| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2009 : 12:26:28 PM
|
The war of words, started by Thibeault (or we were led to believe that) is childish nonsense, and no one believes a word. I have spoken with so many people that said those articles are clearly payback.
It certainly sounds like payback to me over the December 8th Board of Alderman meeting. At that meeting, all the alderman sponsored a piece to issue a cease and desist order. Alderman Van Campen mentioned that embarrassing moment for the administration, which was the November 17th Common Council meeting, where the Mayor’s Chief of Staff got really upset over this, and told Councilor Simonelli that it was “blatantly not true” that the Board of Health has the authority to issue a cease and desist.
Alderman Van Campen mentioned he had since had his own conversations with the DEP, since that Common Council meeting, and said it was quite obvious to him (from information I learned on my own from the DEP too) that the Board of Health indeed has the authority is issue a cease and desist against Wood Waste of Boston. When he mentioned “For whatever reason, it was not conveyed that way to the Common Council”……..I knew then.....it was going to be war with this administration. The Chief of Staff was suppose to be at the December 22nd meeting, per the December 8th meeting, and we have not seen her since.
It funny that immediately after the December 8th Board of Alderman meeting, we get these propaganda articles in ALL our newspapers. These articles are ‘Exact Erin” replicas- signed by William Thibeault. They all sounded frightenly the same, as Ms. Deveney.
Why did not one of those articles mention any other Alderman, like Chuck DiPerri, Matewsky, or better yet, Alderman Marchese?
It’s because this is all payback to Robert Van Campen, for bringing up the fact that we were told wrong information about the Board of Health, as he should have brought that up........ since we were blatantly lied too, for what ever reason. She may have Peter Napolitano fooled with her little wispy voice and non confrontational manner, but not me. I'm not putting her entirely at fault, she does have a boss that approves this stuff, and she has to answer to, or so it seems.
|
Edited by - Tails on 01/01/2009 12:28:16 PM |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2009 : 1:19:23 PM
|
This letter was printed in the Everett Leader Herald on December 31, 2008. For those that did not see it, its a small insight of what has been going on in Newburyport. I thank these caring people for taking the time to help Everett, and not just say "Everett, is Everett's problem" like we have been hearing "Newburyport, is Newburyport's problem"
To the Editor:
I have recently been privileged to read the Everett Leader Herald on the ongoing struggles dealing with the owners of Wood Waste of Boston.
We, in Newburyport, have been experiencing the same abuses of obnoxious fumes, lack of adherence to regulations, delay after delay in taking corrective steps, ignoring orders, the list is endless.
New Ventures of Boston, owned by the same Wm. Thibeault has been ordered cease and desist on numerous times for various infractions and, when ordered to correct the fumes emissions, the system was shut down at night and weekends. The landfill, which prior to their responsibly to cap it, presented no problem. It was only after it was disturbed and waste brought in from the Wood Waste facility that troubles started.
Several months ago, an operating room at our hospital had to be shut down due to the stench permeating it. I, myself, had to go to the emergency room and could not breathe properly. Others would compare the times that this occurred, and found they are coincided. There were times when I could not work in my yard because the fumes had reached my home, a half mile away.
With each infraction, New Ventures claimed that, in order to correct the situation, more fill, more truck trips, and more time was needed. With each infraction, their profits would rise. The original time period to complete the capping was to be three years. Now, the time has doubled with no end in sight.
The fill that New Ventures wants to bring in, and Everett wants to get rid of, is the very product that has been disrupting the lives of so many, both here and in Everett.
The continued denials of both Wood Waste and New Ventures reflect the caviler attitude towards the law which govern waste and landfill activities. It has disrupted the lives of many, subjected them to discomfort and danger, deprived them of the lawful use of their own homes, requires great deal of oversight by city officials in both cities, and the added input from dedicated individuals who keep those officials informed.
Both Wood Waste and New Ventures have shown a complete disregard for rules and regulations and, until they are ready to adhere to those rules, cease and desist orders should be issued, failing that, both, should be shut down completely for flagrantly flaunting the law, and endangering the public.
There have been some working together by Everett and Newburyport. Joining forces and presenting a firm and united front should result in closure to this disgusting way of doing business.
We are literally sick of it.
Gloria P. Braunhardt
Newburyport
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2009 : 9:39:56 PM
|
I've posted all of these articles and letters here so that we can all make up our own minds about this war of words. But, I definitely have my opinions on the subject that I'd like to share and hope that everyone else would too. I want to focus my posts on the two letters to the editors that appeared in the local papers. Since Alderman Van Campen's letter appeared first, it would seem appropriate to start with his letter.
