I remember Swift's Beach after hurricane Carol.  She left only foundations standing and those were partially torn up.  I have pictures from the book that the Standard Times printed.  Totally devistated.

YESON55

ARTICLE 55

To see if the Town will vote to establish a committee to research and evaluate the potential uses and long term leasing of the property known as the Swifts Beach property, which was taken by the Town by eminent domain, or to do or act in any manner relative thereto.

The committee shall be appointed by the Town Moderator and shall consist of the Chairperson of the Board of Selectmen, Chairperson of the Finance Committee, Chairperson of the Planning Board, Chairperson of the Community Preservation Committee, or a member of such boards and committees designated by their respective Chairperson, and three volunteer citizens of the Town.

The committee shall report their findings to the Town Meeting members at the October 2010 Town Meeting.

NOTE:    This article has been reproduced exactly as presented, in accordance with the law.

Inserted by Joe Chiaraluce, et al.

April 26, 2010
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
P-SPAN

Article 55 should be amended to include the possibility of the Committee to allow the Selectman to also sell - whole or part - exchange, barter, etc. I have been a friend of the Chiaraluce Family for ten years. They are frustrated- as are many other Swifts Beach residents and taxpayers . The condition of the property is a heartbreak.  Most Wareham people do not understand the proposed "Conservation Restriction" (non-use)that Bruce and the CPC are promoting.

Article 55 is an opportunity for the appointed Committee to explore the possibilities. The aerial shot with the names of the owners illustates that the Town spent $2Million Dollars.The people cannot use it, but certain people have a  6 Acre front yard with the Town paying the bill. The only plan I have heard is that the CPC intends to return the land to the same condtion it was in the 1930's - a marsh the future home of Millions of Mosquitos - the non-use of this valuable Town asset.

After receiving feedback from over 100 local citizens, I have prepared a proposal and Landscape Plan as one of the possibilties. In these troubling economic times the important concerns of the citizens are:
       
Public Access
         Return of Funds to the CPC
                Tax Revenue
                    Jobs

The Plan created in 2003 just prior to the Eminent Domain Taking addresses these four concerns with very litlle change in the natural setting. The DEP required the curing of the Environmental issues of erosion and invasive species.

The business plan is simple and includes 21 jobs and about $1Million in constrution going back into the community .  The historic use of the property as a recreation destination for four generations will be renewed and welcomed. The town will collect about $50,000 in tax revenue with no maintenance and costs for the taxpayers.

My investment of over $1Million Dollars - paid out to lawyers, Engineers, Zoning Experts, and more lawyers which can be applied to executing the Plan.  I offer to donate all the Materials, research, etc to the Committe. There is also an added bonus: I hold the key to solving the Title problem which resulted from the greed and haste of the the Eminent Doman decision. I read that Bidding may not be necessay for a conveyance to clear the Title.

I can't do this alone.  i need the support and confidence of the community. I will have some plans and displays at the earlier Town meeting Sessions -the 3rd and 4th of May.I hope to meet you in person to answer your questions. if the weather permits
I'll schedule tours of the land so that people can see the problems and potential.



(Note)  i composed another version of this reply, but lost it in cyberspace. If anyone finds it please leave a message.

Last edited by mama bear (2010-04-23 15:39:37)

gogatemen:

Every time I read and revise the response above it gets longer.  With the money and time I spent on the ED lawsuit I could have earned my Law Degree and passed the bar in three States.

This is a big story - that is best told with aerials, survey plans, pictures, checklists, and charts. I plan to do all this over the week end and will make it available if people seem interested.

The CPC Chairperson told me that their Plan is to get the Conservation Restriction from a State Approved with a custdian who will act as a supervisor over the land which they intend to let go wild - returning to a marsh like it was in the 1930s.

The CPC meets on Wednesdaysgo by the multi Service building and ask. The Conservation Scan - a study of all aspects of the land - legal, environmental, nesting birds, etc was completed nine months ago and cost the taxpayers $50,000.  It sits somewhere in Town Hall.  Nobody - except a chosen few- have been allowed to see it.
Tell them you're a taxpayer and want to see it.  Good luck.

If you and enough people want to see my Plans and business proposal I'll make them available.  Article 55 is not about me.  It is about appointing a Committee to research and evaluate potential uses for the land.  Right now it is in a state of nonuse,  The beaches are not connected. The gate is locked. Trash is piling up.

The Committee is not being appointed to compromise, they will be there to advise the people of Wareham on how to correct a horrible mistake. The voters will make the decision in the Fall.

Please stay in touch.

