| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
4242 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2008 : 11:33:11 AM
|
| Why did our City Council have to read about it in today's paper rather than the Administration informing them it will be on the agenda at the next BOA meeting? |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
1756 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2008 : 12:16:18 PM
|
What total disrespect to the city council that they had to read about it in the Advocate......many people do not read the Advocate because it's hard to come by. The other two papers are delivered to our homes.
The whole thing reeks of sneakiness. What are they trying to hide..........again? |
|
|
|
tetris
Advanced Member
1480 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2009 : 6:56:23 PM
|
From this week's Advocate:
Everett Advocate’s Top 5 stories of 2008
By The Advocate
The top stories in the city of Everett during 2008 lacked sensationalism and drama, but nonetheless were revealing of a community that is making strides in finally “turning things around.”
1. Fiscal stability restored
The city’s finances, for the first time in recent years, were stabilized by the new administration. A responsible budget was proposed and passed with a minimum of politic-playing, which had annually hampered the local budget process in the past. For the first time in memory, the city council and mayor worked cooperatively – and most effectively – on the budget, producing a city spending plan that ultimately led to a residential tax rate that was pro-homeowner after two years of record-high tax increases had come down heavy on local taxpayers.
2. Stadium “rehab” project advances
Finally, after years of hoping and dreaming and a lot of talk, Everett seems to be on the cusp of a project to re-do the local stadium facility. The city was recently notified that it has been approved for a $500,000 “Urban Self-Help Grant” to undertake the project. The announcement of the grant was sweet music to Ward One Ald. Frank Nuzzo, who has been the leading advocate for the stadium “rehab” plan for several years. It was at Nuzzo’s prodding that Mayor DeMaria enlisted the help of State Senator Anthony Galluccio to push for the state grant. The planned project – calling for a new field turf playing field and track, added permanent bleachers, new locker room facilities and new bathrooms – will require more than the $500,000 state grant, but the mayor is confident that supplementary grants and private donations can be found to make up the rest that will be needed to complete the job.
3. Moving toward a Wood Waste solution
The end of the Wood Waste controversy may be in sight. Mayor DeMaria has taken the initiative to work out a written agreement with the owner that would see the foul-smell of his outdoor operation curbed via a de-odorizing device and would also see plans submitted for the construction of an enclosed facility by March 1st. There’s no guarantees, but for the first time since the city and Wood Waste have been at odds, there is a positive plan being considered, thanks to the efforts of the mayor.
4. Rep. Smith survives Matewsky challenge
The re-election of “Stat” Smith to his state representative’s position was the political highlight of the year. Ald.-at-Large Wayne Matewsky, a long-time and very popular city council member, challenged Smith and many in the city thought he had what it would take to oust the incumbent. But in the end, after months of hard campaigning on both sides, Smith proved that he remains popular with voters. He beat Matewsky by a rather comfortable 500-vote margin.
5. Boys & Girls’ Club coming to city
In a major development, Mayor DeMaria, working with State Senator Galluccio, paved the way for the Middlesex County Boys and Girls’ Club to bring their program to Everett and it’s not costing the city a nickel. The first year’s funding is guaranteed by state funding, plus a Commonwealth Corps grant of $50,000 and a $14,000 commitment from well-known philanthropist Joe O’Donnell. The program will operate out of the field house at the old high school. The boys and girls club is not replacing the programs at the local “rec” center on Elm Street – rather, it is supplementing them. The “rec” center offers mainly athletic programs, while the boys and girls’ club will focus on character development, life skills and the arts. |
|
|
|
tetris
Advanced Member
1480 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2009 : 6:58:57 PM
|
This week's Advocate Commentary:
Mayor Carlo DeMaria, Jr...ushering in a spirit of hope
There can be no doubt that one of the most influential newsmakers in Everett during 2008 was the community's new mayor, Carlo DeMaria, Jr.
In the relatively short time that he's been at the helm of city government, Carlo DeMaria has proven to be a man of his word.
While campaigning for mayor last year, he promised to be open and frank with the people of Everett. He promised an administration of transparency. He promised to end the political divisions in the city and also promised to include the city council as a meaningful partner in all major deliberations.
