You knew it was coming. An “unsigned” editorial in the newspaper on the Tsongas [Arena] issue that defies all logic where the writer tries to point out what they think are outrages, but are really actually the opposite. Every day is Opposite Day at the Sun! Fitting that today is April first! How is it we are so blessed with such intelligence and prowess at our local paper? (Yes, Virginia, that is sarcasm.)
God, where to start…why not at the beginning?
Who would refer to the Paul E. Tsongas Arena as “P.E.T.A.”? No one we know, and certainly not any Lowellian born on either side of the Merrimack River.
But that’s what you get when you pay an out-of-state firm $25,000, plus expenses, to do an operations audit hoping the company will come up with something — anything — that is different from what is already known or could have been done with city staff.
OK, so several whiffs and misses here. First, an out of state firm is exactly what one wants for an evaluation such as this, someone who doesn’t have any biases or preconceived notions. Second, there’s a bidding process for such things, or did the Sun think that this company got this job out of the blue? Thirdly, raise your hand if you think that had the city not done this study, they’d be lambasted for not doing their due diligence working on this problem? And if they’d used a local company and still got a result the Sun didn’t like, that they wouldn’t be going to town about this being all about cronyism?
The idiotic snarky commentary on PETA aside (how childish was that?), what this editorial tells me is that I actually really am for this report, not against it. Yay, an independent outside company was brought in. Just what the doctor ordered.
Lastly, “what is already known” - well, if it was so already known, why the fracking hell hasn’t the Arena commission done anything about it? Hmm?
“‘P.E.T.A.’ is mentioned more than 250 times in the 52-page report. It made us cringe.” Haha. Most. Ironic. Line. Ever!!
Now the “unknown” editorial writer, let’s call him or her “Dampanini” for now, then goes on about some specifics in the report like s/he knows what s/he’s talking about. Fun times!
That said, PA Sports’ audit confirms the obvious: In an ideal world of what ifs, where the city gains more revenue from renegotiated rental contracts, concessions and advertising deals, and more concerts — and if the current economic situation doesn’t worsen — the Tsongas Arena “could realize a significant increase in revenue on an annual basis.”
What PA Sports doesn’t say — and here’s the crux of the matter — is there are no guarantees the Tsongas Arena can turn a profit, even with more revenues.
The best-case scenario from the audit’s rosy recommendations is that the arena can generate an extra $900,000 a year against its present annual deficit of $1.3 million. That still leaves an unpalatable $400,000 annual debt to taxpayers.
Again, where to start…ok, we all know there’s a downturn, Dampanini. That’s stating the obvious. Of course, we all also know it can’t last forever, but Dampanini doesn’t mention that obvious bit.
And s/he’s lambasting the report for not saying that there’s no guarantee? Um, again, stating the obvious. If you’re not an oblivious editorial writer, that is. That is all s/he can come up with? Really?
S/he also doesn’t mention that the city currently subsidizes several other public venues such as the Memorial Auditorium (at about that same level if projections in the report were to be correct) and of course, doesn’t mention the purpose of such public venues, which is to generate economic activity and therefore, revenues, from other sources. Like, oh, say, more commercial property taxes from businesses moving in. But like I said, this anonymous writer “Dampanini” likes to state the obvious and leave off any real analysis that might actually mean something.
The arena has lost more than $10 million over the past decade. It has achieved a profit just once in its 13-year history, and that was for less than $70,000.
Oh, so it is possible for the Arena to turn a profit, and it has actually done so. Doesn’t this sort of kill his/her whole “but you’ll never close the deficit” argument? Sigh.
Today, musical acts prefer larger capacity venues to smaller ones, which puts the 5,600-seat Tsongas Arena at a decided disadvantage. The competition is stiff: Boston’s TD BankNorth Garden, Boston University’s Agganis Arena, Worcester’s DCU Center, and Manchester’s Verizon Center.
Plus, with two home hockey teams, the Lowell Devils and UMass Lowell River Hawks, gobbling up a block of key winter dates, the arena’s ability to schedule extra events is made difficult.
