| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2008 : 3:12:43 PM
|
I don't understand why item 10 is even on here. Didn't we just find out a week ago about the grant? How many times do we have to go on and on about this? The Mayor already said he would do it. It's getting tiresome, just like Best Buy. I hope the games are not starting, with using that podium.
I also do not believe it's "re-turfing" The stadium is grass....that's why the kids don't play when it rains, even a little. If anyone was on the field, FFF has a fit. |
Edited by - Tails on 11/14/2008 3:21:30 PM |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2008 : 10:28:58 AM
|
#1. Should pass easily, our Vet’s should be honored
#2. Could this end up costing the taxpayers more money?
#3. I personally wish we didn’t have this type of business at all in Everett.
#4. People were towed on my street this week and the sweeper never came. I think they need to look at this.
#5. Who thinks Ms Clancey will show up, this time? I wish the signage would go up, just so we don’t have to listen to Ranieri anymore.
$6. It should be interesting to listen to the doctor.
#7. I can’t believe how bad ECTV has been since Scott Counsell was let go.
“Gone are the days…….” Yeah, right!
#8. Exactly how does an ad-hoc committee work? If it is non-political maybe it could be helpful for the
city.
#9. This is an option , if it can be done, that might help the residents living near Wood Waste.
#10. Re-turfing????
Side note:
After Monday only two more meetings until we have a new Council President. This is one viewer that is grateful this year is coming to an end. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 11/15/2008 : 1:20:48 PM
|
I forgot to mention about street sweeping. I know it's coming to an end but come on....
Monday is my street sweeping day and there was no towing and the sweepers went by BEFORE 8:00am. There were cars on the street and they went around them. You e-mail city services and it says Anthony Raneiri will get back to you. This is his area an still.....no word.
I wont even start with his position being taken out of the budget. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 10:05:04 AM
|
2, 3 & 4. Since the city is not willing to televise committee meetings on a regular basis, it only seems fair that the council could spent a few seconds to explain why the committees made the recommendations that they do on these pieces.
5. One might have been able to find some dark humor in the Best Buy sign issue at one point in time; I'll plead guilty to that. But at this point in time, the issue is very sad and getting worse. There needs to be a resolution to this issue very soon.
7. If Councilor Simonelli starts off of this piece by harping on Scott Counsell being replaced, this piece will go nowhere. He had his chance to do that at the last meeting. A display on the ECTV bulletin board blames the recent problems with ECTV on technological updates being installed. Therefore, the line of questioning on this piece needs to focus on questions about those updates, when they were started, when they will be finished and how were they paid for.
8. What is the mission statement for this ad hoc committee supposed to be?
9. Isn't this the same thing that the DEP and the AG's office attempted to back in July, minus the time restriction. Why would the courts allow this one and not the other one?
10. This item would have been more appropriate at the BOA meeting. Alderman Nuzzo's been salivating over this forever. I doubt anything major would or could happen on it until the spring anyways.
I am surprised that there nothing on the agenda about the setting of the tax rate. There is some work that needs to done ahead of the actual setting of the rate, i.e., adopting the minimum residential factor. I hope that the city doesn't find itself in a time crunch on this issue; things tend to get ugly when that happens. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 2:15:18 PM
|
On item #9..... (It's my belief) that the BOH with the "Mayor's approval" *can* issue a cease and desist order under MGL Chap 111 "Noisome Trade" for the fact that odors and dust are being emitted into the air. When the DEP went to court in July, they did not have the backing of the Everett Mayor.
The problem is that the Mayor must completely support what the BOH does. We all know why that is not happening.
Ad Hoc Committee is a good idea, but I don't trust this company at all and we have already seen retaliation, just look at Mr. Brandano. Imagine going up against them??
Think back to a year ago....this all you heard.....tax rate-tax rate-tax rate......I'm not hearing one thing about the tax rate from the dauntless defenders of the taxpayers. I don't get it and I would think that would come before "re-turfing" the field. I'm going to have to watch to see where that's going, I can only imagine. The Mayor already said once he got the grant that he would do it...He got the grant....and he already said when you are supposed to do it. This is ridiculous. It's almost as ridiculous as the Best But Sign. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 8:33:46 PM
|
I have to disagree on item #9, Tails. If you look back at the court documents that you provided on the state's request for a preliminary injunction against Wood Waste, it was made under MGL Chapter 111, Section 150A, which is part of the Noisome Trade section of the law. If a superior court judge denied a motion from the AG's office and the DEP, I can't see how the court would accept a similiar motion from the City of Everett. It doesn't matter whose backing the case has; court rulings should be made on matters of law only.
