Left In Lowell

Will this be the end of motions that put a strain on the budget?

16 Responses to “Will this be the end of motions that put a strain on the budget?”

1. lowell gal Says:
   August 26th, 2010 at 12:11 pm

   I cannot understand why the Mayor would be so rude to CC Caulfield. As far as I can remember he has voted yes on almost all City Budgets in the years he has been on the Council. Once in over 20 years he votes no and that means he cannot (according to you and the “Mayor”)bring in a motion to have a sidewalk repaired after a member of the community calls and makes a request. What did you want him to do, Tell the priest to call someone else? Streets and sidewalks have been part of the DPW since I can remember, with some of the money coming from Chapter 90-not city taxes and other sources, grants etc.
   If you were against the Tsongas Arena, the LeLacher Ballpark I guess you shouldn’t vote to spend any money on repairs or operating budgets, how silly!
   If you are against gambling and the Lottery don’t bring in any motion that may tap into that money
   if you voted against raising the sales/local meals tax, be sure you don’t bring in any motion that could in any way use this money.
   This blog is always looking for a way to make CC Caulfied look bad, but you look worse, so petty!

2. ellen Says:
   August 26th, 2010 at 1:31 pm

   This shows our mayor’s true side. He is arrogant and rude. CC Caulfield has served this city for over 20 years getting elected by the people of this city and didn’t deserve this childish reprimand by anyone especially our Mayor. Congratulations to CC Caulfield for not stooping to his level.

3. Mimi Says:
   August 26th, 2010 at 1:40 pm

   Can either one of you tell me how are we suppose to pay for expenses if we do not want to generate revenue? CC Elliott also did not approve the budget but you don’t see him introducing motions that will cost additional funds.

   You cannot have it both ways.

4. Lynne Says:
   August 26th, 2010 at 3:15 pm

   Childish reprimands? Caulfield has done it to others often enough. Shoe, meet other foot…

   Or in other words, call the waaaaambulance.

   I do think Milinazzo was a little strident, but certainly less so than I’ve seen Caulfield be, from that very podium. And not just to city councilors, but to residents who wanted to get their five minutes of speaking time, too. Reap what ye sow, kittens. Reap what ye sow.

   Personally, Caulfield’s behavior on the council irritates me and I probably wouldn’t be able to restrain myself either. One reason I don’t ever want to run for the Council.

   As to the motion, isn’t there (I have to believe there IS) a methodology to prioritizing and repairing the city’s sidewalks, as Martin and Mendonca state? Why does something get to have some sort of priority if Bud Caulfield brings it up? So what, he can get credit at the next election?

   I can think of dozens of sidewalks in terrible need of repair (thankfully, not any on my part of my street). I’m certain that the city is aware that Stevens has issues, especially given that the street has been recently repaved. What Caulfield SHOULD be doing rather than waste Council time, is call the Manager’s office, and if he doesn’t know the procedure (after over 20 years you’d think he would), find out, and find out if that sidewalk is already on the capital investment plan, if not, ask for it to be inspected, if so, he can report back to the resident or whoever and get his measly credit. But no, he has to do it on citywide TV, cuz that’s more important than actually accomplishing what needs doing, efficiently.

5. joe from Lowell Says:
   August 26th, 2010 at 8:57 pm

   “What did you want him to do, Tell the priest to call someone else?”

   I want him to stop simultaneously voting against more revenue, complaining about the deficit, and submitting motions for more expenditures.

   He needs to pick two of those, at the absolute maximum.

6. Say Whaaaat??? Says:
   August 26th, 2010 at 9:59 pm

   Bud’s a boob. He’s been especially boorish since being taken out of the mayor’s seat that fed his ego tremendously and gave him and inflated sense of worth.

   That said, Milinazo has been a horrible mayor in terms of decorum. Acting the same way Bud acted as mayor isn’t what he should be striving for. It’s expected of Bud. It wasn’t expected of Milinazo. Major disappointment.

7. ellen Says:
   August 27th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

   I’m just saying if you start a job, finish it. Obviously, both Millanazzo and Caulfield have their fans and non fans, but the issue is Stevens street needs to be completed. Enough half finished jobs.

8. Lynne Says:
   August 27th, 2010 at 2:09 pm

   “but the issue is Stevens street needs to be completed. Enough half finished jobs.”