By and large, Mayor DeMaria has kept all of these promises.
His administration has been open. At every council and aldermanic session, the mayor or his chief of staff has been in attendance to provide whatever information is needed and to answer any and all questions.
The inclusion of the city council on all issues is most noteworthy. For example, on the Wood Waste controversy, the mayor (with his board of health) under the law has the sole power to decide the legal avenue to travel to address the situation. Even so, DeMaria has informed the councillors and aldermen of his intention to sign an "enforcement agreement" with Wood Waste and he's asked for the city council's input. How many former mayors (if any) can you remember doing something like that, especially since DeMaria technically doesn't need the city council's input or approval.
For the two years that John Hanlon was the mayor, there was chaos at city hall during "budget time". In the end, Everett ended up with bloated budgets that resulted in record-high tax increases two years in a row.
This year Mayor DeMaria in sharp contrast submitted a streamlined, fiscally responsible budget and was amenable to budget modification suggestions offered by the city council. No chaos. No political grandstanding. What a change!
Mayor DeMaria also wasted no time in making some consolidating moves to provide improved services at reduced costs. Admittedly one or two of the moves didn't quite work out the way the mayor envisioned, but he was man enough to "fess up" and to take corrective action.
Overall, he deserves an "A" for changing the way business is conducted at city hall. Professionalism, with cost savings a key element, now rules the day.
But what's most promising about the first year of the DeMaria administration is that the people of Everett have rekindled sense of hope for the future...a renewed sense of pride in the way their city government is addressing problems...and a refreshing confidence that Everett need not be a prisoner any longer to the "politics as usual" mentality that has dominated city hall for generations.
For these unique and important reasons, The Advocate salutes Carlo DeMaria, Jr., as Everett's most outstanding public official of 2008. |
|
|
|
tetris
Advanced Member
1480 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2009 : 7:50:31 PM
|
One last thing from this week's Advocate. I'm not going to reproduce the entire cover story even though it's not that long; I just feel that it doesn't contain very much new information. But what struct me the most was the title of the article "Mayor stabilizes residential tax bills" and this particular passage from the article: "This is due to the fact that residential property values in general have declined over the past year due to the depressed economy and the slumping housing market.". So, if I put those two things together, does that mean that the mayor is responsible for the state of the economy and the bad housing market?
Of course, the answer to the above question is no. But as much as some people don't like to see the mayor blamed for things that may not be his fault, why try to give him credit for something that seems to be positive but in no way can be considered totally positive and was pretty much out of his control as well. Yes, it is great that some people won't be paying as much in real estate taxes this year as they did last year; but, is it a good thing that the only reason for this is that their property is worth so much less? Let's face it, the tax levy went up and not as much free cash was applied to it this year as last. Everything else was the same, 20% exemption was adopted and the maximum tax burden was shifted to commercial and industrial payers. If your property held anywhere near the same value, your tax bill would have gone up.
So, how does the decrease in your bill get paid for? The city stills needs to raise the total levy amount. So the burden shifts to the corporate/industrial payers whose tax rate is going up $4.37 per thousand and, according to the article, their valuations have actually gone up on the whole. I can't imagine that they are happy campers.
So, is it really worth the relatively small break you may be receiving on your tax bill if your property is valued at so much less? I guess that's a determination that everyone needs to make for themselves. But if your answer is no, I'd doubt that mayor would want the credit for that. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
1756 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2009 : 10:01:43 PM
|
I just went and looked at my bill. It went down $200.00 however, the value of my home went down $50,000.00. How can anyone call that “Fiscal stability restored”
If a newspaper can not print the truth, then that paper is not worth the paper it’s printed on. The Advocate had an axe to grind with the past administration, and everyone knew it, but articles like this scream of political payoffs. Why doesn’t Mitchell go and ask for a recap of the budget, before he prints bold face lies and a sucky spin. The budget is over-expended in practically every department. How is that “Fiscal stability restored”
We are paying less, because our houses are worth less, just look at the bill. If I sell tomorrow, I’m going to loose at least $50,000.00.
