| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2009 : 5:21:36 PM
|
An excerpt from last Thursday's Leader-Herald lead story:
On a different note, Monday night's meeting was not the most efficient meeting that the current council president has run this year. At times, the Common Council seemed to holding a committee of the whole meeting and not a regular meeting. The meetings need to be more business and less social.
Members and those testifying before the council alike need to be more prepared for the meetings. There were too many "I don't really know's" and "I'm not really sure's" on Monday night. It's very difficult to accomplish anything of substance without accurate information.
Members also need to remain in the council chambers for the entire meeting. At one point Monday night an item passed by a vote of 11-0. There were also a number of 12- vote matters. 11 members barely constitutes a quorum. The meeting began with 17 members present.
And like a good parent, who treats all of her children the same, the president needs to treat all of her councilors equally. Certain councilors tread a thin line of insult and criticism toward other councilors at every meeting without a reprimand, while other councilors are brought up short the moment they stray from the subject matter. |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2009 : 7:17:49 PM
|
I didn't see this last week, and I have to agree with it. I still say Millie is 100% of an improvement for president, but I think last Monday she was feeling pressure from bullies and know-it-all's that never let her run the meetings.
That's the problem, all the rude interruptions and the bouncing around is getting too ridiculous. If someone is in the audience whether it be the mayor, a visitor, or whoever, I can see, but to take an item off the calendar for no reason, just should not happen. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2009 : 7:50:21 PM
|
| I thought of you Tails last week when I read that that because a lot of it addressed some of the same things that you had posted abbout last week. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2009 : 11:48:27 AM
|
There is a legal notice in the Leader Herald today for a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on June 15. The subject? The Restaurant Depot building. Seems that the area is not zoned for a Wholesale use. Also, the proposed plan does not meet open space requirements. 15% of the lot is supposed to remain open; the plan only calls for 12.7%. The plan was submitted by Everett Business Center. I thought Thibeault sold that property. Why is Thibeault going to the Zoning Board of Appeals instead of Restaurant Depot?
"Deb" |
Edited by - massdee on 05/28/2009 12:11:01 PM |
|
|
|
michael
Senior Member
195 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2009 : 12:17:25 PM
|
| don't you understand they have to line their pockets with the greenier |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2009 : 12:30:37 PM
|
The sale is done, I would imagine when selling commercial property, there must be some strings or a clause if the zoning (or whatever) does not get approved, the sale can be null and void. Mr. Thibeault does not want the sale null and void and since he has an in, with the Mayor, of course he would file with the zoning board of appeals. It does “kinda” make sense because I can’t see the city transferring a license to a business when there is a “possibility” that the sale “could be” null and void.
Bottom line……. He sold the old city yards for 6.9 million to Restaurant Depot. That was NOT his development proposal for the city yards, and we were BLATANLY lied to that the city could not get any more money for the sale. A sale (BTW) that I still question the legalities of.
|
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2009 : 7:23:33 PM
|
The existing owner coming before a zoning board with new owners by his/her side is standard procedure. Basically Tails is correct. There ARE provisos within the sales language allowing for the sale to be defunct if the proper licensing cannot be accomodated.. That happens each and every day with the sale of commercial property.
Makes perfect sense if you think about it. How could this be done if the purchasing company didn't own the property. The existing license that the seller possessed would remain in tact.
Whatever way you want to slice it. We got bushwaggled!!!!!!!
"Cruller DaHville"
 |
|
|
|
imbroglio
Member
47 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2009 : 09:21:53 AM
|
Cruller:
Could you please cease and desist the excesssive use of your written pyrotechnics. It makes it difficult to comprehend your message. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 05/29/2009 : 6:12:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by imbroglio
Cruller:
Could you please cease and desist the excesssive use of your written pyrotechnics. It makes it difficult to comprehend your message.
I'll second that although it's not just the way it's written that makes it difficult.......... Cruller likes to make a guessing game out of things & apparently hasn't noticed that most people don't take the bait. |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2009 : 10:35:51 PM
|
Imbroglio, If you believe that my use of color detracts from my message and you are asking that I make it substantively more reader friendly, I'll happily oblige; however, each of us has our own style and that's just mine. Its certainly not put out there for anything else but my personal pleasure. I can't promise that I will never do it again..... truth be told.... I like it.
JME: My writing style is not meant to be difficult. You couldn't be more incorrect; games and tricks are not my personal or my literally style. I'm firm believer in utilizing intellect. I believe that elevating the discussion is in everyone's best interest. It makes it more substantive and interesting. As I navigate my way around Everett Average Citizen I enjoy the banter of others and try to contribute as do many.
