Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
Chalk this one up in the column of gee-we-expected-this-to-happen-sooner-or-later. It appears that Councilor Kazanjian’s little motion of last night to close down an ally in the city of Lowell was, well, a total conflict of interest.
The motion: “C. Kazanjian-Req. Mgr. take steps to block/limit access to Cumminskey Alley.”
But this alley is, drum roll please! right next to Kazanjian’s own building, mostly abandoned and unused (and seemingly not maintained). In other words, he’s an abutter, and shouldn’t be bringing up or voting on or discussing such motions. He, of course, did all three last night.
The motion was brought up because of some incidents mentioned at a recent area meeting (thefts at two businesses there) where the police think that the thief/thieves used Cumminskey Alley as access/egress. Of course, this motion sort of makes sense, but it really doesn’t. Are we going to shut every alley access up every time there’s a local crime near it? I submit to you, that this is not at all tenable.
But couple that with Kazanjian’s breach, once again (remember this?) of the conflict-of-interest statutes, so soon after being inducted as a new City Councilor, and one wonders exactly what excuse he’ll use this time? There’s no way to mistake his abutment of this alley. To quote the Sun on his response to that other incident, back when, on the ZBA, he voted on the D’nD development and didn’t recuse himself:
Kazanjian, a City Council candidate, said today he was unaware of the specific regulation in the conflict law pertaining to abutters’ property. “If I knew, I wouldn’t have voted,” said Kazanjian…
Can’t use that as an excuse this time! So what’ll it be?
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 1.039 seconds
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I assume the ‘proper’ course of action would have been to ask a fellow councilor to bring it up and then abstain from the discussion?
Also… who’s to say that the people who committed the crimes were not from the group home ( is that what it is they were talking about?) but were squatters from his own mostly abandoned and unused building? Could be that the building itself my offer more cover for these thieves than the alleyway.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
No, this was unrelated to the group home discussion (no wonder it was confusing, as the group home thing was brought up about 10 times it seems). The alleyway was its own motion entirely.
But yeah, that building appears in poor condition, and yes, it could be part of the problem.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
What was the issue with the Grip home?
I know the girl who murdered Mr Frye was living there, but were there other issues that were discussed?
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
The fence that lines that alley on his side, is breached with apparents means of entrance into the unsed portion of the building. The “yard” of this building contains a significant amount of trash. If it were any one else, he/she would have been sanctioned.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
This is the vacant brick building across from the North Common apartments, right?
Dude leaves his building vacant for years, and when thieves take advantage of that to use an adjacent ally because there are no eyes on it, he blames the ally?
This is like a guy who kills his parents asking for mercy because he’s an orphan.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Yo, Councilor Towtruck: renovate your damn building already!
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Joe, heard “that one” on WTKK this morning too.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
LOL at “Councilor Towtruck”!
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Where is Cumminsky Alley?
January 24th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Cummiskey Alley runs behind the building that contains the SAC Club, off of Market St. and comes out on the other side on Merrimack St, right beside the “Former” Battamburg Market.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
“Thieves using the Cummiskey Alley? What is SAC Club overflow parking located at the old Battambang?”
DOH! Used the Outside Voice, My Bad!
I’ll be here all week, enjoy the Prime Rib! Please tip your waiter.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Lynne,
Thanks for the info. I certainly know I won’t see this type of thing in the Lowell Sun. They wouldn’t want to expose one of the gang members. After all he probably owns a horse with you know who.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Actually, the Dunkin’ Donuts ZBA vote back then was reported in the Sun…I hope we at least see this in the Column. I suspect that the motion itself was minor enough that no one gave it a second look…luckily, we did.
But hey, what’s a few conflicts of interest among friends?
If anyone decides not to write about this at the Sun, it’ll come from the top. I know the reporters are trying to do their job the right way, and I don’t question their professionalism.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Only the “insiders” read the Column. This should be frontpage for all the residents to see. And, the Sun should dog this with the Ethics Commission the way they do with other people. I forget the town but wasn’t there something the other day about a Selectmen’s wife working for a housing authority and he voted on something for them. The Sun wrote about that. Fair is fair…or is it in Campy-land?