Left In Lowell

A system glitch

31 Responses to “A system glitch”

1. Lynne Says:
   May 6th, 2008 at 9:27 am

   What I’m especially worried about is that people in positions of power are still playing politics with their positions. Obviously this was status quo in Lowell for decades, and we still have the lingering effects. It’s one thing to make a mistake, which should be corrected, or fail to do something that is part of a job, for which a person should be reprimanded - but it has not been uncommon for that old status quo to rear its ugly head in the last couple years; that of using political reasons and not rule of law or fairness dictate what is done in this city.

   I, for one, am tired of it. I know that we’re working to end that, but the more we can expose it, the better, so we can rid ourselves of it. Yes, it’s a common human trait to play petty politics with power. No, we should not tolerate it when we see it.

2. kami Says:
   May 6th, 2008 at 9:36 am

   It is just awful what Kristen was put through. And absolutely ridiculous. Correct me if I’m wrong but as I remember it from the newspapaer, the development that was built next to her home was built by former Board of appeals member and current Councilor Alan Kazanjian. At the time he had tried to get 2 houses built but in the end Kristen was able to protect the area and only one house was built. A house that is now occupied by the Councilors sister. Kristen had to fight various city regulatory board that Mr. Kazanjian had considerable influence over. Many of the members on these boards are his friends or colleagues. She ended up having to appeal local rulings to the State and won. Kristen worked very hard to have the vernal pool protected that was breached by the builder. Am I right so far Kristen? It is absurd to believe that anyone would just be “driving by” a dead end street. It sounds like Kristen was targeted. Basic landscaping is one thing but breaching a vernal pool is entirely different. And the city looked the other way when Kazanjian did that. The City Manager should review what happened here. It sounds like one of our residents is being signaled out for harassment. This is just unacceptable. Keep up the good fight Kristen. Don’t let them intimidate you.

3. MOONLIGHT Says:
   May 6th, 2008 at 9:37 am

   Your right again lynne, this is harrassment of my

   frien kristin, t j mcaarthy and councillor towtruck

   are behind the whole thing.

4. K-R-S Says:
   May 6th, 2008 at 10:09 am

   Kami,
   I have no idea who you are, but you have all the background facts correct, and thanks. I’ve gone over this past situation so many times, I bore myself with it. Nice to see that someone else was paying attention!
   More than anything, I see this situation as an opportunity to plug holes in the lines of communication, improve services and ensure that information is much more readily available to residents and municipal employees, so that everyone is operating on the same page.
   Improving service delivery of government is a constantly evolving process. Residents and business owners are key to this process.
   Unfortunately, holes in the system, make it far easier for folks with more nefarious motives to exploit.

5. Lynne Says:
   May 6th, 2008 at 10:10 am

   Well, I won’t make accusations, but honestly, given who moved into the actual house that ended up being built next door once the plans to backfill and overdevelop that piece of land were curbed by the lawsuits, it’s sort of hard NOT to make inferences…

   But, let them show their hand, over and over again. It’s not helping them in the least.

6. Lynne Says:
   May 6th, 2008 at 10:10 am

   Oh, and hard to believe this made it into the Sun. Sad commentary on how our politics works around here…that it would be news.

7. waittilnextyr Says:
   May 6th, 2008 at 11:08 am

   The City always decries budget cuts in that they will reduce services to the citizens, but maybe this is a good example of someone who is not only not helpful, but a real hindrance. Perhaps it is a job that is no longer needed.

8. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   May 6th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

   So let me get this straight. KRS lives on a dead end street, but across the street from the sister of a former zoning board chair and current CC. An assistant CM also lives in the area (with the CCs sister?)

   KRS locked horns with the former zoning board chair and current CC over a building project on the dead end street and won.

   Now a cease and desist order for landscapping shows up at KRS’ door even though all the proper paperwork was done and approvals granted?

   Ya know, the FBI has launched investigations with less evidence than this and once they start poking around…

9. Lynne Says:
   May 6th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

   The real question which needs to be asked is, did the official in charge of the actual stop work order “just happen” to fail to check the available information that they had which would have kept them from making the stop work order in the first place? Or was there collusion involved to making trouble?

