We all want to know what the real deal with lower Broadway is. The point is that an alderman's meeting is not the place for the issue at the present time. It has become an political issue. It was first brought up by DeMaria in his campaign video for the primary; McGonagle has responded to it twice in full page ads in the Leader-Herald. If DeMaria has a problem with the ads, he needs to respond to it in kind. If Mr. Thibeault has a problem with them, his remedy is in the courts.
The one thing that we did learn about the project tonight is that is still a "proposed" project; of course, you had to listen closely to figure that out. I'm going to watch the meeting again tonight to make sure that I got that right. It I understood it correctly, the purchase of the Modern Continental site is tied up in land court over Mr. Thibeault's desire to merge two parcels. The opposition in that case is the City of Everett. How can a project that is that status be discussed in a city meeting? The mayor and the city solicitor gave some support to it being discussed but I would not say that they came out strongly for it. When I watch the meeting again, I will post any corrections to the above statements if I was wrong.
And before you ask, I am not in favor of the McGonagle's vision for the development of the lower Broadway site. I posted a couple of lengthy posts over on the Mirror a couple of weeks ago discussing the issues with developing that site. They were posted there in response to someone who posted that they wanted to discuss the issue. I had more a lot more to post about the issue but gave up when the discussion didn't really seem to go anywhere.
Dominic, are you saying that Thibeault does not currently have a law suit against the city? I believe he does.
I didn't see the meeting. Could someone just update me on how the issue came up? Unless I'm missing it, I don't see it mentioned on the calendar. Did it come up under suspension?
Just for the sake of clarity, there are three moderators. I happen to be the moderator of this section. The moderators were appointed by the site manager in May in an effort to keep conversations from veering into libel/slander land. I think we do a very good job of jumping on inappropriate posts. We have never been asked to dillute our own political opinions, however, and MassDee is entirely within her rights to post her thoughts and beliefs as she chooses, just as you are.
Tetris...a correction to what you posted (I think). The 2 parcels to be merged are both on the parkway. The problem has to do with 4th street. As part of the original offer to purchase the old City Yards, 4th street was part of the deal. The problem (and reason the city is in court) is that there was an injunction placed on the 4th Street sale. That injunction came after the city failed to send a legal representative to a court hearing set to argue the inclusion of that street as part of the deal. In case that muddies the waters...I'll try to be a bit clearer...The city is in court with Mr Thiebault because they failed to send a representative to court. As a result, an important piece of the agreed upon sale of the city yards was undermined.
Again....I think I have the facts right, my aplogies if it is not 100%. They are definitely more accurate than a merger of 2 parcels that are a mile apart.
Court...thanks for the clarification. I agree that there is a need to moderate the slander. Perhaps the title moderator is misleading. It implies that there is no bias.
I said I was planning to watch the meeting again and would post a correction if I was wrong. There was so much stuff flying around that it was hard to keep up. Obviously, you are not going to merge parcels that are a mile apart.
Since you seem to have some inside knowledge of this situation, can you clear up a question that has been posted a couple of times already. Does Mr. Thibeault actually own the Modern Continental site at the present time?
All I know about the ownership of the site is what I have read on here. Without knowing for sure, I tend to lean towards the more common sense answer....the man was prepared to give a presentation on a proposal for the site. I have to think that he either owns it or is in some sort of agreement to buy the land. Why else would he have a proposal for it? Why else would it be a political issue?
Tetris, I just listened to the tape of the meeting. The city solicitor clearly stated that the lower Broadway property is in litigation and it has something to do with the merger of two parcels. Your original account of the meeting was correct.
Carlo also said that Mr Thibeault is the "proposed new owner." What does that mean? Does he own the property or not?
In regards to a clarification of my earlier post, at one point in the discussion after the city yard issue has been put to rest and just prior to the city solicitor stepping down for the first time, it certainly seems as if the city solicitor states that there is an issue with the lower Broadway site with regards to frontage that is currently in land court. When the solicitor is called back to the podium, he seems to be say it again. I have to admit that I've never been a strong backer of the city solicitor, so it seems strange that I am relying on him now to back-up my argument. If I'm still wrong, I'm wrong. But my confusion would clearly be attributed directly to what the city solicitor said.
Massdee - I also noticed the "proposed new owner" comment. That is why I asked about the current ownership of the property again.
Down to the wire
