Left In Lowell

Sue you, sue me

13 Responses to “Sue you, sue me”

1. Mr. Lynne Says:
   May 4th, 2007 at 3:39 pm

   Actually this activity has its roots on the left. The primary means of geting action on civil rights was through the courts. It is one of the few things that the left learned first and the right followed. Thats why there is such an emphasis on the right about taking over the courts.

2. moonlight Says:
   May 4th, 2007 at 3:58 pm

   HATEM IS JUST A SORE LOSER, HIS DAUGHTER RUNS THE BOYS CLUB

   AND THEY DID NOT APPLY ON TIME FOR THE TENNIS COURTS

   TOO BAD !!!!, BOB GO PLAY TENNIS AT MCPHERSON PARK, OR MAYBE WE WILL SUE THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS FOR BEING RUN AT A DEFEICT , THE ONLY BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB CLOSED ON SATURDAYS,.

   [Editor’s note: FYI, please do not post in all caps in the future.]

3. Lark Says:
   May 4th, 2007 at 7:26 pm

   I wonder if the issue really is that this private company beat out the Boys and Girls Club in getting their permit requests in and approved.
   Also, that fact that Mr. H serves on the Board of Directors for the B & G Club and his daughter runs it. What struck me at the end of his speech at the city council meeting last Tuesday, was his parting comment having to do with leaving the courts for the retired guys, so they can play tennis.
   Thinking back to Paul’s post in another thread about the Little Leagues, the Soccer Leagues, baseball leagues and so on. When those groups play, no one else can use those fields. The general public has no access at those time. So how is this situation any differant?
   This is a great activity offered for the children of Lowell (and free!).No organization can be all things to everybody. The more organizations that offer activity for the youth of this city, the better.

4. The Prince of Darkness Says:
   May 4th, 2007 at 9:49 pm

   Lark, these other organizations are usually not-for-profit. I’m sure that if this is found to be a legal agreement, that all concerned will be interested in the city getting its fair share. This has nothing to do with snobbery, the question is should the taxpayers/users subsidize this individual’s private business?

5. Paul@01852 Says:
   May 4th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

   In my earlier post that Lark referred to I did not discriminate between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. I named the Spinners and the Devils (both for-profit) as well as an Over-40 baseball league (not-for-profit). I think ther’s just some sour grapes from those who neglected to get their applications in before the deadline and I have no sympathy for them. I’m guessing they were making the assumption that no one else would be applying so it didn’t matter how late they applied.

   If Hatem sues, I would hope that every organization that uses a city-owned venue would file a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the defendants (Mr Leclerc and/or the city, I would assume). If they don’t there is a chance that a court would rule for the plaintiff, Hatem, thereby putting every organization that uses a city-owned venue in jeopardy.

6. Mimi Says:
   May 5th, 2007 at 9:25 am

   Mr. Lynne: You are right the left has used the courts in the past. But they were disenfranchised; with little or no political power.

   This situation is a bit different. These two issues have strong support within the halls of power; mainstream media and elected officials. For the past two weeks Mr. Hatem has had a one-on-one audience with CM Lynch; a number of City Councilors; the editor of the local paper; the morning call-in show on the local radio station; the CC even suspended their own rules to allow him to speak at their last meeting.

   If after exhausting all means to pursuade and not succeeding, then move on.

   And POD: We subsidize a private enterprise everyday. When the Licensing Board allows a restaurant/bar to take part of the public sidewalk for the summer, we subsidize it. When we offer a TIF to entince a new venture to come into Lowell, we subsidize it; when the Planning or Zoning Board grant waivers, we subsidize it.

   By the way, I am in favor of subsidizing; if at the end it serves the common good, why not?

7. Mr. Lynne Says:
   May 5th, 2007 at 10:26 am

   Mimi… you are right on all counts. I’m just saying that litigation as a tactic on this scale originated on the left and the right later learned from it.

   I wasn’t commenting on the relative enfranchisement of power, just the tactic.

8. Josh Says:
   May 5th, 2007 at 11:01 am

   “He is the second person, who has recently stated that they might take legal action against you, me and the other +100,000 residents of Lowell.”

   Please don’t confuse the goverment with the people. They are not one and the same.

