| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| massdee |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 11:24:25 AM
Everett Independent October 22, 2008
Independent Forum page 6
Eye on Everett by Augustine Parziale
Simonelli versus Wood Waste
On next Wednesday, October 29, city government will host a public hearing to give local residents an opportunity to air their concerns regarding Wood Waste of Boston,the construction material recycling business that has long been a concern for many in Everett,
We would be remiss if we didn’t credit Councilor Simonelli for making this hearing possible through his diligence and persistence on the issue.
Simonelli was one of only a handful of politicians who voted against the recent sale of the old City Yard to the owner of Wood Waste, and his opposition to the deal stemmed from the fact that he didn’t trust Wood Waste, given it’s track record, to live up to it’s end of the bargain, which included a promise that the company would not expand its business to the new property.
Over the years, Wood Waste has become the most unpopular business in the city, and has had many confrontations with local residents, politicians and health officials over the way it conducts business here.
In that regard, Simonelli’s stand against Wood Waste doesn’t exactly appear to be the bravest move ever by a politician.
However, it is also true that Wood Waste’s principal owner is very well connected politically both here in Everett and across the state.
The owner is a very active political donor both in Everett and across the state, and some have speculated over the years that this may be one of the main reasons why he hasn’t faced more heat over the business.
Over the years, Wood Waste has face many warnings and fines from state and federal environmental protection agencies and pressure from local lawmakers, but hasn’t ever been forced to suspend operations.
The fact that Simonelli is the first politician to get some kind of public hearing going on the issue say’s a lot.
For one, it shows that Simonelli isn’t afraid to stand up against well-connecte businessmen and is going to fight for what’s right for his constituents regardless of whom he is up against
Simonelli has been the most vocal in opposition to Wood Waste and the sale of the old City Yards, as well as Wood Waste’s future proposed plans of creating another development on lower Broadway.
However, it is now up to the people to prove that Simonelli hasn’t been wasting his time in going after Wood Waste and getting this public hearing. They should show up next week and have their say.
If the people don’t show up to speak for themselves , then nothing Simonelli or any other politician says or does is going to matter.
The sad fact of the matter is no matter what the people of Everett want, it is highly unlikely that Wood Waste is going anywhere anytime soon.
Regarless of how the business is run or what concerns residents may have, the fact is that Wood Waste provides an essential service, one that not many other companies in the area provide.
Until someone can figure out a way to make waste simply disappear, we will always need businesses like Wood Waste.
The business is already in Everett, and we don’t expect that any other community is going to step up and take the problem off our hands.
That said, the people of Everett have every right to expect the business will operate in a manner that doesn’t negatively impact the quality of the life in Everett, especially in the neighborhood where it exists.
Residents and local business owners who always play by the rules also have a right to expect that Wood Waste will do the same and that lawmakers will hold them accountable when they don’t
Simonelli got the ball rolling on this one, so it’s now up to the people to take the ball and run with it.
A failure to do so will only make it appear that Wood Waste really isn’t such a big issue here and will discourage others from following in Simonelli’s lead because it will appear as if he just wasted his time and energy. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| just wondering |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 7:02:29 PM
The unions won't have an option to go for it or not if the state legislator passes the bill mentioned in the article above.
|
| waterboy |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 2:36:55 PM
tell the mayor to stop hiring his friends massdee since you are vocal out here, do we really need al bongoniz back in the city, oh I forget the mayor is hiring jason marcus girlfriends family one by one, the unions will not go for this everett has a strong union when it comes to health care I believe the ragucci administration tried something and it was shot down by union members, this is a perk to the city employees, we now have a 911 directors job open wonder who is going to put in there, we a two slots open in the city wonder who will be taking them, I like the remard that Mr. sachetta made in the paper stop hiring and start laying off the big wigs (something to that) the people of this city are fed up, he does not show up at meeting cause of conflict with is elected officals well then grow some balls and stand up as the mayor, he wont' do it |
| massdee |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 11:58:25 AM
That is the exact reason why I posted it. |
| just wondering |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 11:36:13 AM
This exact topic has been getting lots of attention in the media lately (print and radio). We should not only be contacting our own representatives at the statehouse.....but also encourage our friends/family in other cities to contact their representatives as well. |
| massdee |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 10:31:30 AM
Everett Independent March 3, 2010
Guest Op-Ed
Saving taxpayers money
Mayor Carlo DeMaria
In a world where everything is local we struggle through our economic recovery as a country, state and city. As my administration quickly works through the remaining weeks of budget time, I need to look at every opportunity to cut costs, and save the taxpayers of Everett much needed dollars. To that end, I’m joining my fellow Mayors calling upon the State Legislature to act on a municipal relief bill that is in the State House.