First sane logical thing he or she has said. Yes, there’s competition. But, I also think, great opportunity, given that Lowell can offer (especially with some smart planning and development in the immediate vicinity of the Arena) things some of those other venues cannot - like Boston, which is very expensive, or Manchester, which is in freaking New Hampshire (with apologies to my native lands…). Lowell, on the other hand, is situated between great public transit to the Hub of the Universe, without Hub prices, and has a nice burgeoning downtown which is soon to see major expansion. I think we have some things going for us.
And how quickly we forget about the stupid, retrograde contract that the Sun advocated for on the Devils contract, which amounted to little more than economic blackmail. You know, we’re going to get out from under that contract soon. That frees up the city to actually do something to fix that problem that the paper’s lead editor’s BFF Cox stuck us with before he resigned in disgrace.
Taxpayers would be better served if the facility were transferred to UMass Lowell, which would be allowed to expand its campus, improve its academic-athletic posture, and has the ability to fund arena upgrades. It’s a win-win for the city and university.
And the paper’s editor’s BFF Meehan, for god knows what reason we all can discern.
The Paul E. Tsongas Arena has a better chance of succeeding under UMass Lowell’s control than as the city’s P.E.T.A. project.
A statement which can only be pulled out of someone’s ass, since no one can really say this with any more certainty than we can know about the future of the Tsongas if it stays in city hands.
But pulling facts out of asses is something this paper’s leadership is quite fond of doing.
I do think that with proper planning, revitalization, and management we can do really cool things with the Tsongas. It is certainly the case that we cannot stand still on it, because our rivals in other cities such as Manchester have and will not. But no one who is for this “deal” (capitulation) has actually shown us they have any sort of workable plan whatsoever.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
“…is there are no guarantees the Tsongas Arena can turn a profit”
What a brilliant way of saying nothing in particular. Newsflash: There are never ANY guarantees that ANY business can turn a profit. As the story goes, not even the producers could guarantee that their musical would be a flop.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
“…Today, musical acts prefer larger capacity venues to smaller ones, which puts the 5,600-seat Tsongas Arena at a decided disadvantage. The competition is stiff: Boston’s TD BankNorth Garden, Boston University’s Agganis Arena, Worcester’s DCU Center, and Manchester’s Verizon Center…”
Funny how “Dampanini” fails to mention PA Sports recommendation and follow up interviews with concert promoters that point to the need for PETA to;
Develop relationships wit other promoters that reprent the ‘up & coming’ bands.
Develop in-house promotional funding in conjunction with UML and students to cap promoter risk, participate as a co-promoter, promoting events on an in-house basis and proide event sponsorship to promoters.
Nope, “Dampanini” throws in the towel and says we can’t compete!
Still nothing about the lack of involvement by the paper in the promotion of PETA
April 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Hehehe…I think you are on to something ER…and not about all that detailed stuff about promotion, either, though that’s all good points.
No, I mean about using the term “PETA.” From now on, whenever I refer to the Arena and need to abbreviate it, I’m SO going to use that term. Just because it’ll piss “Dampanini” off!
April 1st, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Meehan didn’t just lose his house he gained an arena.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Lynne:
I don’t know where to start in disagreeing with you. The study from PA Sports did not tell the Arena Commission or the City anything that was not already known. The problem is, an always has been, the contract that was originally forged with the hockey team before the building ever opened. The team gets ALL of the advertising revenue, ALL of the Food & Beverage at their games, the revenue from pouring rights, and pay very minimal rent (never mind nothing for their office space, locker rooms, and practice time.) This deal is far below the average of AHL deals all over the country. The Sun was absolutely correct in mentioning that the $25,000 was not well spent. That money could have been better used to promote the building, or add staff that has been cut due to cost cutting measures. I know you don’t agree with positions that the Sun takes, but in all fairness, you have to admit that calling attention to tax payer money being wasted is certainly justified.
April 1st, 2009 at 5:42 pm
ACK:
I have read the report and they were a lot of details that I did not know. I do not agree with you that all of this is well known. Maybe insiders are familiar with these figures presented by the Auditors but I was not. (I will provide a link to that report in a post so that all who want to can read it.)
