34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
Councilors press ARA on viability of business park
Top Headlines Most of the questions focused on the viability of the industrial business park which has been pushed into a precarious financial footing due to a spate of setbacks in recent months. While the main road slicing along the southern edge of the 189-acre park off County and Tiffany streets is well under construction and should have a first coat of asphalt by the end of the year, questions about the use of money raised by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the pullout of two businesses and a hefty $1.1 million jury award against the ARA have made the public nervous and councilors concerned. Councilor Brian Kirby seemed to sum up the worries about the IBP. "Is it a viable project? Is it going to be a partial project? Where are we going from here?" he asked ARA executive director Michael Milanoski. Milanoski conceded that the difficulties have put the ARA in tough spot, but said the city must push ahead because the money invested and the ultimate payoff is too great to ignore. "These are long term projects that are not going to benefit you in the next few years, but will benefit the next generation," he said. "We're in a tough position now, but we are going to work through it." He said problems like the jury award in the eminent domain case are "out of the control of the ARA." Councilor Kim Allard pressed Milanoski on when the city will see results at the park. If all goes as planned the ARA will complete its first road, sometimes called Roadway D and sometimes called Opportunity Way, early next spring. With ARA efforts to clear some lots, companies should be able to start building in the spring, Milanoski said. He said two firms are in talks with the ARA about two of the five lots located off Roadway D. The subdivision off Roadway D covers about 16 acres. Councilor George Ross asked where the money will come from to pay the jury award and if the money problems could bankrupt the project. At this point nobody knows where the money will come from Milanoski said. And ARA chairman Benton Keene III told the council that he wants to wait for a financial analysis from a special panel being appointed by the mayor before decisions are made about how to pay the award. In response to Ross' question about bankruptcy he said anything is possible. "There is always a 'could'," he said.
Post Your Comments kim allard wrote on Sep 6, 2008 6:35 PM: " Thank you for the concern for me seeing any backlash for printing these documents. I assure you I can handle myself with anything that happens. " kim allard wrote on Sep 6, 2008 6:33 PM: " " I have posted the entire HUD letter for everyone to read. Click on the link below. I will also post the City response in the next couple of days. http://thesunchronicle.ning.com/profile/KimberlyAllardAttleboroCityCouncilor " ricknkim wrote on Sep 5, 2008 9:57 AM: " I don't know enough to speak intelligently about the parcel(s) of land and my understanding is based solely on some maps and comments by the ARA so not sure the complete accurate story was told. I thought the remaining parcels were landlocked and way to expensive to access and build for private residence and that was why it was thought to be ideal for IBP and the resources they had for access and public works. As for Ms. Allard, I doubt she could get in any trouble for posting public documents and imagine she'd make it heard if she had. After reading her posts of the HUD report and Milanowski's comments, I'm scratching my head at the differing conclusions being drawn. I'm wondering if the city responded to the report yet and if so, what were those responses??? " Atticus wrote on Sep 5, 2008 8:24 AM: " ATTLEBROCKTON wrote on Sep 4, 2008 3:51 PM: " Umm Rick n Kim ,didn't the caponigro'd build 20 houses or so in the industrial park???Well the IBP is being built through & around them but still to say it was unbuildable flies in the face of the builts! Hence some of the lawsuits :) That is all .Carry on . " If I remember that project correctly, it was "unbuildable" because of soil conditions which did not permit on site septic systems. This was solved by extending the sewer line (I believe at private expense)in County Street to reach the project. " ATTLEBROCKTON wrote on Sep 4, 2008 3:54 PM: " I'm also going to wonder aloud if councilor Allard was scolded by somebody at city hall or the bronson building over her printing of the HUD report experts. If so does that mean they are reading us right now? " ATTLEBROCKTON wrote on Sep 4, 2008 3:51 PM: " Umm Rick n Kim ,didn't the caponigro'd build 20 houses or so in the industrial park???Well the IBP is being built through & around them but still to say it was unbuildable flies in the face of the builts! Hence some of the lawsuits :) That is all .Carry on . " ricknkim wrote on Sep 4, 2008 3:18 PM: " A bit peeved if I had just paid to have my system