I’m urging the taxpayers of Everett, both commercial and residential, to call out State Delegation to support and pass House Bill2509, legislation to give cities and towns the ability to control skyrocketing health insurance costs. This vital bill is is necessary to provide equity and relief for local taxpayers, protect essential local and school services, and preserve jobs that are important to our local economy.
Everett is struggling under the crushing burden of increasing health insurance costs for municipal employees. While health insurance costs are a problem for everyone, cities and towns have been forced to pay much more than necessary because of a state law that gives municipal unions a veto over changes that would reduce the cost to the taxpayers.
Over the past ten years, cities and towns have seen their health insurance costs rise by over a 150%, while spending on everything else from public safety to schools to repairing our roads has increased by only 25%. Health insurance is the biggest budget buster at the local level, accounting for as much as 15% of local budgets, squeezing out vital services and costing local taxpayers more and more every year.
The Legislature voted to cut local aid by $724 million in fiscal 2010 state budget, and cities and towns have laid off thousands of employees, cut services and increased their reliance on property taxes as a result. Without real health insurance reform, we will continue to pay too much for employee health benefits, which will force even more service cuts and layoffs while local taxpayers pay millions more than they should.
Our legislators must support real reform to give local government the same authority the state has to design health insurance plans - this will save taxpayers $75-$100 million across the state. The bill would provide immediate relief from indefensible double standard in state law that blocks simple cost-saving steps unless local unions agree to changes in health insurance plans. The state has exempted itself from this mandate, and routinely implements basic decisions to save money on health insurance with no union approval required. The solution is to end this double standard by giving cities and towns the same authority that the state has to set health insurance plans outside of collective bargaining. The Massachusetts Municipal Association and finance experts estimate that most cities and towns would be able to lower health insurance costs by 4-6%, or as much as $75-$100 million statewide. For example, the City of Boston could save over $1 million a month, and Salem could save $1 million a year. For our community, this could save us as much as $1 million per year. This is real savings that our taxpayers deserve.
There is no excuse to keep the unique and special veto power that municipal unions hold over health plan changes - this veto power is costing taxpayers and forcing the elimination of teacher, firefighters, police officers and other union jobs. Lets be clear: this legislation is written with a guarantee that municipal and school employees will receive health benefits that are equal to or better than what the state employees receive. This bill will protect vital services from being crowed out by spiraling health costs, and will protect jobs at the local level.
In short, this bill saves taxpayers money, protects municipal union jobs, guarantees equity with state employee health benefits, and still leaves municipal unions with more bargaining power than the state unions. This is a balanced, meaningful and fair reform. More delays will hurt taxpayers, municipal employees and the public.
Taxpayers must call on our legislators to support H. 2509 to give Everett plan design reform now. Otherwise, the fiscal problems we face will get worse, and local taxpayers will continue to pay more and get fewer services in return |
| imbroglio |
Posted - 11/13/2009 : 09:21:35 AM
This is nothing but taxpayer funded day care. Give me a break. |
| massdee |
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 08:36:34 AM
Here is the article that was in this weeks Independent:
http://www.everettindependent.com/2009/11/12/marchese-questions-pre-school-costs-draws-huge-crowd/
Marchese questions pre-school costs; draws huge crowd
Thursday, November 12, 2009
By Independent Staff
Hundreds of angry parents of Everett children in the pre-school program descended upon city hall Monday night to listen to Auditor Larry DeCoste detail the cost of pre-school at the request of Alderman Mike Marchese.