However, I do agree with you that we have an extremely lousy contract with our primary tenants. Whose fault is that? Who agreed to those conditions? I believe it was the City Council. Some of those same members are now sitting on this City Council that wants to give the Arena away because it is too costly.
What bothered me the most about the editorial was the Sun’s selective memory. I do not know if you remember, but they were the ones that lead the fight to keep AHL Hockey here in Lowell in the winter of 2006. It was our civic duty to buy a season ticket. We had to do our best to show the AHL that as a City we could maintain a hockey team so that someone could buy the franchise that was for sale in the Winter of 2006.
Please check out the archives of the paper during the months of Jan – March 2006 and tell me that they were concerned about how a good deal for the hockey team will impact the Lowell taxpayer.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:38 pm
ACK
I could be wrong but the deal you describe went into effect with the Devils in 2006 not when the bulding opened. Mimi is right. The Sun was a big proponent of this deal when it was negotiated by then CM Cox. Of course it ends up helping the Arena lose money and suddenly its Lynchs fault and the City should give the Arena to Meehan for nothing. Wonder if Campanini was this poor a negotiator when he bought Meehan’s house.
ACK, I guess the other question is whether you even read the report?
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:07 am
Mimi & Walking:
I have definately read the report, over and over. The deal with the Devils did go into effect in 2006 - that was when the rent was reduced to $150,000 per year by the Council. And Mimi is right; there was a big push to keep the team in Lowell by buying season tickets. I was not in agreement with that then, and still am not now. But, the biggest concessions that hurt the Arena were given away back when the original contract with the Lock Monsters was negotiated in 1998. The City was so intent on bringing a team to Lowell to play in their new building, and made concessions that are far below the “average” AHL deal. The Arena is still living with those concessions and very much feeling the effects of that. Just think, if the City were receiving $500,000 per year in advertising (that the team has always gotten), the deficit would have been cut in half over the last 10 years. Again, Mimi, you are right in the fact that insiders (Council, Arena Commission, City Manager) were already aware of everything in that report, but the general public most likely was not. I apologize for asumming that everyone is as knowledgable about it as I am. I don’t think anyone is blaming the current City Manager; it’s very simple the deal with the Devils and the current state of the economy are what is making an impact on the Arena.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:04 am
So, there’s a really, really simple solution, isn’t there? Instead of giving away the Arena and potentially *valuable* *taxable* land away for free, how about we get out from under the damn contract which was negotiated with the Lockmonsters/Devils and go from there?
There’s no reason why the UML team shouldn’t have some sort of equitable deal to play their games at Tsongas, practice at some rink of their own devising, and we get rid of the albatross of the Devils…develop the land next door…then suddenly, we have an engine for economic growth. All we need is a little smart planning and maybe better management at the Arena, with more eye towards good promotion, and we could turn this around.
If I thought we couldn’t, I wouldn’t be so angry about the rank giveaways this Council appears determined to go through with.
In other cities with universities, universities have to *purchase* land to do what they will with. But in Lowell, because Mr. Meehan is the Chancellor, apparently all the normal rules go out the damned window.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 am
The SUN does a disservice to the community by effectively “trashing” the report. Maybe it’s because the report indicts both the local media, and indirectly the Lowell Arena and Stadium Commission (of which Alex Costello has been a member) for not doing its job. But the real problem is that while the Arena Commission has responsibility for the operation, it is the City that picks up the tab for their imperfect performance. That is one deficiency that could be eliminated by putting the entire business (including ballpark) in the hands of UML, and do away with that Commission entirely.
The only issue in my mind is to obtain a fair settlement for the transfer of the assets.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 am
Unfortunately, the City lays all of their cards out on the table. They have been very vocal and public in the fact that they want the University to take over the Arena. Chancellor Meehan, being a very good business man, understands that he can get the building for very little money. Rightly so, since the University would be taking on the deficit. But, if the City were more discreet in their intentions, they would have more of an upper hand in negotiating a deal. But that horse left the barn a long time ago.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:03 am
The city councilors may have, but it’s due to some astute back room politics as far as I can discern from multiple sources.
