agawam Village.  I speak to many of these seniors on a constant basis.  Most of them are people from out of town who chose to retire to this lovely town.  So, how accurate is this count?

Granted, some seniors do not want the hassle of obeying the park rules, (snow shovelling and raking leaves) and a small unit is easier to take care of. 
I would rather see our current senior housing repaired to a pristine condition and then, perhaps add on a few more units.  Right now, we need to correct the "possible misuse of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund" before we step forward with any thing to do with affordable housing.

If the BOS is so concerned about our seniors, let them lower their taxes. Reduce the landlords taxes with proof of renting to seniors.  Before anything is done in this area we need to have the AHTF updated and make  sure that everything done with this fund has been done legally and if it hasn't been, action should be taken against the BOS and ITA.

Table Westfiel until Wareham gets back on it's feet.  We aren't in a hurry, but It seems that Mr. Bruce is.  I am very curious about a statement made that
said to "follow the money".  Isn't it funny that Liz Pezzoli was appointed as one of the committee members watching over the trust and that  Bruce chose Liz's friend, Brenda (with no hesitation) to be the selectman on this "trust watch committee.)

Leave Westfield alone for now.

Last edited by bornofwareham (2009-09-21 22:54:48)

Offline

 

#58 2009-09-21 22:37:41

Maturevoter wrote:

In the past, when the town does a formal study, it first presents an article on Town Meeting floor, authorizing the expenditure of any funds to do the study, and is required to go out to bid if the study will cost more than $10,000. I understand that the contract with Mr. Heaton was for $15,000 and has already exceeded that dollar amount by well over, double the amount, plus more.

When did town meeting vote to do a formal study and authorize the expenditure of funds? When did the RFP for the study go out to bid? Who were the responsive bidders? What was the program and scope of the study? What were the qualifications for a responsive bidder and did Mr. Heaton meet those? Was the process for awarding the contract properly followed?

Were there addendums to the contract for  this additonal work and if so, were those legally done or should the contract have been rebid as an entirely different study? Taking out assisted living, if it was included as the original scope of the project, now makes the project a new and different project and should it have been rebid as a new study? If the scope is different, perhaps it should? All questions that a procurement officer would be concerned with.

If the contract the Selectmen are using was the same one initieated by Community Development a couple of years ago, was Mr. Heaton a bidder at that time? Seems to me, I remember seeing a BOS meeting where Mr. Cronan simply asked the rest of the Board if they could invite Mr. Heaton in and have a conversation with him about affordable housing. How was Mr. Heaton hired? If they are using that old contract and he was not a responsive bidder for that contract, then is the contract valid? Did the Board violate the procurement process?

Someone should ask these questions.

No one is against senior housing. No one is against affordable housing. The process followed for doing this study is questionable.

MV, you raised some great points here. Did we ever come up with any of the answers?

It's sad that practically everything they do, is done incorrectly. Sad because WE pay for their mistakes. People shouldn't say "I'm only one vote", or things like that. If you want to know what happens when you have a complacent electorate, take a look at Wareham politics.

PShooter

Offline

 

#59 2009-09-22 00:38:34

here it is in black and white in our town bylaws......

Section 4. One hundred (100) voters shall constitute a quorum at any town meeting,
except that a quorum of one hundred fifty (150) voters is necessary to vote upon any appropriation
of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) or more.

Offline

 

#60 2009-09-22 11:44:56

According to Bobo,

There are no deed restrictions on the property that dictate how the land can be used by the town. On June 30, 1977, a Special Town Meeting vote accepted the land for “municipal purposes.” There were no provisions in that vote to keep the land as open space, as opponents of the Westfield project are claiming. In the order of the taking, which was signed by the Board of Selectmen at the time, a number of restrictions were placed upon the land by the board. The board voted to restrict usage to school or municipal buildings, and/or recreational, playground or park purposes.

I wonder if he has a copy of the deed. I know we do.

Offline

 

#61 2009-09-22 13:17:28

PShooter wrote:

Larry McDonald wrote:

It makes me curious as to why he is so behind Westfield that he is willing to break MGL to accomplish this???  What is the missing piece?????

Sweet Brucey is a Financial Advisor/Insurance. Elderly people are prime prospects. A lifetime of earnings to invest, and insurance products abound. These people are looking for someone who sounds like he's looking out for their best interests. He wants to be viewed as the guy who cares about them. They take a back seat to concerns for himself.

PShooter

Wait a minute, isn't that like what happened to Lt. Bliss?  The elderly investers would be in a confined area where Brucie could just knock on their doors.  Lt. Bliss wasn't on a mission to find customers.

There definately is a piece of the puzzle we need out there.  It may be looking us right in the face.  We need to keep looking and I hope we are not looking over it.  It could be something very simple.  Keep looking.

Offline

 

#62 2009-09-22 17:32:12

bbrady wrote:

I witnessed the act of appointing members to the Wareham Affordable Housing Trust "Fund" at the last Tuesday Night Live session.  To my way of thinking, and I'm no lawyer or a "wanna be" lawyer but those appointments should have been made to the "Board of Trustees" OF the Wareham Affordable Housing Trust Fund.  Further, it should be known that as per the Town of Wareham By-laws : (Division VII, Article III subsection 3.
Composition), "The Trust Fund shall have five (5) Trustees at all times.  At least one of the Trustees shall be a member of the BOS.  The BOS shall appoint the remaining Trustees.  In making the appointments, the BOS shall endeavor to provide a broad-based membership including legal, banking, financial and real estate professionals, other members of the local business community and affordable housing advocates".

Now, having reviewed the applications of those appointed, not one of them has any qualifications as suggested in the By-law.  At least none were noted.  But just like with the hasty actions for the project itself this act is also not well thought out.  They are scrambling to cover their butts because they have illegally spent funds to pay the consultant with NO authority to do so as per MGL Ch. 44 Sec 55C.
And why are we not including OUR Housing Authority member's input ???

Town By-Laws WAREHAM AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST pp. 69-75

It was the first thing they talked about, after Sweet Brucey was rude to a member of the audience.


PShooter

Offline

 

#63 2009-09-22 19:12:34

If anyone would like a "BOS Greatest Hits" DVD to show people who have no access to a computer, please let me know. Or get the word to Liz, Larry, Bob or Steve, and we'll get you one.

PM or pshooter59@yahoo.com

PShooter

Offline

 

#64 2009-09-22 19:15:53

If anyone wants to know who the greatest QB in the NFL is, just ask me.....:)

PEYTON MANNING :)

Offline

 

#65 2009-09-22 19:30:10

Larry McDonald wrote:

If anyone wants to know who the greatest QB in the NFL is, just ask me.....:)

PEYTON MANNING :)

Yeah, I suppose it's good that someone as over rated as he's always been, has finally lived up to some of the hype.

PShooter

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.com