   It’s highly possible that this was all just a big mixup, and as stupid as the complaint was in the first place (given the history of Kristin’s high concern for the wetlands) and the possible motivations of whoever reported it, they still have the right to make the complaint. However, the city official who decided to act first and then do the homework is the problem here. Whether through incompetence, or because of a directive from a superior, or because of loyalty to someone, they failed to do due diligence. THAT is the concern here. Government is supposed to be impartial when evaluating complaints like this. To the extent that it does not, we need to rectify the situation.

   I suspect it will be looked into and rectified, though we may never know the real story of exactly who, assumptions aside, started the whole thing. And in the long term, not much harm was done, except for the homeowner’s lost time in fighting something that should never have happened in the first place. But as Mimi said, someone like Kristin knows her rights and the laws. The next person may not be so lucky or informed.

   All in all, a pretty big piece of egg on the city official’s face, and ultimately, an embarrassment to the city government. Which is why I think it will be quietly taken care of, and the persons involved watched more closely for this sort of behavior in the future.

   Imagine, anyone not believing that Kristin, the activist who has spent countless hours making sure people play by the rules, would not play by the rules. It makes one chuckle a bit - yeah, good idea, taking her on on her own turf. Like she wouldn’t have crossed her T’s and dotted her I’s. Sort of stupid of them if you ask me! But these sorts of people ascribe similar behavior and motivations that they themselves have. They just assume that “we” play the same game, just with different cronies. It’s been their mistake over and over again, and why they keep losing, even when they win (or buy…) elections.

10. Josh Says:
    May 7th, 2008 at 9:24 am

    Lynne said, “What I’m especially worried about is that people in positions of power are still playing politics with their positions.”

    P.J. O’Rourke once said, “giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”

    Politics and government are inseparable. When you give government power, you’re giving politicians power, then you expect politics to be nonexistant? Get real!

11. Lynne Says:
    May 7th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

    Josh: I didn’t say it wasn’t common, just not acceptable.

    People have the power, and the right, to do something about it.

    I hate people who say “well, government sucks, so let’s just get rid of it!” Yeah, because the alternative is so rosy, the rich getting insanely richer and the poor poorer. That’s what happens when you do not have any sort of regulation or redistribution of wealth, because money also equals power, my friend, and them that has the dough in an unregulated “free” market can wield it mercilessly on the rest of us to continue to perpetrate the advantage, ad nauseam.

12. joe Says:
    May 7th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Politics and government are inseparable.

    Don’t trust people who say this to decide how the government should operate, or who should operate it.

    They mean it; they don’t see any difference between a legitimate enforcement order and an illegitimate one.

    Remember the excuses such people came up with when it came out that the Justice Department was hiring and firing United States Attorneys based on their willingness to use their prosecutorial powers to help the Republicans and harm the Democrats? “Hey, man, it’s a political position. They’re political appointees. That’s how they SHOULD be acting.”

    These people deserve to be taken at their word.

13. Conservation Commission Says:
    May 8th, 2008 at 10:42 am

    Wow. I would like to defend myself a little here. too bad I was out of town and this thread is now probably dead. Anyway…the landscaping is a little more then putting in grass and trees, it is a retaining wall which has a little more impact.

    Under the MA Wetlands Protection Act, wetland resource areas have a 100 foot buffer, so anything in that buffer is under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. I mistakenly thought that a vernal pool was a wetland resource area. Ms. Sitcawich (sorry if I spelled that wrong) presented to me a ruling from the DEP that she received saying that a vernal pool is not a resource area and I immediately lifted the Enforcement order. That paper work was never given to the Conservation Commission. As it was part of the court proceedings it may be in the law department somewhere but I had never seen it before now. Since this vernal pool is the only one in Lowell that is on private property we have never had this problem in the nine years I have been here. If you have ever seen the Wetlands Protection Act it is hundreds of pages long. There is no way anyone can know every nuianance of the Act.