Somebody asked me what I thought of Alderman Van Campen's letter when it first appeared. My initial response was that I thought that it was something that was put together by a good lawyer. What I meant by that is that it focused on the facts that made his case and may have ignored some others that did not. So, in that sense, I somewhat agree with Mr. Thibeault. But, there's nothing wrong with that approach; as I said, it's what a good lawyer would do. I can't find any facts presented in his letter that I believe anyone could dispute. When something was presented that couldn't be proven as fact, there was a liberal use of "it appears" or similar type language. Therefore, everyone should be able to identify what are his opinions are versus facts, much as we like to have posters here do. So, I don't understand how Mr. Thibeault can claim that "he (RVC) once again makes a slew of blatantly fictitious statements". I just didn't feel that I found any proof in Mr. Thibeault's letter that backed up that claim.
As for the allegation that Alderman Van Campen is doing this for politically motivated reasons, I can't quite dismiss that argument as easily. Let's face it, if Alderman Van Campen is truly considering running for mayor next year, any actions he takes will be labeled as politically motivated. So, he's in a rock and a hard place to begin with. However, if there wasn't full support of the entire Board of Alderman for the cease a desist, it would be easier to make the claim on this issue. As the president of the BOA, it made sense for him to take the lead on a shared issue. Now that his term as president has come to an end, it would probably wise to turn over the lead on the issue to the incoming president, Alderman DiPerri, to help to prove that the claim is not political.
However, if Alderman Van Campen wanted us to believe that this is truly not political, it probably would have been better to rework the portion of his letter than mentions Mr. Thibeault's "apparent relationship with Mayor Carlo DeMaria". As Alderman Van Campen notes "the people of Everett...are intelligent enough to form their own conclusions" on that subject.
So, are Alderman Van Campen's actions on this issue truly free from politically motivation? Hard to say; I believe that time will be the best judge of that.
I'll post my thoughts on Mr. Thibeault's letter in a separate post as soon as I finally complete it. I've been struggling with both of these posts for a while now. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2009 : 1:57:50 PM
|
It's taken me a long time, but finally on to Mr. Thibeault's letter. While I can't say I totally disagree with any of his points, I do have lots of questions and observations about all of them them. Fortunately, he presented the majority of his points in a numbered format; so, it is fairly easy to take on them on point by point.
1) With the evidence presented, I don't believe there is any question that the City of Everett inserted itself into the issue of the enclosed facility not being built. The real question is what right did the city have to do that? As the issuer of the Wood Waste's license, wouldn't any waiver regarding the building of the enclosed facility have to come from the Department of Environmental Protection? If a DEP waiver was obtained, shouldn't it have been presented as evidence as well? I doubt that such a waiver, in a written form at least, exists. On page 30 of the Wood Waste thread, are the documents that Tails was able to obtain from the DEP for the failed preliminary injunction against Wood Waste. One of the central charges in that case was that the enclosed facility has never been built. Nowhere in the chronology of events that the DEP provides is there any mention of a waiver being granted for the building of an enclosed facility. I have mentioned in my previous post in this thread that lawyers concentrating on the facts that make their case is a valid tactic. However, in this instance, if such a major and crucial fact were left out of a case, it is likely that if the missing fact ultimately came out, it would sink at least that portion of the case.
As far as the city council approving the waiver by approving the purchase and sales agreement, I don't recall this vote but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I didn't think that the city council would normally get involved in approving a purchase a sales agreement. To me, a purchase and sales agreement is a contract. Under Section 21 of the city charter, the city council is prohibited from being involved in the "making" of contract. Wouldn't a vote to approve a purchase and sales agreement be considered "making" of a contract? To be fair, however, I do recall that Mr. Thibeault was in front of the city council sometime in the process of selling the city yards. It was after his bid was submitted but other than that, I can't pinpoint exactly when it was. The reason that for this was that his proposal for the property differed from what was listed as conditions of the sale in the order passed by the city council that that made the old city yards surplus property and allowed for its sale. For anyone interested that order, a copy of it can be found on the South Middlesex Registry of Deeds, Book # 51670, Page #164. These differences were obviously hammered out as Mr. Thibeault was allowed to purchase the city yards but I have no recollection of exactly what was voted on at that time.