If the City of Everett were to bring this suit, who would represent the city in court? I believe that this suit has to be brought in superior court; I'm not sure that anyone in the solicitors office is licensed to practice in superior court; remember, they had to hire outside counsel to defend the city in the Next G case before it was ultimately settled out of court. With your disdain for the city legal department, I think that you would actually prefer for someone else to handle the case anyways. But that means legal fees and they would add up fast. Just more money to ultimately be paid by the taxpayers. And if you put any faith in what Alderman Van Campen said at the public meeting, it very unlikely that a judge will ever approve a preliminary injunction to shut him down. So where would that leave the taxpayers of this city? Maybe somewhat satisfied that we tried to do something but poorer in the pocketbook for it.
If this case ever makes it to court, I'm happier that it will be handled by the AG's office with the support of the DEP. If the case ever does make it to trial, I would hope that the Mayor would have the Board of Health and any other city department that can be of help to do everything in their power to support the effort.
As far as the ad-hoc committee goes, I'll listen to what Councillor Simonelli has to say about it. But unless I hear good solid answers as to what its purpose will be, what its powers will be and who will be on it, I'm not sure if I can get solidly behind it.
Anything that gets put on the agenda about the tax rate would have to sponsored by the administration through the the council president. As far as the grant goes, I agree that there isn't an obvious need for it to appear on the agenda. But, if there is a need for it, I really do feel that it would have been appropriate to wait a week and let its champion, Alderman Nuzzo, have first crack at it. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 10:18:00 PM
|
Why was Newburyport able to issue a cease & desist order and we can’t? We are suffering the very same sicknesses. I realize the judge felt a trial was necessary. He should not be operating until that trial begins/ends.
Wood Waste is disgusting. He crushes that material OUTSIDE and it smokes, the piles are growing, odor and dirt are emitted in the air, and this is still happening, but the piles are not going anywhere. How this man can look at himself just boggles my mind, knowing perfectly well what the residents are going through.
I know the state is presenting the case in court ……but NO ONE from the city will be there?
We have 3 1/2 lawyers and not one of them can go to a Superior Court?? I thought that was the purpose of having them was not to hire outside legal council?
I don't think anyone is really trying to order a cease & desist at the Wood Waste site. I think this administration is working with the DEP to give him a truck route to lower Broadway. All that is, is a favor for Wood Waste.
I would bet that cease & desist was never brought up to the DEP, and I don't trust any deals this administration makes with the DEP. It will not be in the best interest of the residents, especially the ones that are abutters of Wood Waste.
Those court orders were filed by the state....not the city of Everett. They can say all they want that "They sparked them" I don't believe it. I don't want to hear words, I want to see proof. They already have been proven with "untruths"
One thing is for certain for me...and that is....not giving him a truck route until AT LEAST the trial is over. I would not do anything before the trial, it could jeopardize the trial, and that could very well be the plan, to help him with his trial.
The bottom line is he is not abiding by the agreement. The agreement was not to store the crap, and for this long. Since the landfill is closed and Wood Waste is refusing any other option because it's not "financially feasible" for HIM, that alone should be enough justification. December is coming up anyway, and it looks as if there will be a trial. No one is qualified from the city solicitor office. What if we give him what he wants and he does not abide by it…..then our lawyers are useless.
|
Edited by - Tails on 11/16/2008 10:22:26 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 11:23:16 PM
|
| How exactly does a cease and desist order work? Do you need to go to court to have that take place? I know this is different, but I know someone who had a cease and desist order stop work order) placed on them from the building department because he was not following code on work that was being done on his home. I don't believe the city had to go into court to obtain the order. Would or could this work the same way if it comes directly from our BOH? |
Edited by - massdee on 11/16/2008 11:35:26 PM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 11:26:29 PM
|
The question of why Newburyport was able to issue a cease & desist order and we can’t is a good one. Not being a lawyer, I can't answer that with any certainty. But I'll give a brief layman's opinion. Although, the heart of the matter is the same, the two cities are dealing with different issues and have handled them differently. Newburyport is dealing with an agreement to close a landfill and have been very diligent in insuring that the agreement is followed to the letter. In Everett, we are dealing with an on-going license for a transfer station and the city (and the DEP for that matter, as far as we know anyways) has a very spotty track record of enforcement of the license requirements, even though many complaints about the facility have been received from residents. Legally, I think that makes the situations very different but what do I know?