   Give me a break…repaving Stevens had to do with sewer-drain sep. There’s no way sidewalks are part of the same work order. There is likely some sort of plan to maintaining/redoing city sidewalks, but why the hell would it have to anything to do with the road work that was done?? The two aren’t related.

   Secondarily, if the city is slowing its sidewalk upkeep, don’t you think that’s the fiscally responsible thing to do with local aid nose diving? Or, are YOU willing to see a bigger leap in your property tax rate to make up for the local aid shortfall if we don’t pull back on the things that can wait, like sidewalks?

   I just wanna know, you willing to pay more taxes? Cuz from where I’m standing, you get what you pay for - and there’s less money to pay for things. So if you want the services, you better tell me how you are going to pay for them while we’re receiving less state revenue during this downturn.

9. Maggie Says:
   August 27th, 2010 at 6:53 pm

   I heard some talk at Council a while back about people illegally paving over their sidewalks and turning their yard into one big driveway in front of the entire house lot. Having nor been down Stevens in a while - do they still have that problem? Those people should be forced to fix theirs first and then let’s see what’s left and fix it a block at a time. There are a couple of sections trhat might quLify for CDBG funds.

10. Right In Lowell Says:
    August 30th, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    Why is it OK for people to park on sidewalks… the cruisers completely ignore a serious safety issue. On the same note, what gives people at the juvenile court the right to park on that wide sidewalk all the time.

11. Robby Says:
    August 30th, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    Right In Lowell:

    Technically, and this is according to the Register of Deeds here in Lowell, is that the sidewalk is actually “property” of the private residence which is front of it. The recent ruling in court claims that property owners are responsible for removing snow from sidewalks in winter and sidewalks must be kept safe because the sidewalk is technically owned by whoever owns the property on it. Whoever gets injured on a sidewalk can legally have some sort of case against the owner of the property in front of the sidewalk.

    So your damn good and right Im going to park my car on it if I deem it necessary. And if our sidewalk cannot be kept in a “safe and secure” manner for whatever reason, then our “owned and responsible-for” sidewalk is hereby closed until it can be put in safe working order.

    If property owners are responsible for thier “owned” sidewalks as thier own property, then yes, we are doing what we want on them. To a reasonable means, of course.

12. joe from Lowell Says:
    August 31st, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    It’s illegal to block a right-of-way, Robby. The public has the right to pass and repass.

13. Robby Says:
    August 31st, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Who is blocking a right-of-way? If I park my car on the sidewalk, the people can squeeze themselves by my car on my “owned and responsible for” sidewalk. There is still room enough for people to walk through.

    Nothing illegal here.

14. Right In Lowell Says:
    September 3rd, 2010 at 7:51 am

    robby, assuming your comment holds water… when my kid can’t walk to school safely or my mom has to walk in the street in front your house, to hear from my attorney. Also, if that is the case, who is responsible for repaving and maintenance?

15. Robby Says:
    September 3rd, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    Who is responsible? Good question. Apparently the city thinks it can have it both ways. They “know and understand” that sidealks are in rough shape but dont have the money to fix them, which is perfectly understandable. But if someone were to get injured on that sidewalk, according to the court, the homeowner is somehow responsible? It doesn’t make any sense.

    Bottom line is the city only wants the sidewalks to be “owned and responsible” for by private citizens whenever a potential lawsuit is involved. Funny how Caulfield is telling us citizens that the city is responsible for sidewalks when actually lawsuits in courts say something different entirely!

    But in any case, if I as a homeowner are responsible for keeping my sidewalk safe and secure, then why cant I block it off if it is not safe and secure? Id guess at least half the sidewalks in the city are in horrible condition and some are downright dangerous. If the homeowner is legally responsible for injuries, why can’t they close the sidewalk until it is fixed? Its not about being a jerk, its about protecting yourself from a ridiculous lawsuit.

    In regards to parking, I did in fact park my car (actually we had two cars out there) on the sidewalk for some time while repairs were being done onto our house. Since the sidewalk is “owned and responsible” for by us, who are you to tell me what I can and cant do on my property? People were still able to access, it was a squeeze nevertheless, but what do you expect us to do? I guess Ill park right in the street the next time.

16. Marty Says:
    September 12th, 2010 at 9:34 am

    I think the mayor was acting unprofessional,using past budget votes to disagree on an issue is just plain silly. I also think Councilor Caulfield should have considered using the Two schools on Stevens Street as an issue instead of a snow blower to replace the sidewalks. Public safety should always be a major consideration when deciding the priorty of any public works project.

Leave a Reply