As a matter of fact, I believe, if you look back, I am probably one of the more suncint and direct contributors here. No games or fancy footwork; what you see, is what you get. Give me an example of a contribution I've made, that you felt wasn't easily understood. I'll happily desipher it for you.
Perhaps I'm not your particular cup of tea........ and that's okay.
That being said, if there IS something you want to address? Address away.
[b][i]"Cruller DaHville"
|
Edited by - Cruller DaVille on 05/29/2009 10:38:31 PM |
|
|
|
imbroglio
Member
47 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2009 : 09:23:53 AM
|
Cruller:
Your writing style is fine. My point simply is that all this excessive usage of colors, fonts and italics become an end in themselves and obscure the content. It's counterproductive.
There is no need to decipher anything. |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2009 : 1:55:22 PM
|
Point well taken Imbroglio.
"Cruller DaHville"
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2009 : 07:29:23 AM
|
Editorial
Seeing is Believing
Over the last few months, the City Council has considered some very heavy issues. They have debated the Fully Empowered Traffic Commission, the Social Host Liability Ordinance, a proposed Inspectional Services Department and, of course, the amendment of the Adult Entertainment Zoning Ordinance to include fortunetellers.
While all of these ordinances are different with a different purpose, they all have one thing in common -- the general public has no idea what the ordinance actually says. Why is that? Because the members of the city Council are the only ones who actually see the text of the proposed orders, ordinances or resolutions.
Meeting Agendas are readily available in hard copy at the Council Chambers or electronically at the city’s web site. But if you want to read a proposed ordinance, you are out of luck. There is no way to get either a paper copy or an electronic copy of the proposed ordinances. You have to rely on the discussion during the meetings to have any idea of what the ordinance actually says.
The city is required by law to publish the full text of a new ordinance prior to its taking effect, but that’s after it has been debated, enrolled and ordained.
We’re not naïve enough to think that all of our residents want to read each and every proposed ordinance, but for those who do, there should be a means by which they can see legislation before the city council considers it. Why? Because, for the most part, items on the calendar are available on the Thursday afternoon prior to the Monday meeting. If the text of a proposed ordinance were available with the calendar, interested individuals could read it and, if they wanted to, contact their elected officials prior to the meeting.
More importantly, residents wouldn’t have to rely on the discussion at the meeting to know what was being proposed. Sometimes the discussion doesn’t give a clear picture of what a proposed ordinance actually says. And sometimes there’s absolutely no discussion on an item.
Take for example, the Social Host Ordinance sponsored by Alderman Robert Van Campen. The proposed ordinance has been before the city council for some weeks now. The ordinance would prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverage or drugs by minors on private property.
At first glance, the ordinance seems to be a good idea. Certainly no reasonable person supports minor drinking alcohol or abusing drugs. And Everett residents know all too well that in our city we live in very close proximity with our neighbors, so no one wants loud parties next door.
But if you get a chance to read the ordinance, things aren’t that clear. The ordinance states, “The Everett City Council finds that the occurrence of social gatherings at private premises where alcoholic beverages or drug are served or consumed by persons under the age of twenty-one (21) is harmful to such persons themselves and a threat to public welfare, health and safety.”
Underage kids have been drinking on private property forever and Everett is no exception. Yet the city has somehow survived this threat to public health and safety. Are we talking about underage drinkers here or the H1N1 flu?
As a number of councilors pointed out during the debate on this ordinance, it is already against the law in Massachusetts, and that includes Everett, for minors to possess or consume alcohol. It is also against the law to supply alcohol to minors.
The ordinance also reads, “’Open House Party’ means a social gathering at a residence or other private property with minors present.” But then that definition is further qualified so that the ordinance exempts, “the use of alcoholic beverages, which occurs exclusively between a person under the age of twenty-one (21) and his/her parent or legal guardian.”
Does that mean that if you have a barbecue on the Fourth of July and your 19 year old niece or nephew has a beer, you’re in violation of the ordinance? What if the party was a welcome home for a soldier, sailor or marine returning home from Afghanistan or Iraq?
One last thing about the Social Host Ordinance, when councilors questioned the fine structure of the ordinance, they were assured that the first offense was a warning issued by the Chief of Police. That’s true, however, the actual language of the ordinance allows for fines of $150 to $300 for subsequent offenses. But you have to have access to the text to know that.
The point of the discussion of proposed ordinances and proposed amendments to existing ordinances does not always reflect the actual wording of the ordinance or amendment. Concerned citizens should have an opportunity to read and comment on these items before they are debated. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Leader Herald
