WarehamWater.Cruelery.Com - Wareham, MA / Swifts Beach Ecological Evaluation

billw · 2010-05-11 22:55:09

[I'm posting this here at mama bear's request.]

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

Swifts Beach Ecological Evaluation.pdf

Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs

Last edited by billw (2010-05-12 06:51:56)

mama bear · 2010-05-12 09:23:28

We finally have access to the narative portion of the study. Still missing are the table of Contents, the photos, the Site Plan, and the Wetland Resource Area Plan which we hope to post soon.

On May 06, 2010, Steve Urbon, a reporter for the New Bedford Standard Times published a summary of this document. There is a link posted under "Swifts Beach".

One reason why this was not made public a year ago was the fear of a lawsuit regarding the use of CPC Funds for the Settlement of the Eminant Doamain Lawsuit. The reality is that the hopes the few proponants of a Conservation Restriction have been dashed by the complexity of curing all the issues in this report.

The "Ecological Evaluation of Natural Resources" is a scientific study based on the premise that the Conservation Restriction is the goal of the community. Most people I talk with don't even know what a Conservation Restriction is or what it does for them and their Town.

Last edited by mama bear (2010-05-12 12:26:55)

mama bear · 2010-05-14 11:39:11

The Slavins are spreading the rumor that the CPC has filed with the State. After checking with the person in charge of applications (and the Wildlands), we find that to be a lie.

Bruce and his buddies are still at it. We know that they wouldn't go down easy.

mama bear · 2010-05-21 10:08:00

Who has the key to the safe that holds the Plans?

Last edited by mama bear (2010-05-22 09:10:35)

mama bear · 2010-05-25 00:22:25

Nan and Doanhue lied. There is no CR application with the State. They are clever and devious. Bruce won.

Mr. Onset · 2010-05-25 06:20:10

mama bear wrote:
Nan and Doanhue lied. There is no CR application with the State. They are clever and devious. Bruce won.

More information about this aspect would be appreciated.

Dick Wheeler · 2010-05-25 08:23:18

When parents get into a custody battle over their kids it's the kids who suffer. The emotion centers not on what the court battle is alleged to be about....the kids....but on which parent should get custody: which one do you like better.

When it's over we talk about who won and who lost. Off to one side are the permanently scarred kids. "What about us ?", their faces implore.

There were no winners last night and just one loser: a neglected child called
Swift's Beach.

There's no reason why a group of people truly concerned about beach ecology and the rules regarding Right of Way Beach Access couldn't form an ad hoc committee and enter into a rational discussion that could lead to a later town meeting consideration. If you are interested enough to do some basic "homework", you can google : Right of Way Beach Access in Massachusetts. If there ever was a Right of Way leading to Swifts Beach, it's stiil there. Also, who will take on the "big picture" challenges of the Ecological Study ?

Mayor McCheeze · 2010-05-25 09:30:09

Indefinite proposal didn't stop the proponents of Westfield from bringing that article back in the next town meeting, so why should it stop the proponents of a study on swifts beach? If what is said about the application for a CR is correct, that should be easy to check out. Either they have applied for the CR or they haven't, it is that simple.

This isn't about winning or losing. No one was going to win or lose either way. It was simply a committee to study what could be done with the property. The well planned effort to defeat this article did nothing but delay it until next town meeting.

Everyone needs to take a step back and re-focus. All is not lost.

Did anyone see Jane and Brenda trying to sway Walter?

bbrady · 2010-05-25 09:43:38

Dick Wheeler wrote:
There were no winners last night and just one loser: a neglected child called
Swift's Beach...
Also, who will take on the "big picture" challenges of the Ecological Study ?

Dick is absolutely right. The ecological / environmental issues existed long before the "taking" of the Swift's Beach land. Since the taking, WE (Wareham) have done nothing to address the issues we're facing. So let's face it, it's not a priority (although it should have priority status) as our maintenance has been cut to the bone and we're seriously lacking qualified management at the top.