"blatantly, gone are the days" |
|
|
|
tetris
Advanced Member
1480 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2009 : 6:56:56 PM
|
From last Friday's Advocate, an Advocate Commentary:
The REAL TRUTH about Ald. Van Campen's criticism
What do you expect from a mayoral wannabe?
Alderman Van Campen contends that local residential tax bills have not been "stabilized" this year by the DeMaria Administration - even though he admits the tax bill for his house has gone down! His taxes went down by over $200 and he's still complaining!
The reason is obvious - Alderman Van Campen is thinking of running for mayor in the fall against Mayor DeMaria and he needs an issue to run on, plain and simple. So he'll privately take the tax decrease from the DeMaria administration, but will publicly moan that it's really not a decrease.
Alderman, when a homeowner pays less in taxes this year than he paid last year - that's real savings no matter how it's calculated...and no matter how you try to double-talk and confuse the public!
Imagine, the man is saving over $200 in taxes this year and he's knocking the mayor. That should tell you about the "legitimacy" of his criticism. What a joke!
By the way, where was Alderman Van Campen's criticism, where was his concern, the previous two years when Mayor Hanlon imposed two record setting tax increases on the people of Everett? Nobody saved any money at all when John Hanlon was the mayor. The fact is that they had to pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars more - two years in a row!
And remember two years ago when Mayor Hanlon made matters even worse by eliminating the "owner occupant" exemption that under Mayor Ragucci provided meaningful tax relief, real savings, for home owners. Thankfully, Mayor DeMaria is now providing the exemption for Everett's homeowners...including Alderman Van Campen.
You want to know why Alderman Van Campen didn't say a word during the Hanlon administration about his runaway tax rates and the resulting astronomical tax bill increases? Because he supported John Hanlon in his campaigns for mayor and he was the main supporter of Mayor Hanlon on the board of aldermen. He couldn't knock his political patron saint. After all, he's banking on Hanlon's support when he runs for mayor.
Two years of horrible, record-setting tax increases under Hanlon and Alderman Van Campen didn't say a word...not a single word. While homeowners were being hit with the largest tax increases in Everett's long history, Alderman Van Campen stayed silent and was MIA (missing in action) on the subject. Now, all of a sudden, he's speaking out, but the timing is wrong, Mr. Alderman, and our taxes aren't out of control any longer. The city's finances have been stabilized!
But that doesn't seem to matter to Alderman Van Campen - he's only interested in fabricating a campaign "issue" for his expected mayoral run. And so he's decided to criticize the job that Mayor DeMaria is doing regarding taxes - the truth apparently has nothing to do with his "criticism". After all, Alderman Van Campen has seen his tax bill go down, like a lot of other local homeowners, and yet he's knocking the mayor's record.
The fact remains that taxes under John Hanlon certainly weren't stabilized, that's for sure, and after his record setting hikes over the previous two years, a tax bill that costs homeowners less this year is welcomed news to say the least, Mr. Alderman. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
1756 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2009 : 8:38:38 PM
|
Again……..totally false, 100% false.
We had an increase in the tax rate. That is due to overspending and bloated salaries. I wanted to see the budget get cut, and that did not happen. Everyone else has to make sacrifices and we are giving raises to bloated salaries already and creating positions in city services??
The small tax savings was because of the downfall in the economy. This article mentions nothing to that fact.
This man has issues and he needs to let it go. Everyone was so sick of hearing about Ragucci, well I’m sick of hearing about Ragucci and Hanlon. That war is long over.
Yea, I saved two hundred dollars but when I go to sell, I’ll loose at least 50,000.00. I’d rather my home worth more and the economy back on track. I would not use a tragedy to my own advantage to take credit for it. Lots of people are loosing their homes to foreclosures too. It’s because of the failed economy and you cant make any money off the sale anyway. People are walking away from their homes, they are worthless.
Jim Mitchell should really watch his mouth because if another administration comes in next year, I wouldn’t bite the hand that feeds me. Talk about being on the take.
"blatantly, gone are the days" |
|
|
|
tetris
Advanced Member
1480 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2009 : 11:05:11 PM
|
After two weeks of telling us how great the new tax rates were, I was certain that this week's Advocate would surely have in-depth coverage of last Monday's discussion at the BOA meeting of how hard commercial tax payers got hit. I guess I was wrong though as I couldn't find a word about it. I guess that it didn't happen.
