Well that didn't take long. When it doesn’t go your way... spin it!
Kenneth Michael O'Brien claims that all the yes voters were at other events last night. Hey Ken, has it occurred to you that the voting mix that wasn't there might be the same as the one that was?
In their typical style the selectmen deny that they did anything wrong. They deny that they screwed up the purchase of the land. They deny the problem of pesticide contamination is really a problem and they deny that they wasted a year of hard work by everyone involved in the project. As they say “Denial is not a river in Egypt.”
Sharon Cutler attempted to poo poo the idea that soil contamination was a problem. In another of her classic statements she claimed the whole town was contaminated. Nice work sister! Sharon said there was probably poison at her house. Yes Sharon we have known for some time that there is a poison element at your house.
The little tyrant from North Avenue claimed that the Kelly property is “loaded with pesticides”. Why then Dennis, did you approve the purchase 5 years ago? Dennis Shaheen will lie with a straight face and then scream at you if you question him. Nice guy! Hard to believe he is the lesser of two evils.
Yes the SPIN is on. It will be hot and heavy until the town votes on Monday. If they get a simple majority yes vote they will schedule another town meeting. Probably at 3:00am on a holiday and round up the usual suspects to attend.
Here is a piece of advice for the selectmen. Why don’t you find out what it will take to solve the problems and present a comprehensive plan to the voters including what will become of the existing public safety buildings? Oh and while your at it, find out why this Carrell Group building costs so much more than a much bigger building in Seekonk? .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
After living in the area (Milford native) for my entire life, I moved to Mendon one year ago. Last night I attended my first town meeting. Thank you Kevin for providing the blog and allowing those with an interest to get up to speed on the issues facing the town. I also believe thanks are in order to Dale Pleau for serving his civic duty. If it weren't for Dale's smoking gun last night, the voters may have been duped. Thank you for informing the room.
A few observations from last night: At the onset of the meeting, Ken O'Brien repeatedly referred to the contaminents as "inert" stating that they posed no harm. I would like to know how based on the results of the report read by Dale Pleau, as well as the admission by the Carrell Group representative that the site is "unhealthy", that Ken was able to come to the conclusion that it is inert?? Ken O'Brien lied to the entire room.
I also noticed at several times during the meeting that Ken O'Brien took a very harsh tone with those stepping up to the mic. It is my opinion that a Selectperson, or any good leader, maintain professionalism, courtesy and appear helpful, not critical of those in front of him/her. He is unable to remove his emotions from the debate and his temper is completely unnecessary. Thanks for your resignation Ken.
I would also like to know when posed with the question, the Carrell Group rep was unable to provide the cost per sq/ft for the proposed structure. Are you kidding me?
I support Mendon in a joint facilty. I also support the location as ideal for the facility. However, it was more than evident that the officials did not perform their due diligence sufficient enough to undertake this project. There were no plans for the existing facilities whether they be to demolish them, incorporate them into the town buildings, sell, lease or otherwise to recoup funds. They also did not perform sufficient testing on the site.It is also my belief that a similar sufficient structure could be built smaller/cheaper than proposed.Would it be possible to build a structure that meets todays needs, and yet could be built out in stages for future needs where the cost will be deferred until necessary? Just my thoughts.
I went back after the comments last night about the contamination and looked at the color picture of the site when it was presented to the townspeople to vote yes or no on purchasing it.
It indicates six perc hole tests in the vicinity of the proposed PS Building location, and 8 deeo hole tests mimicing the percs and two additional closer to Milford Street.
So, when I hear Carell say that the testing has been done on the area where the proposed building will go, the corroboration is in front of me. And I would tend to think with his conversations about this contamination with his consultants/experts downplaying the issue, the issue of contamination where the complex is proposed should be over.
The future of the rest of the property, however, is certainly suspect without either of the hole tests performed to the far side of the property away from Rt. 16, and none in the 25+ acres at the bottom marked "residential".
I would like to see the Board ensure that the rest of the property is tested and any mitigation take place prior to land use. However, I am comfortable that the PS Building location will not present any hazard for occupation.