Last edited by mama bear (2010-04-22 08:00:58)

As I understand conservation restrictions, they do not mean that it will be returned to it's natural state (in this case a marsh).  It does not allow building on the property but would allow the use of the land for recreation (walking, swimming, etc).  Maybe I am wrong about that but that is how I understood it.

LIZdaGNOME wrote:

By Steve Urbon
surbon@s-t.com
September 09, 2009 12:00 AM

WAREHAM — An environmental survey of Swift's Neck Beach prepared for the Community Preservation Committee this summer continues to be withheld from the public by town officials.

The report, prepared by the engineering firm of BSC Group Inc. of West Yarmouth and Boston, was obtained to help the committee decide the conditions for a conservation restriction on the property, which was once developed. It has been in the hands of the committee for more than a month, and The Standard-Times has been making requests for it, first verbal and finally written.

Interim Town Administrator John Sanguinet answered the written request with a two-sentence note: "I received your request for a copy of the report on the Swift's Beach property the town purchased. Unfortunately, because of potential litigation, the report is not available at this time."

The secretary of state's office issues guidelines intended to govern which public records may be withheld from public view.

The guidelines state: "If a records custodian claims an exemption and withholds a record, the records custodian has the burden of showing how the exemption applies to the record and why it should be withheld."

In every other case, this is what Sanguinet did. But when asked to cite the specific exemption he was invoking in the Swift's Beach matter, Sanguinet said Tuesday he could not, even after 20 minutes of examining the state guidelines.

Bob Unger, editor of The Standard-Times and SouthCoast Media Group, said the newspaper will ask the secretary of state to instruct Wareham to release the information to the public.

"On behalf of the citizens of Wareham, we have asked Wareham officials repeatedly to obey the law," Unger said.

Sanguinet said, "If the secretary of state tells me to release it, I will."

The guidelines, which do not address potential litigation but do discuss attorney-client privilege, appear to direct officials specifically to release documents such as the environmental survey.

In a section designed for executive privilege in policy development, an exemption applies to "inter-agent or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to police positions being developed by the agency; but this sub-clause shall not apply to reasonably completed factual studies or reports on which the development of such policy positions has been or may be based."

"Purely factual matters used in the development of government policy are always subject to disclosure," the guidelines state.

The approximately 5-acre Swifts Beach was acquired by the town through eminent domain, prompting years of litigation and an adverse court judgment that ended up costing the town an estimated $2 million. Selectmen Chairman Bruce Sauvageau is an immediate neighbor of the waterfront parcel.

Sanguinet did provide The Standard-Times with several documents requested June 30 and July 1, albeit several weeks beyond the 10-day statutory requirement.

They include the contract with the computer firm hired to conduct the much-discussed "computer audit" starting in May, the contract with the engineering firm studying the Westfield development proposal, a breakdown of legal expenses, minutes of executive sessions starting in 2007 and copies of some town government advertising.

Sanguinet said there was no contract with a planner who worked one day in June, nor is there a letter of resignation, documents also sought by the newspaper.

The planner declined to accept the one day's pay she was given, Sanguinet said Tuesday.

TAKEBACKWAREHAM
P-SPAN

This report was commissioned by the CPC for the purpose of establishing a Conservation Restriction (the non-use of Swifts Beach). They kept it hidden for almost a year so that people wouldn't know that most of the environmental problems are the result of the Town's gross neglect of the wetlands management and  a lack respect for the natural environment. The main source of pollution is the Town's surface drainage exiting - untreated - directly into Buzzards Bay.

The CPC fears that Article 55 may embarrass them and create an unbiased group of citizens who really care about the environment and the people of Wareham.

Volunteer for the committee and Vote YES on Article 55 on May 24.

NOTE: The attachments and photos were left off the report by the CPC.  I hope to have them in the next few days.

Swifts Beach Ecolological Evaluation

TAKEBACKWAREHAM
P-SPAN

According to Town Hall: They cannot find out who has the the key to the safe that houses the original - large plans and DVD.  Have they thought to ask Bruce?

Hey, you win some, you lose some.  The difference between the two sides is when we lose one, we don't go apeshit crazy, start stamping our feet and demand that town meeting be abolished, unlike certain political losers who can't say the same.

I don't think anyone proposed building a substantial commercial development like a  Wal-Mart on Swifts Beach.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was talk about putting in things that people could use or things that would make the beach more enjoyable.

The Hypocrite Elite claims to care about the environment of Swifts Beach, but they kept a negative environmental study under wraps for a year, doing absolutely nothing to work on that study's reccomendations to improve the quality of the environment.

Oh well, at least Sweet Brucey has a nice view.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-05-25 06:46:18)