The crowd packed the city hall auditorium and spilled out into the hallway.
DeCoste never showed up and as such, Marchese told the crowd that nothing would be discussed regarding pre-school without DeCoste’s presence.
This turned the crowd ugly and angry.
Soon, the crowd was shouting for Marchese to allow Superintendent of Schools Fred Foresteire to speak on the subject of pre-school.
Marchese relented.
Foresteire recited a litany of reasons why pre-school is valuable and cost effective for Everett’s public school students.
“Pre-school has no effect on the local tax rate. It is absolutely essential. I don’t know why this was brought up. Perhaps the Aldermen are going to play the tax rate game with pre-school. I hope not,” Foresteire told the Independent.
According to Foresteire, Everett’s public schools are not a burden to taxpayers.
“Pre-school is free just as first grade is free just as sixth grade is free just as high school is free,” he noted.
“Sixty percent of the school budget is paid for by the state,” he added.
No figures were given on the exact cost of pre-school.
However, Foresteire implied that without pre-school, the cost to the city would be far greater than with pre-school.
“It has been proven time and again that pre-school adds immeasurably to the ability of these young kids to get a foothold in the system, to develop reading and social skills and to be fed properly everyday. Also, their parents are able to work while they are in pre-school which adds immeasurably to the local economy.
Some pre-school costs, according to Foresteire, are being paid for with federal stimulus funds approved by the governor.
Marchese’s motion was laid on the table for two weeks.
And:
http://www.everettindependent.com/2009/11/12/aldermens-pre-school-hoopla-way-off-base/
Aldermen’s pre-school hoopla way off base
Thursday, November 12, 2009
By Independent Staff
We want to point out for the ill-advised in this city that pre-school in the public schools is not a mandate. Rather, it is a necessity.
Questioning pre-school expenses is the prerogative of the Board of Aldermen, although such matters are under the purview of the school committee but the meeting on Monday night at city hall regarding Everett’s pre-school turned into a farce.
More than 300 parents packed city hall Monday evening in response to a measure offered by Alderman Mike Marchese to question the city auditor about the cost for pre-school.
Regrettably, word spread quickly around the city that Marchese and the Aldermen were attempting to do away with pre-school with the claim it is too expensive and that the city cannot afford it.
This caused a huge crowd to collect at city hall wanting answers from Marchese.
What ensued was a gaggle of missteps, which ended with Marchese trying to call off the meeting because the city auditor didn’t show up – which would have left the huge crowd sitting there with no response from government.
Only the vociferous and angry protests of the crowd forced Marchese to relent and School Superintendent Fred Foresteire was allowed to speak.
He explained pre-school, its absolute necessity, and the fact that pre-school is free just as first grade is free, as ninth grade is free, and on and on.
If the Aldermen were seeking to make a play to the people that a great deal of money could be saved by eliminating pre-school, the only thing they did was outrage hundreds of parents who rely on pre-school as one of the pillars of their day to day existence.
The Everett Public Schools receive about 60 percent of their operating budget from the state. The city contributes the remainder.
Pre-school is a necessary component of the public school package.
It has been proven by educators across the nation that pre-school sets the stage for public school students for everything that follows, and that without it, students find it more difficult to adapt to the public school system here and everywhere.
We believe it would be a disaster to eliminate pre-school just as it would be a disaster for the Aldermen to make such an attempt.
We urge Alderman Marchese to spend some time studying the merits of pre-school.
We further state that once Alderman Marchese sees the enormous benefit of the pre-school that he would become its biggest booster..
Without the pre-school experience, the ability to matriculate for many students just starting out in public school will be adversely impacted. And please keep in mind that pre-school isn’t just about learning – it is about proper nutrition and most importantly, it is about allowing working-class parents to maintain jobs while their children are in school.