And tell me why people now need a comprehensive plan on what happens to the existing buildings? They will be turned back to the town for the Town to do with as it sees fit, whether as Town Hall annexes, Parks Department (as was stated, many departments are jockeying for the Police Station space). What does that have to do with the Public Safety complex proposal?
As for me, I'm on to the Internet to see exactly why everyone keeps mentioning Seekonk and its building cost....
Make every Mendon voter aware that they need to vote on Monday.
I believe a majority have some issue with this facility wether it be:
1. Their taxes going up.
2. The location of the site.
3. The potential real clean-up of pesticides.
4. Where they consider this on the town priorty list.
5. The cost.(Seekonk)
6. Square footage.(too much, too little)
The pesticides used on an orchard are quite different then on a hay farm.
Apparently the BoS does not understand the difference between trace elements and contamination.
Truthfully if I was going to vote yes the arrogance of our leaders might make me change my vote just because of the priciple of it.
Seekonk paid $252 / sf for a 25,000 sf building - total $6.3 million.
They broke ground July of 2004 (almost two years ago), and in the first month they were hit with a 20% rise in concrete and steel.
The town entertained committees for 14 years prior to actually building the complex.
Price differential -- $62.00 a square foot (over two years)
Size differential -- 6,300 sf
(The architect stated that a smaller building does not mean the size per sf goes down; in fact, it goes up.)
This information came from Det. Piquette of the Seekonk Police, who was on the Building Committee for their complex. He also stated that about $800,000 was spent by the town prior to construction with studies, feasibility tests, and assorted other sundries over the 14 years they had this in committee(s).
He also stated they had proposed a 31,000 sf building on a town-owned parcel, but pared it down to 25,000 sf and moved it to a town owned site next to their Town Hall.
Keep this in mind. The Carrell Group is hardly a neutral party in this effort. They will garner a fee of 10% of the cost of this building ($750,000) if and when the voters approve it. They were obviously unprepared last night and instead chose to join the spin bandwagon. They knew nothing of the testing and recommendations that had been done by Tighe & Bond. They had never seen the report. Hell, the Public Safety Building Committee had never seen the report. Apparently that little wild card had remained hidden in the selectmen’s broom closet.
Don't shoot the messenger. Most of the posts on this blog see the need and are willing to support the construction of a joint facility. The problem arises with the lack of planning and obfuscation by the board of selectmen. Taxpayers should NOT have to come to this blog to learn all the facts. Last night they were not willing to give the selectmen a blank check for any clean up that may have to be done. And that is a good thing.
When will Mendon Board of Selectmen learn that the voters demand a transparent government? The board in under the false impression that taxpayers are stupid. Check your demographics guys (and yes, you to Sharon). While you have been rearranging the furniture in the old school the best and brightest have moved to town. They are the future of Mendon, not you.
Dale Pleau
"And tell me why people now need a comprehensive plan on what happens to the existing buildings? They will be turned back to the town for the Town to do with as it sees fit, whether as Town Hall annexes, Parks Department (as was stated, many departments are jockeying for the Police Station space). What does that have to do with the Public Safety complex proposal?"
It's all about the planning and the Town's lack of it. They are pushing this forward seemingly with many issues that when they arise will result in them reaching deeper into our pockets. I want to know what I'm paying for.....all of it. I don't want to be hit up for more money after we're $7.5M into this project. You may not see it as relevant, but perhaps they may be able to drop the $7.5M ask by demonstrating some foresight and having a plan for the current parcel.
Oh No!
I am surprised at the outcome, as I thought it was a slam-dunk. Let's see this is loss #2 for the BigChief?
I thought that Nice Ladder Truck that Millville has was going to look great in the middle bay of the big new Castle. Good for Mendon Voters to ask questions and get that BOS to answer all of the questions and be honest and open with their constituents.
Maybe Millville could learn a lesson.
See our blog at www.blog-millville.com for details. Seems like Supreme Commander H. is the topic of some stories there too!