updated and then learned I had to tie in. Isn't that only necessary when you are talking new construction and resale/Title V when you need to update the septic? It really depends upon timing I guess. If I built and had my own sewer/water and then 10 years down the road they planned city sewer/water I'd figure that was just the breaks in life. Not that I want to spend money but realize change happens and that change costs money. As for new housing development and a bigger tax base, I'd have to refer to an economist to know if the taxes and employment benefit of getting new industry into town outweighs taxes gained from private homeowners. It would likely get complex and get into if those homes would be primarily young families that put kids into the school system (costing big money) and what types of businesses in the IBP. As it was, the land for the IBP would never have been (or VERY unlikely at least) developed into residential homes and therefore no tax base other than straight undeveloped residential land would have exhisted. Presumably this was why they looked to re-zone and acquire to make it industrial therby gaining business tax base and employment for the residents . . . great theory, but it fell apart both by mismanagement and bad timing/poor forecasting " Atticus wrote on Sep 4, 2008 1:39 PM: " ricknkim wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:11 AM: " I'd never had town sewer/water until I moved to Attleboro, not sure it is a civic duty to provide all residents with town sewer/water though. When our septic had issues, we paid it, it was our responsibility and not local governments. You purchase a house, it is on your dime not the city's . . . I'd prefer as little city involvement in my issues as possible. " Well, it was really "mismanagement" I was talking about. I think the bond issue was floated for the sewer about 10 years ago. Apparently, now it is unfinished and the bond money is gone (this is my understanding, I don't have figures). As to "Civic Betterments", I think more people would prefer sewer to an overpriced IBP. You are lucky that there was already a house on your property, that is an entirely different set of regulations for septic systems, compared to new construction. Sewer makes a lot of "unbuildable" land "buildable". That tends to expand the tax base. How would you like to have to replace a septic system, when you knew there was sewer proposed for your street and that you would have to pay a "betterment fee" and be forced to connect when it was built? " ricknkim wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:11 AM: " I'd never had town sewer/water until I moved to Attleboro, not sure it is a civic duty to provide all residents with town sewer/water though. When our septic had issues, we paid it, it was our responsibility and not local governments. You purchase a house, it is on your dime not the city's . . . I'd prefer as little city involvement in my issues as possible. " attlebrockton wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:24 AM: " ARA lawsuits still stand at 6 over the IBP? " Atticus wrote on Sep 3, 2008 10:55 PM: " I was just ruminating on mismanagement when the sewer project begun under Mayor Robbins came to mind. I recall attending a number of meetings on the subject, because the sewer was intended to run in front of my house. That was 10 years ago, to date, no sewer. I have made inquiry and been told there is no money and it is unlikely that sewer will be installed in my lifetime. In the interim, three neighbors have sold their houses and been required to install, at great expense, new septic systems. I am sure they will be delighted if they ever have to pay the sewer "betterment". I guess my question is; what is the greater civic responsibility, sewer or business parks? " Jessica Kosowski wrote on Sep 3, 2008 12:00 PM: " You're welcome, Ricknkim. It's certainly something we can work on as it would be great to have all the articles and resources in one spot. I'll look into it. Thanks for your suggestion. " ricknkim wrote on Sep 3, 2008 11:11 AM: " Thanks Jessica for setting up the forum on the ARA/etc. Is it possible for you to add some background on the whole ARA history and the issues that we're now facing? Perhaps some exhibits, a timeline, links to old articles, etc.? I think it would benefit all of us as there are a lot of disconnects and not all of us know all the facts. I think one of your colleagues in a different forum topic was able to upload a budget, etc. to help facilitate the discussion. The more information the better informed the community can be and perhaps hold our elected officials a bit more responsible for both the successful projects and those like the ARA that appear to be struggling at best. " Jessica Kosowski wrote on Sep 3, 2008 9:01 AM: " Hello, bloggers. This is Jessica Kosowski, the Sun Chronicle's Living Well editor. We've noticed that this story, and any story on Attleboro's