2) The fact that Mr. Thibeault had the right to build his enclosed facility on the Stop & Shop site probably falls into the category of a fact that Alderman Van Campen didn't focus on. But isn't the more important, over-arching fact that an enclosed facility has never been build on any site where he has awarded the right to operate? And if you haven't read it already, there is an article from the Boston Globe circa 1999 on page 34 of the Wood Waste thread that makes some allegations on how closely Mr. Thibeault and Mayor Ragucci worked together to make it possible to bring Stop & Shop to Everett. Also, I'm sure that Mr. Thibeault didn't bring Stop & Shop to Everett just out of the goodness of his heart; it's likely, that he made a tidy sum on the transaction as well, as would any good businessman.
3) Again, I'm in agreement that Alderman Van Campen also does not include fact that Mr. Thibeault acquired the Adams Furniture building in his letter. Actually, Mr. Thibeault acquired that piece of property in September 2005 for $3,450,000 (South Middlesex Registry of Deeds, Book # 46218, Page #471). So why hasn't he built his enclosed facility already? I'm not sure when Adams Furniture went into that location; weren't they originally located in the Mystic Mall in Chelsea? But they finally vacated the premises earlier this year, before their new facility on Second Street was even completed. Even though the building was then empty and available to be converted into his enclosed facility, Boston Paint Ball took over the space instead.
But, to me, the bigger question is the Adams Furniture building an appropriate place for Mr. Thibeault to build his enclosed facility? On page 30 of the Wood Waste thread, there is a copy of the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of its Motion which was filed as part of the DEP/AG's failed motion. About halfway thru this document you will find the following statement: "The Final Permit required that all processing and storage of C&D Waste and processed material at the Everett Facility, including the area where waste was to be received and handled, had to occur inside a building to be constructed at the center of the property." It's hard to say exactly what the DEP would consider the center of the property, seeing that a significant portion of the site is in Chelsea; but, it is hard to imagine that the Adams Furniture location would meet that criteria.
4) I believe a lot of people would love to see a great deal, if not all, of the entire industrial area on the south side of the Parkway be redeveloped. In order to do that properly, a number of businesses, including Wood Waste, would have to relocated. As much as that might benefit the city, I think that it speaks volumes that most people aren't in favor of allowing Mr. Thibeault to move elsewhere in the city. As far as donating money to the city, of course Alderman Van Campen is not going to go there. Not knowing any more of the details of his donations, I'll say good for Mr. Thibeault and leave it at that.
5) The contract that the city had with Wood Waste is an interesting subject. I believe that the contract described in the old Globe article that I previously referenced is this very contract as its description of the waste included in the contract ("rubble, from concrete to fallen tree limbs, that ends up on Everett roads") seems to somewhat match up with Mr. Thibeault's description of the waste covered in the pulled contract ("street sweepings and catch basin material, trees and brush"). If the Globe report is to be believed, it seems as if the Ragucci administration may have helped to steer this contract to Mr. Thibeault at a time when he appeared to be greatly helped out by it. But Mr. Thibeault seems to be more than willing to throw the Ragucci administration under the bus now though.
The specifics of the original contract are hard to determine from the information in the article. The only clues included in the article are that Wood Waste received $157,000+ plus in the first year of the contract and their bid was only $250 less than the next closest bidder. So, the contract was competitive at the time it was awarded. As far as the amount paid each year, by looking at the FY09 budget document, at least in FY06 and FY07, the city paid less than it did in the first year of the contract. Not the best numbers to rely on for comparison though as its likely to assume that the cost should be based at least somewhat on tonnage disposed. What of course is even less clear is whether or not the contract ever went out to bid again and when a cheaper alternative could have presented itself.
But what I believe could be the biggest question about this contract is was this a contract that should have ever been awarded to Wood Waste in the first place? In the DEP/AG's failed motion for a preliminary injunction, a copy of which can be found on page 30 of the Wood Waste thread, comes the following statement: "where the defendants unlawflly are:...(ii) accepting, processing, and storing waste other than construction and demolition debris, although they are authorized to accept only construction and demolition waste at the facility." As much as I am not a lawyer, I am not a expert on various types of waste. However, it would seem to me that "street sweeping and catch basin materials" shouldn't be considered construction and demolition debris. So, by awarding this contract to Wood Waste and dumping this material there, could the city be found complicit in this "unlawful" activity if it were proven? What a can of worms that would be!
I did a lot of research to attempt to find out how much money was saved by taking this contract away from Wood Waste as I thought that would have been something that I would have posted about at the time; but, I couldn't find anything. So, a belated kudos to the DeMaria administration for doing that and even more so if it was a contract that the city shouldn't have had with Wood Waste in the first place.