    This in no way was an attack on Kristen on my part. I personnelly respect Kristen for all the hard work she did in getting that area declared a vernal pool. In fact I was quite surprised when I found out there was work going on out there as I thought it was a resource area.

    I apologize to Kristen if she feels I unfairly attacked her. Honest mistakes do happen sometimes, whether you people want to believe it or not is up to you.

14. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    May 8th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    I have three problems with your explaination if you are the actual person who issued the cease and desist order.

    1. Why weren’t you aware of DEP rulings that would have an impact on the Conservation Commission’s regulatory decisions regarding vernal pools?
    2. How is it that you were “driving by” on a dead end street, you were going where?
    3. How is it that you issued the order prior to checking records at city hall that show the work was properly permitted?

    Too many things like this happen in Lowell for me to believe it was an accident!

15. Conservation Commission Says:
    May 8th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    1. No, I wasn’t aware of the decision regarding vernal pools. As I said that is the only vernal pool in the city on private land, the rest are in the state forest. The Wetlands Protection Act is fairly complex, you can look at it on the DEP website. I think it is quite likely if you called other commissions in cities they wouldn’t know right away that a vernal pool had no buffer.

    2. I didn’t drive by. I received a call from someone else. Her house is on a corner of a major street and a good chunk of the hill she lives on was missing. If she lived at the end, I would have said no way they were just driving by but she’s on the corner. And not that its really anyones business but I live in that neighborhood (1.75 miles done the street) and I do go running in that area on occassion. I know you think i’m lying about that but its true.

    3. When a complaint is issued we issue a stop work order. We don’t go searching aimlessly through records and don’t go to other departments to look through their records first. I knew there was a vernal pool there, I looked it up on the GIS and the work was within 100 feet. If this was your neighbor and they were working within what you though was a resource area wouldn’t you want us to stop the work? When it was discovered that it wasn’t a resource area we rescinded the stop work order.

    What do you mean “too many things like this happen in Lowell to think its an accident” People violate the Wetlands Protection Act all the time. I get calls from other departments, neighbors etc. You guys just think it is a conspiracy because it is someone you know.

16. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    May 8th, 2008 at 8:12 pm

    Conservation Commission, Thank you for responding.

    Here are the issues I have with your responses on a professional level.

    1. You say you were not aware of the DEP decision regarding vernal pools. To me, someone who is not involved in these things, it seems that when the DEP issues a ruling that affect conservation, then Conservation Commissioners (in all municipalities) need to be aware of them and understand them.

    2. Thank you. The newspaper article made it seem that you were “driving by” which would have been unlikely on a dead end street. I do not know who called you, who you are or where you live.

    One of the major points of this thread is that it was unlikely that a city official just happened to be “driving by” as portrayed in the paper. However given the folks connected with the city in one form or another that live in the area, well it’s not hard to speculate now is it?

    If you are a neighbor then I would think that you would have (should have) asked KRS what was going on prior to the C&D order?

    3. I am in an industry where I get a lot of claims made but before I act we check them out. I apply those same standards to the city! If I called someone at City Hall to complain about something I would assume that it would be checked prior to action being taken? NO?

    Yes, too many things like this do happen in Lowell. Someone with “ties” complains to the right people and the city takes action. Someone from a section of the city that isn’t politically connnected calls and nothing is done.

    Thank you for responding. I only hope that you (plural) can understand how and why we (plural) don’t believe you.

17. joe Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 10:09 am

    I can’t speak to anyone else involved in this episode, but I know that the City’s Conservation Agent is a straight shooter.

    There is too much political hanky-panky in City Hall, but it would be a mistake to use that observation to tar everyone there with the same broad brush.

    I can certainly understand why KRS would raise questions - oh, hell yeah I can - but raising questions isn’t the same thing as drawing conclusions.

18. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    Unfortunately I have had too much experience in this city with politically connected folks back stabbing people they don’t like.

    Even if the conservation agent is the straight shooter that you say he is, by vertue of the players involved in this little scenario it should have been a red flag to double check the complaint and paperwork before acting on anything. That would have avoided even the appearance of political payback.