redevelopment plan, get quite a few comments. We set up a permanent forum on the topic in July, so please feel free to comment there if you wish. Just go to www.thesunchronicle.ning.com/forum Then click on Attleboro and scroll down to find the specific link to the redevelopment plan's forum. " Atticus wrote on Sep 2, 2008 10:49 PM: " ricknkim wrote on Sep 2, 2008 10:20 AM: " As for "getting rid of this nuisance", not sure there is any market for unloading a half-done, ledge infested IBP and if they even could, it would cost not only what has already been sunk, but any funds they received from the state/federal government would likely need to be repaid. " "Never reinforce defeat" - Clausewitz I think this is what is currently known, in the real world, as "taking a charge against earnings". In other words, "cut your losses". Unfortunately, everyone involved is playing with other people's money, they will never really feel the sting. If they succeed in completion, they will claim "victory". The taxpayers will be the "losers". " ricknkim wrote on Sep 2, 2008 10:20 AM: " As for "getting rid of this nuisance", not sure there is any market for unloading a half-done, ledge infested IBP and if they even could, it would cost not only what has already been sunk, but any funds they received from the state/federal government would likely need to be repaid. " bunny wrote on Sep 2, 2008 9:05 AM: " I've lived in Attleboro more than 30 years and I remember very wellthat the estimate given to build the BP would increase by a tremendous amount of money that:(1) would become almost impossible to provide and(2) would take many years to realize any actual return on the expeniture, There are many empty business buildings in and around Attleboro and North Attleboro that could be utilized and thereby take this millstone from around our financial neck. Just as we don't need more condos that will stand empty,we don't need this BP that has been a continual problem and will probably be thelast stop in the road to ruin,both for the ARA and the City of Attleboro. Wake up get rid of this nuisance before it ruins us all. " socal1 wrote on Sep 1, 2008 3:08 PM: " Atticus-I watched the replay of the 08/25 council meeting with the ARA. From my interpretation of the info part of the cost is to complete roadway "d" as well as roadways "a" and "b", to get the land ready for sale and the cost related to already lost lawsuits and additional pending lawsuits. It was not mentioned if the $30 million could be offset by addional and/or new grants from the state and feds. I hope I am correctly passing on this information. " Atticus wrote on Sep 1, 2008 9:19 AM: " socal1, I hadn't heard the 30 million figure before. Do you know how the cost factors break down? I don't think it was "being blindsided", probably more of "not my problem". Right after the Civil War, I interned at the Boston City Council. After a harsh debate on mismanagement of a federaly funded debacle, I asked the Councillor I worked for how this was ever allowed to happen "Nobody cares, it's not our money". " socal1 wrote on Aug 31, 2008 10:02 AM: " Regarding the ARA and IBP situation, the mayor and 7 of the 11 sitting councilors have dropped the ball. Even if the ARA is a separate entity, to allow the IBP cost to rise from $13 million at inception to now more than $30 million and not know until the meeting with the councilors shows that no one was paying attention. I don't care if the ARA is on the Administrative side of control, the mayor and councilors should have been doing periodical checks on the projects and ARA. There is no excuse to be blindsided with the $30 million figure. All involved should admit and accept some portion of the blame pie. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:37 PM: " my eyes are shot ,,,, AGREE not Greed ,,,being passionate is not only killing my typing it is ruining my eyesight! " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:24 PM: " Greed? tell me who is greedy in this whole thing? " ricknkim wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:11 PM: " Totally agree AttleboroBrockton, that is still the main issue. Just trying to be objective here, it is easy to blame everything and all on the ARA and their management. The ball seems to have been dropped by many others including the council . . . " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 27, 2008 2:46 PM: " Lets not stray from the over blown cost of IBP and the general mismanagement. " ricknkim wrote on Aug 27, 2008 2:14 PM: " My guess is that the jury fell for the old David versus Goliath hook, line and sinker. Take a look around, ridiculous verdicts and damages are commonplace today my friend (i.e McDonald's liable for too hot coffee). Be glad you don't own a business in Louisiana - that is the capital of crazy jury awards. I am not saying any and all eminent domain cases that have been and may be brought against the ARA are without merrit, just saying