Trish,
The 20% increase Seekonk got is represented in the total cost paid you have listed.
As a major buyer of steel (my job) I can assure you the cost majorly spiked in 04-05 as a result of steel tarrifs enacted by Pres Bush to curtail cheap imports. We expect them to spike again temporarily this summer (18% min)
Seekonk (From what I read) had a court battle over the location with abutters. Remember we are still paying for the land. If it is cheaper to make a larger building shouldn't we incorporate room for more of the Fire apparatus?
I like the idea of the one-year newbie to make what we require and phase in as we need.
Dale I don't always agree with you but you did do us all a favor. Thanks.
Thanks Riff Raff, now if I just knew who you were!
Dale
OK, so Dale is Hanging Gardens and it is just too cute how he responds to himself on this blog but here's a question...did the plans have an office for the police chief and an office for the fire chief? Just wondering.
Funny thing I asked myself the same questions. It was because of this I voted against the proposal. As much as the BOS believes this will pass by telling the people "It's ok take our word for it." It's not ok with me. The people from Mendo are smarter than they think and they should have complete and satisfying answers. I will be voting no again on monday.
As a voter that voted against buying this land in the first place partly because of this issue and partly because I don't feel the town should be in the Real Estate business, I was just wondering if all this is now coming to light because of the Public Safety issue and peoples personal issues with Horn and the selectmen. Would everyone be so upset if we were putting soccer/ baseball fields up there instead (as proposed). At the meeting were they gave all the reasons for buying it, sports fields, recreation, 40B housing, Municipal, school, ect... they said the testing would be done. Well a large majority bought off on it and it passed by a large margin, which I am sure that includes some of you. Why since we had bought the land I have not heard that much about the pesticides until now, because now we are looking to use it for one of the reasons it was bought for? Was all this brought up by some of you at the public public safety meetings? I knew as soon as we bought it that they would be looking to put something like this there, because they had said so. I haven't decided which way I am going to vote on this yet, but looking at some of the comments here it is clearly not just about the land or the taxes, but some peoples great dilike for Horn. I'm kind of suprised someone hasn't blamed him for the pesticides, or buying the land. I guess we have to blame somebody, certainly not the people that voted for it in the first place. Every year people park in that field for various events and walk all over that land, is that safe? Maybe we should close it off completely until everyone is satisfied. As far as the public safty building is concerned, I'm not crazy about my taxes going up but it looks likes it coming sooner or later, and I am worried that later will be more. The police station that was proposed before was under 3 million, and my guess is if we had built that and then a fire station right after we would be under 7 million. But if I remember people felt it wasn't studied enough, so then they made this public safety commitee, and now it hasn't been studied enough. As far as what to do with the two old buildings that should be up to the voters, not the public safety commitee or the selectmen to decide, so why do we need a answer on that now? If the selectmen decide now I'm sure someone will complain that they didn't have a say later, so why not wait and see if the building passes, if you go by this blog its a mute point anyway. If it does pass then let the people vote on what happens to them. Who knows? If nothing else it makes for entertaining reading. Good luck to both sides this week!
The main issue for me is the lack of overall planning. To buy something simply because it may go up in price later is ludicrous to me.Maybe the state legislature will get there heads out of their a**es and start increasing aid to towns for infrastructure needs.
I also voted against the land originally.
We were suppose to re-coup some money for the Kelly land.(still waiting)
Too many projects in town end of not being planned properly. Too many facts are not shown.
In the end the DEP will make the final determination what needs to be done with that land before building takes place.
The concern about the other buildings is with overhead.We need a new septic system there if they stay. We need to pay for their demolition if they go. Too often we see steps made that lead to other things we are not aware of but expected to pay for.(ex: The Clough gray water line to the Highway barn that later was mentioned tying in the Town Hall too.)
I can't speak for anyone but my family, but right now we are scraping by. In the future we may be in a better position to afford this or a similar project. Remember Ernie was against a joint building when he was vying for the police station.