6) After I heard the Mayor state at a BOA meeting that snow was dumped on Mr. Thibeault's property, I tried to look for it when I was driving in the area. There was one, moderate sized pile on the rail spur parcel that I could see; but, I couldn't tell if that was from clearing access to the parcel or something else. I tried to check out the other portion of the 30 acres site: but, between dodging potholes on Broadway and the view of the site now being largely blocked by the new sludge plant and the car wash, I couldn't tell if they were there or not. So I can't and won't argue with Mr Thibeault on this point. However, this does raise the issue again of how much of this Lower Broadway property does Mr. Thibeault control at this time? No one seems to know the answer to that.
7) It is true that Mr. Thibeault is not in violation of any height restrictions in relation to the piles with the city of Everett because the city has no jurisdiction over the pile heights. And he might be working with the state and the city to resolves any alleged issues. But, if it is not OK for Alderman Van Campen to leave out facts, is it OK for Mr. Thibeault to leave out that there are also cases pending against his businesses from the DEP?
I've never agreed with the claims that Mr. Thibeault wants to turn either the old city yards to the 30 acre Lower Broadway sites into dumps. There's probably much more money to be made by doing other things with these properties, at least at some point in time. We know that he can't do it at the old city yard location as it is written into the purchase and sales agreement. Yes, the old city yard property is vastly improved over the state of decay that the city allowed it to fall into. Yes, Mr. Thibeault "gave" the city $3.5 million for the old city yards but he did so because he saw the value in it for himself. If Mr. Thibeault had wanted out of the deal at that point in time, I'm sure that he could have found a way out of the deal if he had wanted to. Many of the people who supported the deal only to avoid a lawsuit would not have been sad to see him back off. And yes, the city has put some of that $3.5 million to good use and, hopefully, that will be true of the rest of it as well.
8) Paying taxes is a cost of doing business and making money. Cleaning up contaminated land is part of what Mr. Thibeault does and I'm assuming that he makes a tidy profit off of that as well. As far as the "monster" reference goes, all I can say is that it's something that I hope that I would ever say about someone as an elected official and leave it at that.
9) Although true, most us are baffled by the fact that Mr. Thibeault has never received a health violation under the last three mayors. We are also baffled by the piles being there under Mr. Hanlon and almost no one saying enough about them. Of course, this specific allegation is another "political" inference against Alderman Van Campen and would probably be a very difficult one to disprove in most people's minds.
As far as Schnitzer goes, the issues with the fires down at their facility were actually covered at a Common Council meeting. At that time, Colin Kelly used the opportunity to explain what Schnitzer does to compensate the city when the fire department is called to their site. This would have been the perfect opportunity for Mr. Thibeault to let us know about the fire department calls to his site and what he has done to compensate the city. Instead, he just choose to make another "political" inference against Alderman Van Campen.
Mr. Thibeault's then states that all of the issues were addressed with the state. He says that Alderman Van Campen never speak about their outcome. To me, this letter would have been the perfect opportunity for Mr. Thibeault to speak about these issues and how they were addressed; but, he chose not to. Why should Alderman Van Campen be the only one criticized for not doing so?
It is true that Mr. Thibeault does not have to enter into any agreement with the city of Everett. So, the question is why is he choosing to do so? The proposed enforcement order is a subject for another thread on another day.
I believe Mr. Thibeault when he says that a cease and desist order will only make him want to work with the city less. I've already posted my thoughts on what the outcome of the cease and desist would be. However, if Mr. Thibeault wants to make us believe that he wants to show good faith actions toward the community, he should implement the provisions of the enforcement order than he can immediately, if he has not already done so.
Whether we like it or not, Mr. Thibeault currently has the right for his Wood Waste facility to be located in Everett; but, that doesn't mean that people can't express their desire for it not to be here. The Wood Waste business appears to be very profitable as it has generated the funds for projects that have benefited both the city and Mr. Thibeault; but, at what cost? The real issue is the Wood Waste business. Even though there have been no formal complaints lodged against him, most people would consider his business to be a nuisance, if not something more. And it's been that way since Day 1. But Mr. Thibeault is not alone there; it's really easy to make a case that both the city and the DEP haven't done their job regarding this business from Day 1 either. The time for a change is long overdue.
I think that in summing up Mr. Thibeault's letter, he hit a homerun in stating his displeasure with Alderman Van Campen comments. As I stated in a prior post, it hard to argue that the comments made by Alderman Van Campen aren't, at least, partially political motivated but time will be the best of judge of whether or not they are only that. However, Mr, Thibeault's letter didn't do anything to prove to me that Alderman Van Campen's allegations are "brazenly misleading" or to "provide the truth, all of which is substantiated with bonafide facts". Many facts seem to missing from Mr. Thibeault letter as well. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
War of Words