that this particular one smells, a lot. Nor am I saying I have all the facts - just open to the consideration that the ARA wasn't the bad guy in this instance. " ATTLEBROCKTON wrote on Aug 27, 2008 2:07 PM: " how the hell did hey lose if they had the facts and the "best" eminent domain lawyer in Boston on their side??? " ricknkim wrote on Aug 27, 2008 1:58 PM: " Atticus - I don't think that was the case at all. Also, the Anderson's agreed to the sale of the other 2 parcels without litigation . . . " Atticus wrote on Aug 27, 2008 1:51 PM: " ricknkim wrote on Aug 27, 2008 1:32 PM: " Sorry, I simply don't buy the Anderson's as the victim story here at all. I'd love to get a copy of the court record/testimony as I think it would paint a very different picture. How can a landlocked parcel be the site of any dream home? You can't access it unless you have a helicopter???? " We don't know the whole story. To justify the amount, I am sure that a means of access was avaiable. Perhaps a bordering relative was prepared to give them a right of way and it was opnly "landlocked" because no one had gotten around to it. " ricknkim wrote on Aug 27, 2008 1:32 PM: " Sorry, I simply don't buy the Anderson's as the victim story here at all. I'd love to get a copy of the court record/testimony as I think it would paint a very different picture. How can a landlocked parcel be the site of any dream home? You can't access it unless you have a helicopter???? " ricknkim wrote on Aug 27, 2008 1:26 PM: " I think the answer to your question as to "why not take a chance and just lowball it" came from the judgement for the Anderson's. Jury pools are sympathetic to the citizen versus a business or government entity. Taking a chance wouldn't pay off the majority of the time and in the end will cost more in terms of legal fees, interest payments and the premium from the jury passing out someone else's money . . . I ask you to remove your personal disdain for the ARA from the argument and honestly tell me that that 3rd Anderson parcel was worth anywhere close to what the jury awarded. " ATTLEBROCKTON wrote on Aug 27, 2008 12:47 PM: " sorry rick not tick .. " ATTLEBROCKTON wrote on Aug 27, 2008 12:46 PM: " Tick n Kim ,how about this anology. The President of the US wouldn't admit to having sex with an intern because in his mind oral is not sex ,,thats the logic that exist . In other words anything can be justified,landlocked to you is the spot of my neices future dream home to me .Thats the other comppnent ,is family .nobody has touched except briefing Ms. Heagney about the taking of what is in essence your family's land and in part history. " ATTLEBROCKTON wrote on Aug 27, 2008 12:42 PM: " If you only knew them Rick N Kim your tune would change. The appraiser is paid to lowball the property that is I mean find the lowest comps and go with that period. His job is to justify the ARA offer not vice versa. Remember after all they have the power to take it based on the aparaisal of the imfamous fair market value . since court is an option why not lowball & take your chances in court? " ricknkim wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:34 AM: " I think you are reaching a bit here - so you're saying that any vendor/business that is employed by the ARA is on the take and will only give answers/results that appease the ARA? Without proof, it sounds like an Oliver Stone conspiracy theory. I think the "proof" is to simply look at the parcel of land and the audit trail to it's value as a land-locked parcel. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:15 AM: " who pays the appraiser? " ricknkim wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:00 AM: " Appraisers are independent, they don't work for the ARA. They are licensed and if they were to go in with a ridiculously high or low number, their independence, credibility and license would be at stake. I know what you are getting at, but in this case I don't think your insinuation has legs. That piece of land (#3 out of 3) of the Anderson's was worth nothing. For them to litigate was out of pure greed plain and simple. For the jury to make that award shows that sometimes we should ALL be affraid of a jury of our peers . . . I'm all for putting to government but this case got it wrong and WE pay for that nonsensical award in the end! Christmas for the Anderson's! Funny how our high-paid big shot lawyer took it in the shorts, guess his #1 ranking drops right? I didn't get to the DPW part of the festivities, I mean council meeting so I can't comment. I'd still press the council and the ARA to either make the documents/audit trail readily available to the public, I'm thinking it will show the blame extends beyond Milanoski. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:37 AM: " don't the appraisers work for the ARA? Yes they do .If you did follow the director he mentioned how the deck is really stacked against them its an uphill battle. WHy is that? because juries know the govt is screwing ppl .How can you explain they two multi million dollar Milanoski's? Never mentioned were two things ..how much are the lagal fees the ARa paid to hire not only Mr. casey but the pinch hitter big bat from Boston? Who as you saw mr. M refers to as the the top ranked eminent domain lawyer in Boston ( except that he keeps losing to the other guy) . Also when questioned about the DPW yard degree of cleanup ...he quickly fluffed it off to the lamb st site not the Wall st site & when pressed he said we really don't want to get into that or something to that effect. Why because although the ARa claims to have EPA funds to clean it up ,various ppl have told me its full of all kinds of neat things like oil,transformers etc Yummy stuff for big bucks clean ups. also who is thrl ine of crediy wiht & if as mr Ross asked they go under who pays the bank off? " ricknkim wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:06 AM: " Watched half of the council meeting last night and hope to finish shortly. Started to piece a few things together as my undertanding of the ARA and the IBP was elementary at best. It would be of great importance/benefit to both citizens, the city government and the ARA to become a more transparent with the history of the project. Perhaps the ARA or council could put some of the reports/relevant documents together with a timeline on the web for public viewing. I think the blame may be worngly being placed solely on the shoulders of Mr. M (although he does deserve his share). Project was born out of several plots of landlocked parcels originally zoned as residential. Idea of the city to take otherwise useless land assesed at low values and generating low taxes and turn it into an industrial park where higher taxes would be collected and jobs created was a great theory. Unfortunately, the region/state/country is being hit by a "perfect storm" in which there is: a sour economy, a tightening credit market, higher prices on commodities, job cuts not creation. The Anderson lawsuit went against conventional wisdom in the jury award. I was wrong about my earlier eminent domain negotiation theory, reality is: the ARA is bound by state law to make bids based upon (2) independent appraisals, the higher of those 2 being bid. The award is outrageous for what the plot was - jury got it wrong! " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:45 AM: " By the October 14th Meeting ,the ARA will by their own addimision moved & taken two more properties thus most likely bringining their lawsuit total to......drum Roll Please ....... 8! Woo Hoo 8 ,the only thing they seem to create are lawsuits! Oh johnnyahab now would be a good time to leave the city before you hear the "O" word. " Atticus wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:37 PM: " A question has just occurred to me. Let's just say it was decided to call it quits and sell it. Apparently Mr. Milanoski (I want to say "Millionoski") has speculated that the park would create 3,000 jobs (that is from memory and could be in error as to the amount). Would closing it down as a public project and selling it to an experienced buyer, result in a failure to "create jobs"? Would this trigger a need to repay the loans/grants from the various participating agencies? I suggest this only as a "cost factor" in a deal to sell it, not as a reason not to sell it. At this point, money might be saved by giving it away. To quote Clausewitz from "On War", "never reinforce defeat". In other words, if it was a poor plan and is lost, it is lost. Proceed in the direction where you are winning. As to the original plan, more from Clausewitz, "the best laid plan does not survive contact with the enemy". I was concerned that we are still proceeding under a plan approved in 1998. How much "Industry" has moved to Asia in the meanwhile? How much has the market shrunk? What does this mean for "viability". I am reminded of a movie where a man takes a tantrum in the street after his bank tells him he is not "economically viable". " johnnyahab wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:49 PM: " In the beginning of this whole mess I was a new citizen to the City of Attleboro. The prospect of a new business park and downtown redevelopment excited me as a new resident. I have to say that while I have no regrets about moving to this fine city, it is time to fold this ARA debacle up before it takes the whole city down with it. This could be an even bigger financial disaster than it is already. I commend some members of City Council for asking some tough questions, but let's keep up the pressure as I think Mr Milonaski seems to think he is above the taxpayers and their representitive government. Time to bring him back to Earth. " kim allard wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:19 PM: " I appreciate the kind words. I realize some may think I backed down but let me assure you I didn't. My message was received and this was only the first meeting there is another one October 14th. Keep in mind we do all still need to work with each other for now. As for councilors emails all emails are sent to council@cityofattleboro.us they are then forwarded to us all. I do however have an email I will give you it is councilorallard@comcast.net that way you can email me directly if you would like. Councilors home numbers are always available but emails aren't. I hope to hear from many of you. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:10 PM: " don't sweat it lifelonger ,the ARA won't take your property or benefits yet. " lifelonger wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:38 PM: " According to the Sun Chronicle, the only thing newsworthy going on in Attleboro is the ARA "developments". It is the same thing over and over and over. Hey George Rhodes, next time your at City Hall, why don't you ask the Mayor for an update on contract talks with the City's unions. Seems to me that they have been working without contracts since July 1. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:21 PM: " what now????? Can anyone predict the next story? " SoxFan wrote on Aug 26, 2008 2:47 PM: " I realize that the City Council would like more people to attend in person, but I was able to watch on television and see the smarmy faces that Milanowski continually made. If I am there in person all I see is the back of his head. Additionally, by watching from home, I have an easier place to vomit and not make a public scene. I think it is worth repeating: Kim, nice work and thanks communicating with us here. I still wish you had not backed off at the end but that is why I am not a politician. Are the email addresses of the City Council available anywhere? " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 26, 2008 2:26 PM: " Kim, You did a tremendous job ,frankly i ws surprised how you & Mr. Kirby went after Mr. Milaoski. i'm, also glad you didn't let his backhanded insult go unanswered. keep up the pressure. Who even knew there were 6 monre suits plus god knbows what once they start other takings. " kim allard wrote on Aug 26, 2008 2:09 PM: " The meetings are taped and played at every 4 hours on channel 98. I hope people will watch it although I need to say I did wish more people were at the meeting. The next meeting is scheduled with the ARA October 14th. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 26, 2008 1:49 PM: " I wish there was a better turn out .They may have only had 5 non involved citizens there. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 26, 2008 1:15 PM: " Kevin h , I hear ya ,the guy is his own worst enemy. " kevin h. wrote on Aug 26, 2008 1:03 PM: " At this point nobody knows where the money will come from Milanoski said. At this point nobody knows where the money will come from Milanoski said. At this point nobody knows where the money will come from Milanoski said. I hate Milanoski. " ricknkim wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:23 PM: " Was the city council meeting taped and if so, does anyone know if it will be aired on DoubleACS so more residents can see it that weren't able to attend in person? " sunfan wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:16 AM: " A good name for this project would be "The Little Dig". Same whitewashing, same lack of oversight and financial responsibility, just on a slightly smaller scale....hope everyone in Attleboro is happy with their taxes going to pay for this mess. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:06 AM: " 6 more lawsuits ,then the olive st. properties will most likely sue after the takings ....however to tkae you need to have the money to pay the owners, it appears they are broke ,as mr. kirby said they can't even put an access road through 8 wall st. !!! The apologist on the board are laughable ,Mr. Third talking about waiting for the mayors 5 mermber team to look over their finances before the ask for meny etc ..Doesn't the ARA have a financial person on staff ?? I believe so .... we can thasbk the Lord that the ARA is doing this for our children and umm his is children in ummm Weymouth.pfn " Atticus wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:39 AM: " ricknkim wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:57 AM: As for the Filene's project in Boston, last I heard, that $650m in financing was having severe difficulties . . . " Yes, it has encountered difficulty, but is not canncelled. The same is true for a few projects in Boston. It seems the lender's are having some concerns about "viability" in Boston. Anyone familiar with them realizes that banks are always reading "yesterday's newspapaer". I recall the condo boom and bust of the early 90's. That was what "everybodies financing" and banks would finance nothing else. Finally,condos were overbuilt. However, my point was that there seems to be plenty of money available. " ricknkim wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:57 AM: " Have to agree with you Atticus on the "do it for the children" battle cry. No project is ever too large to fail, I HATE when politicians say that. Sorry Mr. Blais, that's not getting you any points . . . How is it that jury awards in eminent domain is unforeseen and totally out of their control? Lawsuits are obvious, the handling of eminent domain calls for creative negotiaitons and a gentle hand, not a cowboy flashing authority. As for the Filene's project in Boston, last I heard, that $650m in financing was having severe difficulties . . . " Atticus wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:36 AM: " "These are long term projects that are not going to benefit you in the next few years, but will benefit the next generation," he said. "We're in a tough position now, but we are going to work through it." That is the last plaintive cry of the failed politician, "Do it for the children". I was amazed at the complaints about the unforseeable "jury award". Law suits after takings are standard, no one is ever pleased at the amount "awarded". Yes, Mr. Blais felt that we had too much money invested, to turn our backs on the project. I think that "too big to fail" is not proving to be an effective philosophy of governance. It sounds a lot like "throwing good money after bad". A few thoughts, the Navy "mothballs" entire fleets. The Washington Monument was "mothballed" for 30 years while the money was found to complete it. Although there was some talk of "build out " costs, and much of that obfuscated, I think that there was no showing of economic viability. It is probably time to consider an "as is" sale. If it does not bring an attractive price, that settles the question of "viability". It will not be becuase "times are bad", it will be because the idea is bad. There is plenty of money out there. Rehab of the old Filenes' building, in Boston, has drawn in 650 million in financing. " doug wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:27 AM: " As for Councilman Bowles question asking for his (Milanoski) opinion on if he thinks the ARA problems are because of the economy or poor management...really councilman? I'll bet his answer was NOT poor management!! I would like to ask Councilman Bowles if that was a serious question or a....slip? " ricknkim wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:27 AM: " Hi Doug, I think the lesson is evolving and not a done deal. I also think we, the public, need to continue pressing them via messdage boards, e-mails, letters, phone calls and attendance at the hearings/forums. Don't be lulled to sleep just because of some pointed questions by the council (bravo though). Keeping the heat on will continue the info gathering and may actually lead to tough but correct decisions. Politicians do the public show all the time and then once they (the public) are back asleep, the shenanigans start right up again. Lets all be "educated" by Mr. Milanowski, he appears to know it all by the looks of his project and management skills . . . " doug wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:14 AM: " Mr. Milanoski says the jury award in the eminent domain case are " out of control of the ARA". Quite so Mr. Mike but because of your lack of management skills!I was told once by a city official that everything was "under control" at the ARA.....I certainly hope that a lesson has been learned by that individual. All involved in this project..including most of the present city officials, were correctly informed of the present problems in the beginning via public forums. They chose to listen to Mr. Milanoski. They were told of the coming economic downturn, the problems dealing with development costs due to ledge rock and were reminded that the TI complex will compete directly with the then proposed city park. The end result is that we all have a problem to solve. The primary responsibility rests on the shoulders of our council and mayor.Nothing we say from here on out will change much. Our only hope is that our city officials have learned from their mistakes!!! " ricknkim wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:11 AM: " It sounds like I missed a decent meeting, I am VERY dissapointed but my litle one was sick so I could not attend. I will be there with bells on come October. I think the reporting seems a bit "light" on details compared to the reporting in the posts. Did Bowles really say that? If so, that just swayed my vote a little . . . and it sounds like Kim was actually pressing the director? Good. I think they should really press Mr. M as to the viability of the 2 prospects. If they don't pan-out, perhaps it is time to put a hold on the IBP and concentrate the resources on better things? " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:29 AM: " Umm who else would pay ?? it is you & I as Mr. Ross said we have deep pockets.Everyone should attend the next meeting in October ,the arroagance that comes off the director is really something to behold. " cb wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:25 AM: " Can someone tell me if the ARA goes bankrupt is the city on the hook to pay the lawsuits that have already been settled and the pending lawsuits? " DANDYDON wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:13 AM: " IN SHORT, PRIVATIZE THE DEVELOPMENT.WE DONOT NEED ANY MORE HEADACHES. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:09 AM: " The other problem is the lawsuits They can't pay for them .Why do they have lawsuits cause they screwed & insulted people along the way. i'd love to know who their line of credit is with.If is Bristol county that to me is a conflict. As far as i can tell they haven't paid Automatic in full ,the two Anderson women we know they can't pay. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:00 AM: " My nominee for comment of the night comes from Bill Bowles to the all mighty director . Michael i'm trying to figure out do the ARA problems stem from bad luck( bad economy) or bad management. The answer is Bill Its bad luck for the city you have such bad management! " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:56 AM: " Mr . Rhodses left early I suppose thats why we did not see any mention in the article of the 3 mil shortfall the ARA currently has dur to the IBP lawsuits. Also did he mention there are 6 pending suits????? Now I know he was there for that . Or that the ARA now claims the IBP will ballon from 13.9 mil to 30 mil? Also the Ara is set to take two properties at the end od Olive st. again no mention . I thought Ms. allard did more than press mr ilanoski ,she called him out ,kudos Kim! Its about time somebody did . As far as i could tell the only councilor who wasn't dis pleased was mr blais.I did notice there is a HUGE disconnect between Mr. M the board & thev reality the council heres & reads here everyday, I huge disconnect. I hope the Mayor who watched from the AV room can manage to get a handle on this but they seem immune to criticism ,The fact the guy had the stones to tell ms. allard to come by sometime & we'll educate you is amazing to me & speaks to his arrogance ! Please tell me i'm wrong . " SoxFan wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:42 AM: " I honestly believe after last night that the project needs to be halted. An age old trick of politicians is to cite the "long-term value" of public works projects to scare the public of what might happen if we do not continue. With companies finding locations for less elsewhere that are turn-key and nobody in the ARA willing to committ to a date and horrific economic conditions for a project of this type, there are just too many holes in the plan. Pull the plug! " SoxFan wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:42 AM: " 5.) Do not get caught up in the pennies! When the council began talking about cutting the internet expenses of the ARA I knew it was over for the night. Millions of dollars in overruns and no money coming in are not going to be fixed by lowering internet expenses by $5k annually. 6.) Brian Kirby cited these postings as evidence that the public is upset. Keep posting your opinions and keep them constructive! " SoxFan wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:32 AM: " Continuing on: 3.)The architect also cited the problems at the County St. entrance. It was explained that the engineering firm believed the entrance area to be ledge and when it was not, additional grading was required and electrical components were required to be moved to areas other than originally planned. Question: Who did the engineering work that was obviously wrong and what is being done about it? 4.)More than once, Milanowski cited the complex nature of the project for all the delays. Isn't that why he gets paid $107,000? Kim Allard was headed in the right direction and you could see Milanowski's smugness percolating to the top when he offered to "educate her" and then towards the end she let him off the hook with the whole "work together" speech. Kim, this bum will not work with anyone. " SoxFan wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:22 AM: " Where to begin? 1.) Milanoski's funniest comment of the night came when he said that (paraphrasing) "we are doing fine with the things we can control. The things we cannot control is where the problems are". This is funny because if the city council had any control over the ARA I think it would be doing a better job. 2.)The architect who spoke needs to be fired! He cited a few of the problems faced include moving utilities associated with the widening of Tiffany St. and building of retaining walls because of the cuts into the yards of the residents. If these are surprises for him then he is incompetent and should have someone more experienced in place. While he may be able to design buildings, he is in way over his head with regard to designing/building roads. " or
|