In other words, if politics weren’t involved (say, if it wasn’t Meehan who was chancellor) this would be a VERY different negotiation entirely, and THAT is my problem with this. Don’t think that Meehan hasn’t been playing around with political fire during this last year, with his buds in the GOB and GOB-lite.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I am completely in agreement with Lynne (as usual) and believe that her points and efforts to pull this city off of this self destructive path will have proven to be right within a very short period of time. Just for the record, it is efforts like this that have convinced me that she is, without question, one of the gutsiest people in this city. Lynne Lupien has worked with complete and dedicated honesty, selflessness and courage in her efforts as an editor, editorialist and activist to make Lowell a better place. Lowell is a tough town and she is to be commended. It is my humble opinion that she deserves the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. Should she ever become a public servant (officially, as she certainly is an outstanding one now), than perhaps we will actually see this happen.
That said, the Tsongas Arena properties giveaway reminds me of the last multi-million dollar self inflicted shot to the head that occurred in Lowell, by Lowell and obviously, in the best interest of a connected few in Lowell and reportedly far beyond.
That was the boondoggle of boondoggles in the sale of the foreclosed Wang Towers complex (now known as CrossPoint) by the City of Lowell back in 1994 for all of $525,000. This building complex which cost $60 Million to build, was sold by the oh-so-lucky buyers four years later (1998) for $100 Million netting them a mega profit of mega profits and all on the backs of the poor taxpayers of the City of Lowell. 10 Years later, it was put up for sale for $180 Million. Just think of what the City of Lowell could have done with that kind of money and what a valuable lesson should be gleaned from that action. Then, as now, all kinds of twisted justifications and financial extrapolations were presented to justify this blatant crony motivated giveaway. For crying out load, they could have just mothballed the building and waited for things to improve. It was then, as now that we were in the trough of a recession and the related building and real estate bust. And then, as now, the timing could not be worse for such a shortsighted action.
What I would like our Council members to consider is not what the market value or financial burden adjusted value of the Tsongas Arena complex is but rather what it would cost the city of Lowell today to build this exact building on this exact plot of city land. Market values mean little to sellers (and in this case “givers”) in times like this as it is a buyers market and not a sellers (or in this case a potentially very lucky taker). We just built a hollow shell known as a parking garage that cost the taxpayers of Lowell close to $30 Million. (And as LIL contributor waittilnextyr was kind enough to point out in one of his many methodical cost analyses, it will have cost close to $50 Million when all is said and done.) So can anyone out there surmise just what the Arena property is worth in “lets build that today” dollars? The Tsongas arena is an asset and a valuable one at that. I am once again stupefied at the audacity of our city leaders to once again follow the GOB crony loyalty path over the logical and fiduciarily responsible path in determining the disposition of this so called albatross. It reminds me of a Council discussion a few years back concerning a “drug” house on Douglas Road. Some Councilors were calling for the house to be demolished because drugs were being dealt from its doors. So let’s just dump this great asset because things aren’t going our way at this moment. So the actions of occupants have a mysterious way of absorbing in to the structure and forever tainting it so let’s dump it! I’m not surprised at the motivations of the 5 Philistines – Kazanjian, Lenzi Mercier, Mercier and Caulfield, but am very surprised at the positions of some of the other members of the Council who we can usually depend on for a more logical, intellectual and impartial approach to these issues.
And for those of you who have actually fallen for Meehan’s great acting skills in his apparent position of indifference as to weather the University pulls this theft of assets off, think again. Meehan is drooling right now at the prospect of pulling this one over on our fine City. One of the most important doctrines of the art of negotiation is for the potential benefactor of a reckless windfall to feign indifference. In my opinion, it is a deal such as this and the blind “we love Marty” loyalty of our intellectually compromised council members that got Marty the job in the first place. If he pulls this boondoggle off, he will have justified every cent of his inflated salary and have mitigated every bit of animosity within the University ranks at having hired a non-academic for the position of Chancellor. This will be the feather in his cap that he will forever wear proudly and he will have achieved exactly what he was hired to do.
I am also surprised that there has not been launched a criminal or at least an ethical investigation into the consideration of this transfer of wealth by the City of Lowell to the University. I do not believe that a decision of such gravity and such monumental financial value and municipal fiscal impact should be considered by a local level (and obviously loyalty intoxicated and impaired) Council. I’m very light on the specifics, but seeing as State funds played such a large part in seeing this complex built and the fact that the University is a State institution, I believe that any decision to convey ownership from our City to the University should be subjected to a far more intensive and higher level review and decision making process.