The people voted who wanted to at the Town Meeting. The purest form of democracy is getting by passed.
The issue of pesticides on the land was raised prior to the vote last year, and largely ignored. Testing on any proposed area on that tract should be done prior to implementing any portion of it for any use. Would you want to be the first to put your children on playing fields when you don't know what is in the soil? Costs associated with mitigating other sites in this area have been extensive. You should know approximate costs of cleanup as well before you vote on any monies being spent on these sites. It's not personal issue with the police/fire dept's or Chief Horn, it's a matter of knowing what's out there and dealing with it before hand, not having to raise more funds to make this work.
Once again the voters of Mendon have been led astray by the politics of envy, vengence and fear. I can't believe that common sense gets so readily overwhelmed by a personal agenda, scare tactics and vitriol.
The building should have been approved, and was by a majority of attendees. Pesticides in the soil is not a major environmental issue. They certainly aren't "good" for the soil, but they do not migrate, do not contaminate groundwater and are easily contained.
Not all contaminants are equal folks. We're not dealing with Benzene or PCBs or the cocktail of toxins that affected Love Canal. Arsenic even occurs naturally in the soils of central mass.
We're also not talking about building a playground on the site, we're talking about laying down an impermeable asphalt and concrete barrier over ground that has been remediated, then placing a building on top of it. This country is full of "brownfields" that are in daily use with all forms of appropriate buildings such as this on them.
If the soil there is so "dangerous" why doesn't DEP require it to be immediately remediated, blocked off from public access and the people living in the surrounding area evacuated? Why, because the contaminants are inert!
Once DEP received the report from the LSP they would have issued an order for immediate action if it was volatile. It is not volatile, the site can be easily and relatively inexpensively remediated, and the land will be perfectly safe for use as a public safety building.
That is of course unless our fire and police personnel begin wandering off into the fields and consuming the unremediated soil by the shoveful.
Every year we delay the building our costs will go up.
Let's put aside this political grandstanding and get this thing built.
I'm voting yes on the ballot Monday.
Ignore the Town Meeting results.
Democracy is over-rated.
Force the building through so we pay less now.
Relatively inexpensive.
I believe people want to know if it is in the budget for the building and where in the budget.
Their is no envy involved. Some may have vengence and others fear.
That is what happens when people get screwed.
Costs go up every year on cars. I could use a new one. However, my boss will not let me give myself a raise. So I make do with my second hand car. It's kind of a mess, but every year if it fails inspection I spend what I need to get it fixed. Why? It is because I need a car and I can still fix it.
The mentality that the existing buildings can not be fixed is ridiculous at best. The people have allready spoken by failing to achieve the 2/3 vote needed at the Town Meeting.
I am voting No on Monday.
ON APRIL 26,2006 THE PEOPLE OF MENDON DEFEATED AN ARTICLE FOR A JOINT POLICE AND FIRE BUILDING ON A SPECIFIC LOT.
