#1 2011-01-06 12:37:57
The people of Wareham voted to STUDY the possibility of turning Westfield into a senior housing development. They gave authority to send out for RFP's, if called for, and an APPOINTING authority to select a committee to study the feasibility of any project and eventually make recommendations to the voters at a future Town Meeting after public hearings, etc.
If the Town Meeting did not actually specify who the appointing authority would be, it seems unrealistic to think that the BOS are the only appointing authority that has precedent.
Most appointing authorities are composed of a member of the BOS, the Moderator, a member of appropriate boards or commissions, such as Zoning Board and certainly the Finance Committee, and then members at large.
If the BOS is so hell bent on being the appointing authority...follow the money.
Watch the process very closely.
The more information that you provide the public about the actual probability of Westfield becoming a sanctuary for seniors living in a lovely place and all Wareham residents, the better it is to eventually use it for the purposes it was intended 40 years ago: a RECREATION area.
Don't forget that Mr. Heaton, the much beloved consultant ( no longer), accused a former Chairman of the BOS, of being a co-conspirator in a criminal fraud while acting in his official capacity as a Selectman and the Chairman of the Board.
I am still waiting to hear about indictments over that.
Like I said...follow the money.
Offline
#2 2011-01-08 15:36:54
I just read a response on the WW site from the pseudo-intellectual Dr. Jones.
The precedent has always been to have the Moderator and the Fin. Com. to be involved in such drastic projects as a possible Westfield development.
If the Charter says that a member of the Fin Com can't be appointed, then get a FORMER member of the Fin. Com. on the committee, along with people at large that have the expertise to study the issue with competence and not pipe dreams.
It's like watching "Groundhog Day".
Make a movie entitled, "Westfield Day".
Offline
#3 2011-01-20 12:33:20
This was sent to me by a good friend. It's source is P-Span's library on his site of previous meetings of the BOS.
People forget what happened in October of last year to support or not support the Article for Westfield at Town Meeting.
Please pay attention starting at the 9 minute mark and watch until the vote at about 16 minutes or so:
See Part 4 @ the 9:00 minute mark regarding "municipal purposes". Continue
to listen for the vote of supporting the Article on the warrant.
http://takebackwareham86bos.blogspot.co … 01210.html
INTERESTING, huh?
Offline
#4 2011-01-20 15:01:01
The Commitee Should Not Be Appointed Till After The Election ,jane And Brenda Are Crooked,the New Board Of Selectman Should Do The Appoiting.
Offline
#5 2011-01-20 18:54:31
Yes, DanO, it is always interesting, indeed!
A couple of things caught my attention, now that the trolley is on the tracks and heading wherever.
1. The ball fields, football field, soccer field, parking lot and ancillary facilities. It appears from multiple discussions, that some think that there is some kind of "freebie" here. Get the developer to finish the facilities. Get the developer to MAINTAIN the facilities. Nice...if you can get it.
the simple fact is that the upfront costs to finish and/or create facilities will have to come from somewhere. They will be built into the overall cost to construct the project.
Now, you have a higher cost basis on which the developer has to demonstrate to lenders, investors, etc. that the developer can achieve a satisfatory return on the pumped-up investment. Is that feasible?
2. And further, you have built into the expenses of the project the maintenance of items not directly associated with the core of the project, i.e. the senior housing. Will these additional ongoing expenses be built into the rent structure? Or, will the expenses of operating the project just be higher than the norm.
This is not a simple question, If the expenses are higher than the norm, then the value will be LOWER. This can affect financing. And, a lower value equates to a lower tax bill. Wasn't the Chair of the BoS touting the projected tax revenue to be derived from this project. Has anyone done the math? it's easy to throw around projected numbers; has anyone actually sat down and reviewed/analyzed a projected income & expense statement for the completed project? those are the numbers on which the project will be financed, and upon which the project will be taxed. Not, as you may be thinking. the construction costs.
3. The town, as part of any "deal", should negotiate a tax agreement with the developer UP FRONT. There has been a history of projects of all kinds being built in Massachusetts getting approval based on attractive levels of property tax revenue. And then, when the project is complete, the tax sharks show up at the Board of Assessors, pissin' & moanin' about the taxes. Complete with threats to go the the Appellate Tax Board with their complaint, justified or not.
4. On-site septic disposal system. Boy, this can be tricky. should the adjoining subdivision (Campinelli) and nearby mobile homes be tied in? How about the lots owned by Makepeace across the street? or the land behind (to the east, generally), taxed as Forest land? who pays? Who maintains?
Be clear about one thing: there is a long way to go here. Many questions to be answered.
"miles to go, before I sleep" Robert Frost - "Stopped by the Woods on a Snowy Evening"
Last edited by stewie (2011-01-20 18:57:18)
Offline
#6 2011-01-20 19:02:15
Great summation Stewie....we all know business sense says this thing "ain't gonna happen".
Offline
#7 2011-01-20 20:02:00
stewie there is a contract with several 6 i think youth organizations for them to "KEEP" the fields up to par this contract is valid thru 2012 i believe . i will find it and post it..
Offline
#8 2011-01-20 20:33:00
Hi Liz!
Two things come to mind after your posting.
1. the chair of the BoS makes a big deal (rightfully so) about the current degree of completion of the athletic fields at Westfield. Thus, her positing that the developer will do what the Town failed to do. Perhaps, if the Town had not driven the Rec Dept. department head out of her job, then some of the cited items would be complete now.
2. A contract with youth organizations is fine with me; but, what I am hearing & reading is about a DEVELOPER stepping into that maintenance role & function. That begs the question: will a disinterested developer bring the same zeal and energy to the maintenance of facilities more-or-less forced on him to get the deal done, as will local groups who have skin in the game, so to speak?
There are better ways to go. Example: the developer ponies up the dollars, but local organizationsl do the work. Not perfect? ain't no such animal.....
We need more discussion. Lots more.
Offline
#9 2011-01-21 00:54:54
LizMcD wrote:
stewie there is a contract with several 6 i think youth organizations for them to "KEEP" the fields up to par this contract is valid thru 2012 i believe . i will find it and post it..
Offline
#10 2011-01-21 12:51:19
Thanks for converting that lease!!!!!
Offline
#11 2011-01-27 10:45:29
Reading the proposal for senior housing at Westfield is like reading "Alice in Wonderland".
No one can really believe that a developer will come in to a Town, agree to build on 1/3 of the property proposed for development, be required to build and maintain another 1/3 of the property for recreational use, build senior, limited income units, to be rented out, build the infrastructure needed to support the units and the area, not be allowed to own the land and use it for leverage, or even list it as assets on financial statements, pay the Town for the right to rent the units, etc., etc., etc.
A business would have to be insane to agree to such terms.
Why doesn't the Town have a grant writer write a "green" grant, build some cabins and units to be used for rent in the beautiful RECREATION area and PARK that the TOWN owns and operates.
Put people to work, gain income, have it all paid for, be environmental responsible, and finally honor the wishes of Town Meeting voters in 1977.
There is no way that any proposal that is responded to with a RFP from a developer can benefit the Town or it's citizens...let Wareham take care of Wareham.
Offline