19. Anonymous Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    Eleanor — I generally agree with you on most things, I think, and I very much appreciate your sensitivity re: our friend Kristen in particular and Lowell politics in general. However, I think the Cons. Com. raises at least one very good point:

    “When a complaint is issued we issue a stop work order. We don’t go searching aimlessly through records and don’t go to other departments to look through their records first.”

    If my neighbors were doing something that was questionable — say, like erecting a 20′ neon cross in their backyard — I’d want the work stopped immediately until the issue was properly sorted out. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to let a suspect project continue past the point of being able to do anything about it; if the project’s legit, the only thing your out is a little time. Better to call a time out and investiage, no?

20. inside/outside Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    Well said by Joe and Anonymous#19. Let’s put this one to bed.

21. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 11:22 pm

    Anon, I disagree with the statement that when a complaint is made, we issue a stop work order.

    A stop work order should be issued when rules etc are not followed, not because a neighbor, and in this case we assume a politically connected neighbor that has an axe to grid, says so.

    If an inspector is sent to a property he/she needs to have the information about that property before they get there…ya think!

    So I can complain about a neighbor’s project because I don’t like them, expect the city will show up and slap a C&D order on it, and THEN investigate whether they have the proper permits?…meanwhile it costs my neighbor time and money to straighten the mess out and get the contractors back on the job?

    Are you and the Conservation Commission Agent telling me that this is the way it works in Lowell and that’s okay ????????

    BULL *&%$

22. Tim Little Says:
    May 10th, 2008 at 10:47 am

    Sorry — Comment #19 is mine…. Don’t know why I came up as Anon.

    Eleanor — You do raise a good point; I think there needs to be some sort of balance in that the Cons. Com. (or whomever) needs to do some measure of due diligence before shutting down a project. Still, I strongly believe in the philosophy of measure twice, cut once. Once something’s done, it’s generally harder to undo.

    I obviously don’t know all the specifics of this case, and while I think we can presume some degree of political motivation behind the initial complaint, we can chalk up the rest to an administrative screw up that has since been admitted to and corrected.

    It’s unfortunate for this to happen, but sometimes $#!+ happens — even to our friends. If you see this as part of a larger pattern of political hazing, however, that’s something else…. I’m just not well-connected enough to see that, I guess.

23. inside/outside Says:
    May 10th, 2008 at 11:34 am

    No, that’s how it pretty much works everywhere.

24. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    May 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    inside/outside
    “No, that’s how it pretty much works everywhere.”

    That’s how what works? Shoot first and ask questions later? If that is the norm and not the exception then there really needs to be a shakeup in the departments with the authority to issue C&Ds.

25. K-R-S Says:
    May 11th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

    OK, haven’t a chance to contribute to this discussion over the past several days.
    First M- Bob Camacho is the Building Commisioner.;0)

    Here’s the process of which I am aware:

    Should an individual, which can be a neighbor, the City, Con Comm, etc..) be able to see a “wetlands violation”, they are to file a RFD or Request for Determination with the Conservation Commission to come to a conclusion as to jurisdiction.

    Con Comm has 21 days to respond to the RFD. If the complaintant does not care for the ruling, they then have the right of appeal to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

    This same process applies when a superceding order of conditions has expired (after 3 years) and there are still unresolved conditions.

    The aim of this process is to ensure that all activities performed by the Con Comm are subject to public review, ensure the integrity of the public appeals process, to ensure transparency and to mitigate any “feeling” by an individual that they are being singled out.

    BTW, the folks at DEP are great to deal with and this is where I got this information, as I was phoning them on other issues.

    So, yes, to many of you who have asked, there is a “process” in place, mandated by MGL. And many of you who assume that, this is the way it “just is”, well, I’m sorry for you. That only tells me that you have gotten used to mediocrity in government. I’m not willing to settle for anything but Excellence.

    ER wrote, “So I can complain about a neighbor’s project because I don’t like them, expect the city will show up and slap a C&D order on it, and THEN investigate whether they have the proper permits?…meanwhile it costs my neighbor time and money to straighten the mess out and get the contractors back on the job?”