And just think should the city transfer ownership of this fine venue to the University - what will become of the notorious John F. Cox Circle??? Hmmm….
Just my opinion and thanks Lynne for providing us with the opportunity to express it.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Keep in mind it is more than just the building at stake here. Meehan wants that $800,000 lot next to PETA as well for zippo! That is potentially future revenue for the city lost because it would fall into UML’s hands.
Will turning over PETA to UML create jobs? No, Will the city still be responsible for the debt service? Yes. Will the city see any income from the sale, development and future rooms or meals taxed from the lot next to PETA? No.
The CCs that are pushing this are not looking at the big picture. There is more at play here than just PETA.
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Lynne:
I won’t get into the obviously biased rants of the “Observant One,” but as a final comment, I do want to address your comment about “back room politics.” I don’t know who your “muiltiple sources” are but it doesn’t sound to me like they are reliable. The Manager, The Chancellor, and The State Senator were discussing and negotiated a deal “behind the scenes” and in good faith. Without letting the Chancellor and the Senator know, the Manager put out an RFP for the parcel next to the Paul E. Tsongas Arena. That is your “back room politics.” Bernie and his advisors (all outsiders that Bernie brought in)went against the good faith negotiations, and thus, put the City in the poor negotiating position it is right now. Sorry and I hope I don’t upset your followers, but I’m passing along facts that I know to be true. It didn’t come from multiple sources.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
OMG, I can’t even believe you, of all people, “ACK,” are talking about bias, given that it’s been brought to my attention who you actually are if what I see on the back end of the blog is actually truthful.
I highly suggest, ACK, you either start signing your comments, or else stop posting. I am very fond of the ideals of anonymous commenting, however, self-interested parties are asked to tell us what their conflict of interest actually is. We’ve demanded it before of others and I am demanding it now.
I laud the fact that you put your email in your comment since you must have known someone would see it, but the only people who see that are the moderators, and I admit I had not looked in that section of the admin panel before. However, now that I know who you are (again, if you are who your email address purports you to be) you either must come clean, or else, again, be banned.
This is your only warning.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
You know what? It would be nice to know what the opinion is of the professional city manager thinks is in the best interest of the city and the taxpayers. It seems that general opinion holds him in high enough esteem with regards to his judgment and management of the city (and the CC is on record on this).
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Lynne:
Sorry, this was my first time on your “blog.” I didn’t see any rules regarding “identifying yourself.” As a matter of fact, I know my e-mail address was there, so I asummed you, as the owner of the website, would know. It does say that the e-mail address will not be published. Your blog about the article was way off base, and I just wanted to point that out.
I am very disturbed about your “warning.” I always thought freedom of speech was a constitutional right. Obviously, on your website it is not. Therefore, I am imposing a selfbanishment on myself from your blogs.
So, I am guessing that Walking the halls, Observant One, and Elenor Rigby are all real people???
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I hate to say this, but it’s common sense. No, we don’t have a rules of the road page here, but come on, give me a break. You have a severe conflict of interest, and no one in their right mind wouldn’t want to know that, and if you don’t realize that, then that speaks to your own ethics, not mine.
Just because a moderator knows it doesn’t mean squat. It’s the readers who have to evaluate your comments based on the best information available to them. They don’t get to see the email addresses, most blogs do not post them because, first, of privacy, and second, because of spammer bots, so how are they to know who you are? You purposefully picked an anonymous name, so that no one would know who you are.
I have not caught any conflict or hint of a conflict from the people you name, not to mention, they have a history of posting on this site and therefore, their comments can be evaluated accordingly. Some of those people I actually know who they are. If I thought they had a true conflict of interest (other than “I agree with you”) I would also have the same reaction.
Oh, I looooove the freedom of speech malarkey…everyone loves to pull that out when they get caught doing something like this…guess what? I own this site, pay for its domain and hosting. In effect, I allow a pretty broad discussion here, because I believe in that, but it is still a site that I own, I have to answer for, and whatnot. Since I have to answer for it, I get to say what is tolerated, and this, on ANY blog I know, would NOT be tolerated.