As for who is behind the efforts to finally do something about the situation, I think it is possible to look at the information that it is available and draw your own conclusions. If you can't decide from that, you can try to do some more investigation to attempt to find out more than is generally known. That may be important to you for other reasons, but, in the light of the health issues, I believe that it is more important that something is finally being done rather than who is behind it. |
Edited by - tetris on 11/16/2008 11:38:01 PM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 11:34:50 PM
|
Massdee,
I believe that you do have to go to superior court to place a cease and desist on this type of business. As evidence, I offer MGL Chapter 111, Section 144, which is reproduced below:
CHAPTER 111. PUBLIC HEALTH
NOISOME TRADES
Chapter 111: Section 144. Revocation of location assignment; removal of nuisance
Section 144. If a place or building so assigned becomes a nuisance by reason of offensive odors or exhalations therefrom, or is otherwise hurtful or dangerous to the neighborhood or to travelers, the superior court may, on complaint of any person, revoke such assignment, prohibit such further use of such place or building, and cause the nuisance to be removed or prevented. |
Edited by - tetris on 11/16/2008 11:35:35 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 11:41:18 PM
|
I guess what I cannot seem to grasp is that Newburyport's BOH was able to do a cease and desist order and there was a separate order from the state, also.
So, if I am understanding you correctly, even though there is a health hazard our BOH cannot order a place to shut down? That just does not make sense to me. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2008 : 08:48:06 AM
|
This does not make sense to me either. We are talking about people's health and chemicals getting spewed in the air. The agreement was not to store the stuff and the agreement was an enclosed facilty. He is in non-compliance at the Wood Waste site and they can go find any loophole they want. Most of all, the agreement is not to have two sites. That is absurd an no one is for that. All they are doing is *helping* him with his upcoming trial. They are being fooled with this idea.
Then, since no one from the city knows anything, or what's the law and what's not, it might be time for the residents to get a petition together, and send it to the legislators for a correct answer. I would go right to the state house on this with a bunch of people and go right to the Governors office and tell him Wood Waste is in non-compliance, people are suffering, businesses are suffering, but he's making millions. |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2008 : 09:01:51 AM
|
The ONLY thing that prohibits the BOH from slapping a ceast and decist order on WoodWaste is the $250.00 donation made last Thursday evening and all subsequent donations made by Billy.
We all know this. sad; but....oh,so,true!!!!
"Cruller DaHville"
 |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2008 : 09:03:39 AM
|
thats what happens when you write from emotion and dont proof... sorry cease and desist.
"Cruller DaHville"
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2008 : 8:25:10 PM
|
2, 3 & 4. I wish they would realize that the public might be interested in the specific reasons why these items are disposed of in the way they are.
5. Legal action against the city? You've got to be kidding? I actually totally agreed with Council Ranieri for once. The speech he gave about getting what you need from a business before they move into the city was dead on.
7. I don't think that all of the problems that I saw with ECTV can be blamed on devices that hang off the playback system. I doubt that shows cutting off after 20 minutes can be blamed on a device. Let's be honest. ECTV has an old playback system. When Scott Counsell was shown the door, they probably lost a lot of experience with using the system. It seems to be a lot better lately in terms of programs airing correctly at the correct times. I'm glad to hear ECTV is getting a new, and probably easier to use, playback system; but, I don't feel that the new director got off on a very good foot with the viewers, at least.
8. Does anybody have any details about Newburyport's ad hoc committee on the landfill?
9. I'd really like to get my hands on a copy of the judgement from the State's cease and desist case. I get more confused about what it actually says every time that someone speaks on it.
10. I guess there was a good reason for bring this up as soon as possible. There is a similar issue with a grant that the city has received for the Shute Library, i.e., funding the city's portion of the project. I guess when the mayor reports back to the BOA on capital improvements and how they will be funded, we'll find out more about that one. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
COMMON COUNCIL 2008