    My past experience with this is that the issuance of C&D follows a process to ensure proper notification. Which entails the issuance of C&D via certified mail and a return card to the issuer of the C&D.

    ER…Luv ya!

26. K-R-S Says:
    May 11th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    And Tim, it isn’t or shouldn’t be a matter of whether you are well connected or not. Standards are put in place to even the playing field, so that everyone has even footing.

27. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    May 12th, 2008 at 1:20 am

    KRS, Love you too…

    Are you saying you got a certified mail notification in advance of the C&D?

28. joe Says:
    May 12th, 2008 at 9:45 am

    KRS,

    Conservation Commissions are allowed to, and often do, issue stop-work orders FOR THE PERIOD LEADING UP TO the meeting at which official action is taken regarding an enforcement order.

    If you are seen dumping sand in a wetland on a Wednesday, no, you don’t actually get to keep dumping that sand under the Conservation Commission meeting the next Thursday. That isn’t how it works. If there is an imminent or ongoing violation, the city can take immediate enforcement activity, which will then be confirmed or overturned at the next public meeting.

    The RFDA process you mention is intended to be used BEFORE WORK BEGINS, to allow applicants to be sure that their PROPOSED WORK wont’ violate the Wetlands Protection Act, or require a more lengthy review process. It is not the only, or even the primary, means by which a Conservation Commission can stop work.

29. joe Says:
    May 12th, 2008 at 9:51 am

    310 CMR 10 is the section of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regulations that deals with the Wetlands Protection Act. Check out the bolded portion at the end of the following language:

    10.08:
    Enforcement Orders
    (1) When the conservation commission, the Department or the Office of Law Enforcement of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs determines that an activity is in violation of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, 310 CMR 10.00 or a Final Order, the conservation commission, Department or the Office of Law Enforcement may issue an Enforcement Order. Violations include:
    (a)
    failure to comply with a Final Order or Final Determination, such as failure to observe a particular condition or time period specified in the Order;
    (b)
    failure tocomplete workdescribedina Final Order or Final Determination, when such failure causes damage to the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131, § 40;
    (c)
    failure to obtain a valid Final Order or Extension Permit prior to conducting an Activity Subject to Regulation Under M.G.L. c. 131, § 40 as defined in 310 CMR 10.02(2);
    (d)
    making any false, inaccurate, or misleading statements in any certification filed under 310 CMR 10.00, including any certification that the requirements of 310 CMR 10.02(2)(b)2. will be met.
    (e)
    failure to comply with any certification on project plans or eligibility under 310 CMR 10.02(2)(b)2.
    (f)
    leaving in place unauthorized fill or otherwise fail to restore illegally altered land to its original condition, or the continuation of any other activity in violation of M.G.L. c. 131, s. 40.
    The conservation commission, its members and agents, and Department employees may enter uponprivatelyowned land forthe purpose of performing their duties under M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, subject to constitutional limitations.
    (2)
    A Final Order may be enforced by either the conservation commission or the Department regardless of which is the issuing authority. The members, officers, employees and agents of the conservation commission and the Department may enter upon privately owned land for the purpose of performing their duties under M.G.L. c. 131, § 40 and 310 CMR 10.00.
    (3)
    An Enforcement Order issued by a conservation commission shall be signed by amajorityofthe commission. In a situation requiringimmediate action,an Enforcement Order may be signed by a single member or agent of the commission, if said Order is ratified by a majority of the members at the next scheduled meeting of the commission.

30. K-R-S Says:
    May 12th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Merely relaying what I was advised by DEP.

31. joe Says:
    May 13th, 2008 at 9:47 am

    And you’re not wrong, really. If you see, say, a subdivision being built near some wetlands and there is not Conservation permit, you can file a Request for Determination of Applicability to make the Cons Com review the project.

    I’m just saying, the Cons Com can also take enforcement action by itself, and issue stop work orders without some third party filing an RFDA.

    What you’ve described is one of the ways the Wetlands Act is enforced, just not the only one.

Leave a Reply