Left In Lowell

One in the Eye for ZBA

13 Responses to “One in the Eye for ZBA”

1. waittilnextyr Says:
   July 5th, 2006 at 6:22 pm

   This Mass Mills project is #10 on our list of items for the city council to accomplish. It looks like this setback may put the project off indefinitely. The CC has to share the blame on this, not for the ZBA “error”, but because they sat back and let it happen.

2. Anonymous Says:
   July 5th, 2006 at 8:10 pm

   waittilnextyr you should check the CC minutes and they will prove you don’t know what you are taking about.

3. Anonymous Says:
   July 5th, 2006 at 9:29 pm

   sp correction “talking about”

4. waittilnextyr Says:
   July 5th, 2006 at 10:07 pm

   Well, you’re right in that the council discussed the issue, and made motions to get the project off the dime (below). But there was never any action to identify the problem and correct it by the CM. Maybe that helps explain the CC’s decision to ask the manager to step down. In any case, it was a failure of our government, and the opportunity may be lost for some time.

   TUESDAY JANUARY 24, 2006

   C. A. Mercier-Req. Mgr. update Council on Mass Mills Development.

   TUESDAY OCTOBER 18, 2005

   C. Howe-Req. Economic Development S/C meet w/Mass Mills Reps re: completion of Rehab to Picker Bldg & Boiler House etc.

   TUESDAY MAY 3, 2005
   UNANSWERED NON-RESPONSIVE MOTIONS
   C. Elliott-Req. Mgr report on status of Mass. Mills Project.

   TUESDAY JUNE 8, 2004
   C. Howe-Council go on record in opposition Bd. Appeals decision re: Mass Mills.
   C. Milinazzo-Req. Mgr.report on Phase III of Mass Mills Development.

5. Lynne Says:
   July 6th, 2006 at 10:02 am

   I think that this is a good example of how CM Cox made the CC look - ineffectual. If I had a dime for every motion they brought up that demanded a report from Cox that had already been asked months before - I could probably afford a house in Belvedere.

6. Turtledove Says:
   July 6th, 2006 at 12:43 pm

   I do not recall that there was a response to this more recent one
   from June 13th:
   C. Milinazzo-Req. Mgr. report on status re-development @ 88 Prescott
   St.
   The responsibility needs to be shared by the manager and the
   councilors…neither one seems address and/or follow-up on these
   issues.

7. Paul@01852 Says:
   July 6th, 2006 at 1:16 pm

   I’m still waiting for a response to the motion C Caulfield filed on my behalf regarding the traffic lights at the entrance to the shopping plaza on Plain St. las August! I wonder if CM-Elect Lynch might have the answer to that too?

8. Paul@01852 Says:
   July 6th, 2006 at 1:19 pm

   Btw the Plain st. traffic lights motion passed 9-0 with several councilors (Caulfield, R. Mercier and Martin) all vehemently agreeing that those lights were grossly mistimed to the benefit of the shopping center and to the detriment of through traffic on Plain St

9. Anonymous Says:
   July 6th, 2006 at 1:33 pm

   Shared responsibility on the part of councilors means keeping up with CM and what he/she is doing to address/follow-up on all the council requests.

   Maybe changing CMs after an unacceptable period of non-response is part of the “keeping up” process.

10. Mike Says:
    July 6th, 2006 at 9:53 pm

    I believe as general procedure all motions can be considered “responded to” unless they are listed on an agenda as unanswered/non-responsive as listed above.

    I don’t believe they have ever in history publicly read each response from the CM to each individual council motion. You’d probably have to contact a Councilor to find out what the response to each was, which you certainly should do.

11. waittilnextyr Says:
    July 7th, 2006 at 9:58 am

    I think you’re right, Mike. However, that process leaves a lot to be desired. The problem is that that there are so many mundane motions brought in by the CC, that it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, and as a result there is little formal documentation of the responses. It would seem that there should be separate categories established for the CC motions, and the level of response should be consistent with the importance of the original request. But, oh how to judge that?

    In the case of the Mass Mills project, the importance from the perspective of investment dollars and property tax yield would have clearly placed that in the higher class of importance, and may have resulted in more attention to detail and quicker reaction to problems.

    Consider if that project had been advanced and was in development now. The trade unions and suppliers would be in better position already, and the future tax revenue would not only help pay the garage bond, but would likely help the bond rating that is being discussed on another thread.

12. Mimi Says:
    July 7th, 2006 at 11:53 am

    A while back CC Armand Mercier introduced a motion that would have allowed the Councilors to give a “report” on the response to motions they had filed. Something similar to the Sub-Committee reports.

    After some discussion and reconsideration, he pulled it backed.

    If such a policy was in place, it would require the CC members to be brief and limit their reports to the signifcant motions.

    The CC needs to come up with a mechanism to inform the public of the response to motions. Maybe they should try CC A. Mercier’s proposal for a few months and see if they are disciplined enough to keep it simple.

13. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    July 12th, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    One of the benefits of a district representative council is that councilors would face
    direct challengers that could hold each of them accountable for their actions or inactions
    on various issues.

Leave a Reply