AS A TAXPAYER I UNDERSTAND THE MONEY THAT IS BEING LOST DUE TO TIME WASTED NOT AGREEING ON MONEY FOR JOINT FIRE AND SAFETY
BUILDING. HOWEVER AS DALE PLEAU POINTED OUT TEST HOLES AND FAVORABLE SOIL FINDINGS MUST BE MET BEFORE WE AS PEOPLE ARE ASKED TO COMMIT TO SUCH A HUGE FINANCIAL AGREEMENT. IT SEEMS TO BE COMMON SENSE THAT SOIL TEST NEEDS TO BE HEALTHY TO THE PUBLIC NOT TO MENTION THAT THIS IS A SAFETY FACILITY TO BE CONSTRUCTED. I WOULD HOPE AND EXPECT ALL SOIL TESTS TO BE PERFORMED AND COMPLETED BEFORE THIS IS BROUGHT TO THE PEOPLE. I FEEL THIS TIME WAS WASTED. RATHER THEN TRYING TO GET AROUND A SOIL TEST BY COSTLY REMOVAL WITHOUT ASSURING THIS WILL NOT SHOW UP AS ANOTHER "NYANZA" POLLUTION,LETS CHOOSE A WISER OPTION. IS IT JUST NOT FEASIBLE WE PUT TWO MILLION INTO FIRE AND TWO MILLION INTO POLICE AND RENOVATE ENCOMPASSING ONLY NECESSITIES,NO ENHANCEMENTS SUCH A GYMS ETC. IT WOULD NOT BE AN IDEAL WAY FOR EVERYONE BUT IT WOULD BE A PRODUCTIVE AND WORKING PLAN WITHIN OUR BUDGET. MENDON IS FACING MANY MONEY PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IMMEDIATELY. THE SCHOOL IS LOOKING FOR A 2 1/2 OVERRIDE TO CONTINUE THEIR OPERATIONS. THE SCHOOL HAS MY VOTE . THE TOWN ITSELF IS IN OPERATIONAL OVERRIDE FOR DEBT. I WILL BE VOTING FOR THAT. LOOKING FOR WATER COSTS MONEY...LOOKING FOR WAYS TO SUPPLY A SMALL AMOUNT OF HOMES IN MENDON COSTS MONEY. COMMON SENSE SAYS THESE PEOPLE DRILLING THEIR OWN ARTESIAN WELLS AND FILTERING THEIR OWN WATER AS MOST OF MENDON DOES IS ACCEPTABLE.PUTTING SOME PLAN ASIDE TOWARDS ADDITION OF A LIBRARY ROOM. HISTORICAL BUILDINGS I WOULD THINK COULD CONTAIN GRANTS AND ADDED BLESSINGS OF GRAND ENHANCEMENTS. LET'S ADD ON AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EVERY WONDERFUL BUILDING MENDON HAS TO OFFER. MY EXPECTATION WITH MENDON'S MONEY WOES IS THAT WE GET BY NICELY NOW AND CONTRIBUTE AS BEST WE CAN AFFORD FOR THE FUTURE WITHOUT CONTRACTING HUGE DEBT.
I have no vengeance and no envy. I do however fear the incompetence of our officials based on the level of planning brought forth at the town meeting. My vote on Monday is "NO". Sharpen the pencil and come back with a better plan.....and I will vote "yes". We all recognize the need.
Interesting dicotomy: the tax payers on one side who have to live within a budget and prioritize based on a fixed income asking the town for accountability......the town officials on the other side taking the easy way out at the expense of the taxpayers. Somehow this is grandstanding? Wake up.
Since the Anonymous poster directed the rant at me I will answer. They are in italics. I am in bold. This is the closest any blog has come to a post by a member of the board of selectmen so I will reply as if it were. ;-0
Anonymous said...
"Once again the voters of Mendon have been led astray by the politics of envy, vengence and fear. I can't believe that common sense gets so readily overwhelmed by a personal agenda, scare tactics and vitriol."
I have no personal agenda here. My only agenda was to insure that the cover-up was exposed before the taxpayers wrote a blank check and discovered their good intentions and sacrifice were an expensive joke on them. Fool me once….
The building should have been approved, and was by a majority of attendees.
Yes but the law says 2/3 for an override. They did it that way for a reason. You are the reason.
"Pesticides in the soil is not a major environmental issue. They certainly aren't "good" for the soil, but they do not migrate, do not contaminate groundwater and are easily contained.
Says you. Tell the DEP that pesticides are not a major issue. That is a fools assertion but then again.
Not all contaminants are equal folks. We're not dealing with Benzene or PCBs or the cocktail of toxins that affected Love Canal. Arsenic even occurs naturally in the soils of central mass.
You are absolutely right but we are not talking about naturally occurring trace arsenic. Why is it that every time one of you opens your mouth to defend the indefensible you forget that the REAL potential problem is DDT and you have no idea what it will cost to clean up.
We're also not talking about building a playground on the site, we're talking about laying down an impermeable asphalt and concrete barrier over ground that has been remediated, then placing a building on top of it. This country is full of "brownfields" that are in daily use with all forms of appropriate buildings such as this on them.
