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?

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)

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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)

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.

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..

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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

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

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!"

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)

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.

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!

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?????

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.

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

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.....

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..

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...?

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

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.

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

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

PEYTON MANNING :)