THE SELECTMAN NEED TO LOOK AT AGUWAM AND OUR  OTHER PRESENT SENIOR HOUSING FIX IT UP AND I HERE THERE IS LAND AT OUR PRESENT  SENIOR HOUSING  TO BUILD MORE SENIOR HOUSING ON.

Brilliant, Bornof...I would expect no less...

Boneof
it can be done. All the town has to do is turn the properties over to the Housing Authority, They can get grants to upgrade the properties and use as Affordable Housing for elderly or others. Having been a Consultant for the Mass Housing Partnership when it was first formed in the mid 80’s I know of what I speak. Your housing partnership could also get involved as well as community development. Remember Community development and Economic development are two different dept. in larger Communities and draw on different grants and funding . I small Towns they put them under one leader   but it is still different jobs and reasons for the town to be looking for money and they cant comingle the funds. That is for another Post.

While it is a good site it is not the highest and best use from a Real Estate point of view that I think the town is looking for . It has more potential as an economic development oppertunity. Back to my last post economic devenlopment and Community development do not always work hand in hand. Either use would be good but what would be best for the town in the long run.

Thanks Stewie...
I am always happy to be educated and learn from those people who have "been there and know that."

Ahhh!

The world would be a better place if we would just "obey stewie".

For those who missed this con job at fall Town Meeting...

The Emperor's
New Clothes

Working For Free

Hope everyone is aware that we have 201 units of affordable housing under construction right now. 144 at Union Pond, 49 at 851 Main St and 8 at 361 Main St. Although they are not specifically for seniors it does not mean they can't apply. These units also give us safe harbor under 40B regulations so we are able to limit that type of construction.

The reason why some seniors do not meet eligibility is not their income, but their total assets. This is the problem for most seniors.

The BOS isn't keeping track of the affordable housing we have. 1st Ave was sold at market price. It took over a year and, unfortunately, a law suit to get $58K back. I understand the ZBA is working to get another 63+ houses back on our affordable list. We want them to control a project like Westfield?

Last edited by Merlin (2010-05-02 18:43:30)

In order to get rid of this for good, is it possible to Rescind the article? I have read Robert's rules on this but am not sure it will work Here ia what Robert's says:

37. Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Any vote taken by an assembly, except those mentioned further on, may be rescinded by a majority vote, provided notice of the motion has been given at the previous meeting or in the call for this meeting; or it may be rescinded without notice by a two-thirds vote, or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership. The notice may be given when another question is pending, but cannot interrupt a member while speaking. To rescind is identical with the motion to amend something previously adopted, by striking out the entire by-law, rule, resolution, section, or paragraph, and is subject to all the limitations as to notice and vote that may be placed by the rules on similar amendments. It is a main motion without any privilege, and therefore can be introduced only when there is nothing else before the assembly. It cannot be made if the question can be reached by calling up the motion to reconsider which has been previously made. It may be made by any member; it is debatable, and yields to all privileged and incidental motions; and all of the subsidiary motions may be applied to it. The motion to rescind can be applied to votes on all main motions, including questions of privilege and orders of the day that have been acted upon, and to votes on an appeal, with the following exceptions: votes cannot be rescinded after something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo; or where it is in the nature of a contract and the other party is informed of the fact; or, where a resignation has been acted upon, or one has been elected to, or expelled from, membership or office, and was present or has been officially notified. In the case of expulsion, the only way to reverse the action afterwards is to restore the person to membership or office, which requires the same preliminary steps and vote as is required for an election.

Where it is desired not only to rescind the action, but to express very strong disapproval, legislative bodies have, on rare occasions, voted to rescind the objectionable resolution and expunge it from the record, which is done by crossing out the words, or drawing a line around them, and writing across them the words, "Expunged by order of the assembly," etc., giving the date of the order. This statement should be signed by the secretary. The words expunged must not be so blotted as not to be readable, as otherwise it would be impossible to determine whether more was expunged than ordered. Any vote less than a majority of the total membership of an organization is certainly incompetent to expunge from the records a correct statement of what was done and recorded and the record of which was officially approved, even though a quorum is present and the vote to expunge is unanimous.

Hope this is helpful

Thanks for the input. My thought was at the very least this would postpone the article until something could be done to, as you mentioned, get a deed restriction.  My understanding of the deed restriction is the family must agree to either removing or adding anything to the deed. The restriction as it stands is causing confusion.  There are people who believe there are no restrictions or the ones that are there have no force due to the length of time they have been there. My assertion is a restriction is a restriction, you can argue about what they mean and what can be done about them that's about it.

I just believe the BOS is abusing the process to suite their needs and will not give up until they get their way. The current spread on the units is back to assisted living which puts a whole new set of restrictions on the development  and would cause it to cost much more money to develop. This is a flip back to the second time the article was addressed at  TM. The BOS did not like that type of development then. Have no ides why they like it now.

Mr. Onset wrote:

It is unusual and usually unwise for a parliamentary procedure to limit what a future body could act upon.  Avenues to possibly accomplish your goal might be a binding deed restriction based on a sale or limits in the Charter that would be hard (but not impossible) to undo.  Putting money into a use that you favor might make it less likely that in the future it would be used for something you don't favor.  Other ideas on this?

I would suggest taking the land out of the vague "municipal purposes" status that gives the pro-development lobby impetus to try to put large projects on the land, via a Fall Town Meeting article re-dedicating the land to the same light-use conservation, passive and active recreation etc. purposes that we thought the land was limited to in the first place.  That would make it much harder for the next generation of developers and affiliated political forces to concoct and execute this sort of boondoggle.

Another possibility would be for Community Preservation money to be expended on the land in some way - for example, hiring an arborist or biologist to undertake a tree or wildlife survey.  That would trigger the need for a conservation restriction held by a third party like the Land Trust, which would help to protect the land.

Has anyone talked about an indoor athletic facility ?  How about a hockey rink?
You can build a great hockey program with kids not tall enough for basketball.

Dick Wheeler wrote:

Has anyone talked about an indoor athletic facility ?  How about a hockey rink?
You can build a great hockey program with kids not tall enough for basketball.

As Boston College has proven in three NCAA championships this decade, with star midgets like Nathan Gerbe, Steve Gionta and Cam Atkinson.

Last edited by billw (2010-05-04 18:09:53)

By the way the three characters above went on to be part of the Harlem Globe Trotters second string. i knew them well. Dan was there coach I think.

Lest the notion that anyone who, " Isn't tall enough for basketball" gets defined as a "midget", takes hold, let me ( 5' 9'' 175#)jump in and say that I anticipated that a counter argument to the rink suggestion would be that it c
ould pull kids away from our "signature" winter sport, basketball.  I don't think that would happen.  I'm confident that we could, and would, develop high caliber teams in both sports. Such a facility would also foster  adult hockey leagues, figure skating, and curling.

I say this  not as an old "rink jock" (I've never skated in a rink !) but as an educator who believes in  the value of competitive sports for "kids growing up".....and exercise  for the rest of us into the sunset...

There's something else here: Those who are opposed to Geezer- Construction on the Westfield property could be defined as  people who  are opposed job growth during a recession.....  I'm saying that we could "develop" Westfield, not as St Peter's Waiting Room, but as a vibrant facility that  energizes us all, and which caters to the realities of our  kids -  who are a population higher on my priority scale than I am.   

I have to add that I'm not feeling any compassion for "old folks" in what is being proposed for Westfield.  What is being proposed is all about money......

Maybe we need to quickly organize a "Geezers For Kids" committee to combat the "St Peter's Waiting Room" project we are resisting

Geezers  For Kids  unite !!