9. Lowell Parent Says:
   May 5th, 2007 at 2:42 pm

   Got a chance to listen to that NewsTalk bit. What a hoot. Everytime I hear this guy speak he’s changing his angle of attack. First it was out-of-towners invading our courts, then it was a private business teaching on public courts, now in this NewsTalk interview his angle of attack is the city permit process, cost of lighting the courts, deed violations, and CORI checks. What a tool.

   What this is really about is what he said at the beginning of that interview. He returned to Lowell from his winter home in florida (look it up. Lap of luxury ocean front w tennis courts) to find ‘his’ Shedd Park courts taken by lessons. But that can’t be the full issue, because lessons are on 3 courts, meaning there’s 5 more for Bob & the geezer squad to play on. What’s at issue is that the lessons are being taught without the involvement of the Hatem family, apparently Lowell’s tennis royalty.

   The city gives season long permits to groups all the time (like for baseball and soccer.) There’s a process and a deadline. Next Champions filed and Boys & Girls Club did not.

   CORI checks are only applicable to school dept employees and volunteers, and only those with direct and unsupervised access to children. A public tennis court, with parents on the sidelines, is not unsupervised.

   Regarding his sudden concern for the taxpayers footing the electric bill for park lights. First, the lessons are in daytime hours, not afte rdark. Second, the park light are on regardless of whether there’s people playing or not.

   His allegations that this program, and others like it, are a violation of the Shedd Park deed, which they are not. I got a copy of the deed and read it. Doesn’t require a lawyer to interpret. There’s no mention of limitations on programs in the park.

   He also raised an issue regarding how supposedly elusive the information and registration to this program is. My kids, and 50 others, were able to register easily enough. Where’s the tennis lesson info on the Boys & Girls Club website?

   He also raises issue with the lessons being taught by an outside entity and not a Parks Dept employee, B&G Club, or himself. It’s strange for him to have a problem with outside vendors, seeing as how my kids take swimming lessons at the B&G club. Those lessons are not run by B&G club, but are outsourced to a private company called Pool School. Any issues he raises towards Next Champions lessons at Shedd he must raise on his own dealings at B&G club.

   I don’t understand how someone who supposedly loves tennis so much can do so much to take lessons away from our kids. There’s over 30 courts in Lowell, plenty of space to have all the lessons we want. There’s obviously some personal vendetta at play here. I suspect Mr Hatem must have outstanding issues with the City Councilors, City Manager, Parks Dept, Next Champions, or all of the above. His personal was is only hurting our kids.

   BTW, public meeting of the Parks Board regarding this issue on May 30th.

10. The Prince of Darkness Says:
    May 5th, 2007 at 9:14 pm

    LP, if you spent half as much time playing tennis with your kids as you do spewing your venom here, there would be no need for lessons.

11. K-R-S Says:
    May 6th, 2007 at 9:47 am

    Prince, we all have differing opinions. Just because you may not agree with LP (which does make some great points) or any other post-er, does not necessitate you last post.

12. Mr. Lynne Says:
    May 6th, 2007 at 10:59 am

    Uncalled for PD

13. Lowell Parent Says:
    May 6th, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    Spewing Venom? Wow, PoD, I’m impressed. I seem to have developed a new talent. Here I am offering up what I believe are logical counter-arugments to those that oppose childrens programs for kids, and suddenly I’m spewing venom. I suppose you’ve just run out of supporting arugments and have resorted to juvenile name calling. I’ll be sure to add “Venom Spewer” to my business cards so all are forewarned.

    And just for the record, since you seem concerned. You’re correct, I don’t spend ‘half as much time’ teaching my kids. I spend about 10x more time teaching my kids than being online. My online activity, recreational, is about 15 mins/day, mostly reading news stories, journals, and the such. My time with my kids, otoh, this weekend alone, was 2hrs of baseball Friday night, Saturday was 1 hr of swimming and 3hrs of baseball, this morning was 45 mins of tennis and 20 mins of ‘races’ around the track, followed by 30 mins of teaching them how to plant a garden, 10 mins of supervising them make pizzas for lunch, and we’re still only halfway thru the day. Get it? Keep your petty generalisms and misplaced angst to yourself.

    I am passionately concerned and dismayed by the turn of events that have unfolded surrounding these tennis programs. I am actively trying to schedule my childrens 10 weeks of summer vacation with a good balance of meaningful recreational and educational activities. I wholeheartedly support our city officials in any programs they establish for our children. What I have a hard time understanding is how people like you can want to take such services away for self-centered reasons.

    Time will tell.

Leave a Reply