Accordingly, we're now going to be facing a dilemma. As I understand it from Nan Miller (CPC Chairperson), a "restriction" has been designed and assigned to a third party entity (holder of the CR) that can now FORCE us to manage and maintain the site to now include the additional Beach sections on both sides of the site. So here's the dilemma: Where are we going to get the resources to accomplish the remedies now defined in the survey report ? Can these "restrictions" now prioritize (dictate) our maintenance needs ?
If so, at what cost and where are the funds/staffing going to come from ?

All this causes a more fundamental question. As CP acquires additional Open Space and Historically recognized sites, are we going to loose additional services because of financial demands placed upon our new assets or are we going to be willing to increase our tax levy to manage these acquisitions ?
Before we commit to any more CP projects, we MUST answer the question.
Otherwise these CR holders will place financial demands upon us that we cannot afford.

In theory, CPA is a great concept. In reality, it's causing our community great hardships. We can't manage what we have. Let's stop increasing the work load.

P-SPAN · 2010-05-25 11:11:23

Town counsel said something interesting last night when asked to explain the difference between an "eminent domain" taking..and ..something else(?: ) He said (paraphrasing) that the difference was significant..that it's the second most "powerful" thing a governmental body can do (behind incarceration and execution) to an individual..that the taking of someone's personal property (in this case, real estate)..is that significant.

I find it understandable for Ms. Haupt's "frustration"..this issue has been going on for quite awhile (and I haven't been "on board" for the whole ride)..but from what I think I know..(TM '03) the voter's were led to believe that this would be a "simple" land acquisition..then at a BoS meeting a couple of months later, the Selectmen (as advised by then TA Hartman(sp?)..voted to take the property by eminent domain (based on the fact that "negotiations" were going nowhere (hey, what happened to the "simple" land acquisition?)..I also believe, or have been told (confirm anyone?)..that CPC funds were "inappropriately" used to do this...and you CAN NOT tell this story without including former Selectman Brucey's "involvement" in all of it. From the fact that he (and many relatives) live VERY close to the taken property..to questions about whether he voted on "it" during an executive session meeting, etc...

How do Sweet Brucey and Brenda react to the person most directly effected by this land taking? Well, Brenda made a snide remark (showing her disdain) to Ms. Haupt last night at the meeting, when Ms. Haupt (albeit "inappropriately") walked into the "registered voter's only" section to (I believe) get the attention of the article's proponent (Mr. Chiaraluce)...and Sweet Brucey? He blares his horn driving past Ms. Haupt's residence on his way home to "rub her nose in it" (what time was that Sweet Brucey?..about 11:30?..I'm sure your neighbor's appreciated that)...Gee..I wonder why Sweet Brucey's not a Selectman anymore? Brenda...soon enough.

Three votes were the difference on this article..that would have allowed a committee to be formed..in a very "democratic" way...Like many committees it was to be appointed by a "reasonable" appointing authority..and would have been represented by the chairmen of several board's, and a few citizens "at large".. I ask..what's the harm of it? It's a fact that Ms. Haupt wasn't "happy" that this property was taken from her...she tried to give a majority of it to the town (and they tossed her certified letter's of the offer in the trash..like seven of them..and said they never got them)..it's cost the town far more than was ever "promised" by the proponents of the original article..and where are we? Using community preservation money to protect the waterways, etc. is just great in my opinion (in most cases), but this "situation" is just a little different. Saving the Horseshoe Crab is admirable..but I don't think this piece of property is going to make or break that. To listen to the "old-timer's" talk about how Swift's Beach used to be..really sounds great (to me)...having another section of town (that we paid alot of money for)..where people can go and park, and enjoy the beach..and maybe earn the town some revenue along the way sounds alot better than letting it be forgotten and ignored.

edited to add this link..for those interested...
THE POWER TO TAKE: The Use of Eminent Domain in Massachusetts

TBW
P-SPAN

Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-05-25 16:15:58)