Everett’s pre-school program should not be fooled with by politicians thinking eliminating it could save anything.
Such efforts are futile.
"Deb" |
| Tails |
Posted - 06/12/2009 : 8:10:00 PM
As far as the budget goes, I have to agree. No one dares say a word because they are cowards. The same complacent people are in the wrong line of work, and need to be replaced. All they care about is "what's in it for them" and "what are you going to do for ME"
Blowing issues off just to make yourself look good is not the way to run a city. Face the issues head on and be open and honest, and that's not what's happening here, and any dummy can see the writing on the wall. There's going to be a lot of searching for money and the bottom line will be TAXES. |
| Cruller DaVille |
Posted - 06/12/2009 : 6:29:18 PM
See what I mean!!!! Two years ago, this same information was in bold headlines and everyone was yelling "the taxpayer, the taxpayer". The papers were claiming foul, etc.
What a difference being in ones pocket makes. In the above article, the newspaper just calmy delivers the news in a manner NOT to get the reader concerned or enraged. "It will catch up", "changed his mind" "There's hope for the city"..... all nice ways to calmly say "We're up the creek without a paddle". God forbid they delve into the reasons why.
Got to love it, don't ya? Doesn't it occur to anyone that there's a totally different set of rules being used here? Take a look people, we are where we are and none of the responsibilities we're supposed to take on are being attended to. There are five unions (one more the end of this month) that have gone without a contract. They are going to need retro monies and monies to fufill obligations when they do have a meeting of the minds. Where is that money in the budget? NO WHERE! They ever so slightly mention that monies haven't gone into stablilization and that oooopps "it may catch up with us" or "our bond rating may go down". These aren't little things. This is mismanagement. I guess it depends who is robbing the store huh? What's the word MD mentioned? Oh, Yeah, hypocricy.
Just My Humble Opinion
"Cruller DaHville"
 |
| tetris |
Posted - 06/12/2009 : 3:49:37 PM
As promised, from this week's Independent's Eye on Everett column:
FY '10 Budget
For the second year in a row, Everett lawmakers managed to pass the operating budget for the city in a timely, professional manner and did so without resorting to yelling and name-calling.
This has been a departure of past budget practices, especially the previous three years; one of was David Ragucci's last budget as mayor and then for John Hanlon's two years in charge.
Last year, it was understandable that lawmakers allowed the administration a bit more leeway in certain areas of the budget.
After all, it was the new mayor's first budget. The economic news was just starting to turn bleak, and let's face it, it wasn't an election year, and no one really needed to score any political points on that front.
Frankly, we expected more fireworks this year, but there were very few, if any.
Perhaps these difficult economic times play a big factor in the efficiency of the recent budget process.
After all, with times as tough as they are and the people already taxed near the limit, there wasn't much wiggle room in the budget city officials just passed.
At just under $132.5 million, this budget represents a miniscule increase over last year's budget that came in at just over $132 million.
In fact, the City Council did not find much fat to trim out of the budget
That's because any more cuts would probably necessitate more layoffs, and we just don't think lawmakers have the stomach for making the tough choices about who gets to work for the city and who doesn't.
Mayor Carlo DeMaria has already managed to make some layoffs and leave some positions unfilled, but we can all remember how hard the City Council and Board of Aldermen fought for the mayor to ensure that there were no layoffs in the area of public safety and also to restore the jobs of certain union members.
Lawmakers managed to have their way on that score as Mayor DeMaria changed his mind and transferred money out of the free cash account to offset layoffs, but even he must know that such a maneuver is only pushing the problem down the road, to be dealt with later.
The inescapable fact that everyone is dealing with right now, both in the private and public sectors, is that even if the economy starts to make a quick recovery, we all still have tough choices to make.
Alderman Robert Van Campen noted on Monday prior to the alderman's vote to accept the budget that at some point, paying for things out of rainy day accounts would eventually catch up to the city, and it will.
It will catch up in the form of lowered bond ratings for the city, meaning that it will cost Everett more to borrow money.