It is interesting to note at this point that playgrounds and athletic fields on that part of the land were a big selling point back when you were shmoozing the voters to pay $3.5 million for your brownfield. That was after you got the bad news from Tighe & Bond. Pretty shameless in my opinion.
If the soil there is so "dangerous" why doesn't DEP require it to be immediately remediated, blocked off from public access and the people living in the surrounding area evacuated? Why, because the contaminants are inert!
The DEP has never been contacted about this. They don’t know what is going on, not yet anyway. If you have even a single piece of correspondence between the DEP and Tighe & Bond or The town of Mendon with regard to the numbers in those test results, produce it! You’re the one who is inert. They are only inert until you move them. Do a little research!
Once DEP received the report from the LSP they would have issued an order for immediate action if it was volatile. It is not volatile, the site can be easily and relatively inexpensively remediated, and the land will be perfectly safe for use as a public safety building.
Ditto above. The DEP knows nothing about this. If they do prove it!
That is of course unless our fire and police personnel begin wandering off into the fields and consuming the unremediated soil by the shoveful.
What a dumb statement!
Every year we delay the building our costs will go up.
No one is asking for a year. If your worth your salt you should be able to fast track the risk assessment and get back to another town meeting in 2 months… if your worth your salt
Let's put aside this political grandstanding and get this thing built.
Nothing political here, I am not running for anything. Been there done that. If turning on a light in a dark room so people don’t get hurt is grandstanding, so be it. I guess you guys just forgot where the switch was.
I'm voting yes on the ballot Monday.
And I am cancelling you out!
Dale Pleau
The building was rejected.Why should that stop you from continuing?
(You talk about vengence)
Tony is right on the money with his assesment.
You talk of inert chemicals in the soil, and continue to parlay them as "trace aresenic" consistent with much former arable land in the northeast. The real bugaboo in this case is not arsenic, thought that too is present, but the DDT and DDT derivatives that are present in the soil. Of course these chemicals are "inert". No one has utilized this land for years and DDT use was outlawed in the US in the 70's. As long as the land remains in the same use as when the contamination occurred (i.e. apple orchard) or as long as it remains undisturbed, the contamination proposes no threat. It is only when the land is developed that the problem arises. I urge you to investigate similar sites to determine the risks and the costs of mitigation. There are federal grants available for cleaning up such sites, but again, we have no idea of the scope of the problem or resources for funding the cleanup if we do not test further. To move forward with any proposals for land development on this site without such testing and remediation analysis at this time is simply a waste of valuable money and time. It will have to be addressed, now or in the future, and all with taxpayer dollars. If you are prudent, you will determine the bottom line before you commit any further funds to this site.
There are just way too many unanswered questions on this issue. We too, will be voting no.
I do not understand why anyone could vote to put a building on a potentially contaminated piece of property without finding out FIRST what they are dealing with. I also would like to remind everyone that Dale Pleau did not create this problem. Don't kill the messenger. He has a brought up information that should have been addressed by our town officials before this property was purchased. Ignoring this problem will not make it go away. I do not understand why this cannot be investigated thoroughly by DEP and/or anyone else that should be involved and an official report of the results be presented to the people of mendon before this building proposal is brought up again. This is a simple thing to ask. Why is it being blown out of proportion and treated like it's a ridiculous request. The people of this town deserve to have an answer to a very valid question before moving forward. To say that we should do this now before the price goes up is ridiculous when no one knows how much cleanup costs will be (10K - 300K). That figure right there tells me that no one has any idea what they're dealing with here. If we're going to do this, let get it right.
"Once again the voters of Mendon have been led astray by the politics of envy, vengence and fear. I can't believe that common sense gets so readily overwhelmed by a personal agenda, scare tactics and vitriol."
This is the attitude that got this building defeated.
How about trying this approch...We hear you and we are listening. The next time we bring this to a vote we will have your answers for you.
Until then my vote is NO!
Post a Comment