For instance, the Lowell Sun, or the NY Times, reserves the right to ban, edit, or otherwise moderate the discussion on their respective websites. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it.
As I said, either sign your posts with regards to this matter, or else, stop posting.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
There have been a few things said in the comments that I believe are incorrect.
First of all, the City was not the owner of the Wang towers when it was auctioned, although it may have had a tax interest. Had it been the owner it would have received the proceeds from the auction. Secondly, the City does not own the Arena, it just “owns” the operating deficit. Thirdly, the lot next to the Arena will apparently provide the City with $800K in the “deal”, and its development will be as taxable property, although with UML having the greater say in its use.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Waittil is right about the city not owning the Towers at the time of the sale. I do believe there was a tax liability and that came *WITH* the purchase and for which the new owners were responsible (and I also believe they retired that debt forthwith!)
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
As one who always enjoys and admires waittilnextyr’s contributions in providing clarity and the financial details behind the various articles featured here in LOL, I thank you for your input on my “light on details” and superficial account of the 1994 sale of the Wang Towers. I take full responsibility for any inaccuracies in my account. As such, it has motivated me to do the research that I should have done prior to hitting the submit button. I have discovered the following facts associated with the sale:
According to the Lowell Development and Financial Corporation web site, “In 1978 the City of Lowell convinced Wang Laboratories to establish its corporate headquarters in Lowell. The City applied for and received a $5 million Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Rather than simply granting the proceeds of the UDAG to Wang Laboratories, the City took an innovative approach: the $5 million was transferred to the LDFC, which in turn loaned the funds to Wang.”
Furthermore, a February 17, 1994 New York Times article had this to say about the auction and the $525,000 sale price:
“The auction was part of Wang’s bankruptcy organization. The money from the sale goes to the Aetna Life and Casualty Company, which holds an $8.2 million mortgage on the property. The Lowell Development and Financial Corporation holds a $3.3 million second mortgage. Both Aetna and Lowell, along with the other creditors, will receive newly issued shares of Wang common stock.”
So, waittil, can we assume that the $3.3 Million is not ownership by the City of Lowell via the LDFC? And we all know what happened to the value of Wang stock.
The bottom line is that I am intensly curious and concerned as why we find ourselves facing the prospect of a transfer of ownership of what was once a cherrished and hard-fought-for asset of this City in such dire economic times. It would seem more than just pure coincidence that our City has been engaged in this process with the University now and not under better economic and value oriented circumstances. And accurate or not, I have always felt that the sale of the Wang Towers was a bothched and ill-timed transaction that enriched a few connected individuals on a massive scale at the detriment of the owners and of our City and that it should serve as an historical example of the potential consequences in assuming that our present economic situation is a static and unyielding condition. To reitterate, we are in what has been described as the worst economic contraction since the Great Depression and at the core of this contraction is a collapse in real estate values - both residential and commercial. So why now, and as far as I am concerned, why at all?
It’s great building, on a great sight and could, as Lynne has suggested, become the symbol of success and the economic anchor for our City that it was once envisioned to be.
And to close, I would like to express my complete confidence and admiration for our City Manager, Bernie Lynch. To those of you who make a living assigning blame and taking shots at this guy, your gripes a falling on (my) deaf ears. In my family, were are all just hoping that he’ll stay the corse and not succumb to the frequent and unjustified beatings that he gets. Both by our council and our local newspaper.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:02 pm
L,
I’m in agreement with ACK on this one. I was surprised as any as to the author, but, not disturbed in any fashion.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Waitil wrote:
“…Thirdly, the lot next to the Arena will apparently provide the City with $800K in the “deal”, and its development will be as taxable property, although with UML having the greater say in its use…”
If that’s the case Marty should have no problem with presenting an RFP along with anyone else.
What WILL happen is that the lot will go to UML for free (or perhaps in exchange for flood zone land in Pawtucketville that is unbuildable) and as such UML will ‘consider’ recommendations from the city for the lot next to PETA and then do what it wants. Waterfront property that is untaxable. Good idea!