It will catch up to the city in the form of savings accounts that aren't sufficient enough to pay for these same things in the future, which means such things as layoffs and an end to certain services the city currently provides.
In fact, if it weren't for lawmakers agreeing to make several transfers out of these accounts already, the recent budget would have exceeded the state's Proposition 2 1/2 law.
There is hope in the city in the form of potential new growth, and there's always the hope that the economy can make a rebound, but the time seems to be drawing near for our elected leaders to make some tough, and perhaps unpopular decisions. |
| Cruller DaVille |
Posted - 06/12/2009 : 12:37:53 AM
Hypocrisy is the perfect word for describing the role the media has willingly accepted since January 2008 MassDee.
"Cruller DaHville"
|
| tetris |
Posted - 06/12/2009 : 12:02:32 AM
I posted that editorial in the hopes that exactly what happened tonight would happen, that people would be upset that the Independent is totally discounting Mrs. Morris' chances in the upcoming election and would post counter opinions. Maybe my efforts are fruitless because everyone who frequents the blogs are already aware that all of the local papers are less than bastions of jornalistic integrity; but, if we can inform even one more person...
Yes, I do pick which articles that I post. I try to pick ones that I think would be of general interest or are important. I would gladly wecome anyone else to post ones that they feel are important as well; I could use a break from all the typing. However, if it is the general will of the board to stop the practice, I have no problem with that; I just can't speak for anybody else who posts articles already.
For now, I'll keep up the practice. I want to at least complete posting the articles I picked from this week's Independent as to provide some balance. There's a couple of Eye on Everett pieces that I want to post at least, including one about the FY10 budget that questions the choices that have been made. The pieces that have been posted so far were cut and paste from the Independent website; the other pieces need to be transcribed and I just haven't had time to do that yet. |
| massdee |
Posted - 06/11/2009 : 11:39:27 PM
I can't speak for Tetris but knowing him from reading his post for quite awhile now, in my opinion, he did not choose to post that article to hurt Mrs Morris. It was probably more in the tune of showing the hypocrisy of the article.
"Deb" |
| Cruller DaVille |
Posted - 06/11/2009 : 11:09:59 PM
I'm sure it is time consuming to retype the article MassDee. However, the newspapers in this city haven't been doing their job as I see it. My idea of a local newspaper is an entity that allows discussing, debate, and bantering back and forth. All three of the locals in this city have not done that.
As I said, I know of three individuals who have attempted to have their voices heard via the editorial page and were denied. One of them even offered to pay for the space.
That being said, it is my, probably slanted opinion, that presently they are a waste of space and time. If I wanted to hear the regergitated accalades of the mayor, I'd call his mom or walk into city hall and bump into one of the many cousins he employs.
Finally, I think its an unproductive residual of this venue to hurt an individuals credibility without giving them a chance. I have posted this many times before that our opinions are just that "our opinions". Ms. Morris hasn't even been given ample time or space and the only chosen article printed was negative. That's hardly fair. Should I expect to see her announcement or any positive piece (if allowed to be printed in any of the rags) copied here? At least that would be fair.
There have been alot of victims from false newspaper accounts in this city, my arguement is that picking and chosing which ones to repeat just furthers their disinformation.
I want to clarify that this in NO WAY has to do with Tetris and his retyping of certain articles. Its the newspapers credibility first and foremost and then the choices of which articles to recycle.
We all have our personal favorites and that's fine; why hurt someone right out of the gate? I know why the local papers do it. I thought perhaps this forum was more evolved than that.
Just My Honest Opinion
"Cruller DaHville"
|
| massdee |
Posted - 06/11/2009 : 10:22:45 PM
I personally never get the Advocate and at other times I don't receive the Independent. I look forward to the articles being posted here so I know what the papers are saying. It is a lot of work to transcribe those articles and I appreciate it.
At times I have also posted articles from the newspapers. People who go to work before the papers are delivered have asked me to post articles.
It definitely serves a need to some of the readers of this message board.
"Deb" |
|
|