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
ACK!
I am a real person. If you’d like me to start forwarding you my tax bill and mortgage, etc. I’d be more than happy to send them along!!!
As background. I grew up in an affluent neighborhood of the city…we never had problems…the mayor and city councilors lived near-by and all was right with the city….then I got married and move to Centralville where there is no city councilor or anyone else living next door….hmmm
What I discovered is that services in Lowell are not distributed equally. So now we are giving away what is currently a white elephant but will ultimately be something that is an asset.
Grapes…sure…I drive down Andover Street (my ol stompin grounds) every day…trash…always picked up. I drive down West Sixth Street and I see at least one house where the new bin is overloaded with trash and there are piles next to it…it’s been like that for two weeks.
Am I cynical about what is happening in the city? You bet you ASS I AM! Now the first professional city manager the city has ever hired tries to get interest in the area near PETA…AFTER the chancellor says he’s not interested and the CCs orders him to give it to Marty for free!
Guess what! After the CM is forced to do that and the city still pays for the debt service…and there are no concerts and the city can’t get any income via concert money or taxes…the CCs will blame the CM!
Shocking!
We have an asset and we have an opportunity. We also have very small minded CCs that want to be able to say…I saved you money!
This is why the City of Lowell will never be a great city again!
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:51 am
Maybe the reason why there aren’t big piles of trash on Andover Street is because the people who live on Andover Street don’t leave piles of trash outside their houses for weeks at a time. Just a thought.
Or maybe you’re right. It’s a grand conspiracy by BFI to keep some neighborhoods beautiful at the expense of other neighborhoods. Those scheming trash collectors… gotta keep a better eye on them.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 am
Thank god for U.LOWELL.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 am
Actually, there hasn’t been a U.Lowell for quite some time now.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
tom, do you really think you are doing your buddies in the GOB a favor by drive-by commenting about how great they are every couple of days? It’s only too obvious what you are doing here.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Does anyone really want the Tsongas Arena to be associated with PETA?
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Eleanor,
I have to agree that the trash issue you speak of is probably not a matter of targeting certain neighborhoods. When tenants move out, or think that unlimited trash is their god given right, you really can not blame the single family and owner occupied homes in Belvediere that follow the rules. I also disagree with your comment “This is why the City of Lowell will never be a great city again!” This is already a great city. I work out on the road and have driven through Springfield, Worcester, and Lawrence recently and thought to myself wow there really is a lot to love about Lowell. The CC deserves quite a bit of credit for how great this city is.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Does it really matter that the trash belongs to a tenant? What is at work here is not the conspiracy that Papa Smurf so smuggly speaks of. It is the knowledge, no doubt subconscious, that in certain neighborhoods they don’t have to be as careful as in other neighborhoods.
The West Sixth St incident of which I speak involves one of those new bins that are keeping the city clean…and I have personally been ignored when I foolishly thought a complaint to Gunther would be acted upon.
Or perhaps it is as Papa Smurf hints, people who are of moderate and low income means are just not up to living like those folks in Belvidere.
As for Lowell not being a great city look what you are comparing it to. Then go and look at Manchester, Portland other cities that have made the transformation and see if they have stopped or are continuing to improve.
No, Lowell has become stagnant and its neighborhoods, outside of the ones where city and business leaders reside, are largely ignored.
April 4th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Let’s take the middle road here and say that Lowell is a good city, and on the up and up, shall we?
Also, you ignore the fact that Manchester has its…well…let’s just say less desirable neighborhoods. Portsmouth is its own law and not a great comparison - being a seacoast town and literally riddled with historic buildings.
As to the trash issue, I haven’t personally seen too much of a problem. You should have seen my street this week…it was like seeing soldiers lined up, all the bins right out on the curb waiting for the truck, handle side out…cept mine, I didn’t have enough trash to put out this week. I almost snapped a picture of it for the blog, LOL.
Anyway, we have a mixed neighborhood here, single fams and apartments, so while I’m sure some areas of the city are having adjustment issues (and frankly, those places were never good at putting out trash under the old system, either, what a mess!) I honestly think things are going about as well as they could be.