In fact, the most interesting thing in the Advocate this week was a story about how you can get curbside service ay Kelly's Roast Beef at the beach. No more standing out in the cold at 2 AM. Too bad that those days have long passed me by.
I guess that I should be grateful that there wasn't much of anything in the Advocate this week; it'll save me a lot of typing. |
|
|
|
tetris
Advanced Member
1480 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 5:31:59 PM
|
I have missed having a little fun at the expense of the local papers lately. I almost posted about a couple of items on the Independent's editorial page this week (a strangely timed editorial about the streets being clean (did they use their x-ray vision to look under the snow and ice?) and line in the Wood Waste editorial that gave credit to the administration for coming up with the idea of having Wood Waste buy the monitoring equipment (that notion has already been discredited elsewhere on the site)); but I can usually count on the Advocate to push me towards my keyboard.
- The headline on the lead article "City to begin negotiations on "Consent Agreement"" struck me as ironic. Was it supporting the argument that, up until now, the city hasn't really had a lot of input into the agreement or just a sign that the Advocate cares more about getting all of its advertising on the front page than it does about getting the news right? All the headline needed was the word "final" inserted into it and I probably couldn't find any faulty with it.
- In the same article, they decide that it was OK to print the Newburyport landfill rumor. Their defense of the rumor? "The mayor replied that he was unofficially told by a Newburyport official...". Not exactly the way that I recall it from watching it on ECTV. Guess I'll have to read the Newburyport papers if I want some real journalism.
- And finally, from an article entitled "Smith Drops Ball for Everett", the following excerpt:
"While we're on the subject of the new Speaker's election - I can remember Rep. Stat-ic Smith's fundraiser of September 10, 2008 when his main speaker was a rep. named John Rodgers of Norwood. Rogers, with a signed pledge card from Smittie, was DeLeo's opponent for the speakership. On Tuesday, before the landslide for DeLeo on Wednesday, Rogers withdrew his candidacy, and Smith blew his chance for a chairmanship by supporting Rogers, the loser. How will he ever get anything done or anything extra for the great city of Everett. Smith and Rogers, two losers. And, so is the city of Everett. Standby, Wayne!"
I think that there were probably a few people ahead of Representative Smith for chairmanship under DeLeo. He might have had a better chance under Rogers. But is it really likely that a second-term representative would rate a chairmanship of any significance anyways? And let's keep advocating (pun intended) the same old ways of doing business up on Beacon Hill. Isn't the fact that the last three speakers of the house resigned under questionable circumstances a clear signal that business as usual up on the hill needs to change. Wayne as a state rep is laughable; Wayne as the chairman of a house committee is a sure sign of the apocalypse. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
4242 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2009 : 07:27:50 AM
|
Mayor reappointing Chief Mazzie
By The Advocate
EVERETT - Mayor Carlo DeMaria is planning to reappoint Police Chief Steven A. Mazzie to a new three-year term as the head of the Everett Police Department.
The mayor is expected to submit Mazzie’s reappointment to the board of aldermen Monday night.
This will be Mazzie’s third term. He was originally appointed chief by Mayor David Ragucci and was reappointed by Mayor John Hanlon.
In announcing his decision to keep Mazzie as the police chief, Mayor DeMaria said: “I think Chief Mazzie is doing a great job. He has a great rapport with the community and is consistently looking for ways to improve the department and keep our city safe.”
Chief Mazzie said he’s gratified that the mayor values the job he’s been doing and wants him to continue as head of the department.
“I’m pleased to hear that the mayor is satisfied with my performance,” said Mazzie. “I’m excited about the opportunity to continue in this important role and am committed to making Everett a safe community for all who live, work and play here.”
“There is much work to be done and there will be tough times ahead due to the fiscal crisis in Massachusetts and at the national level. We will try to put our best foot forward and continue to provide a high level of professional services,” said the chief.
“I appreciate the support that the community has provided to me personally, but more importantly I appreciate the support and cooperation that has been shown to my department throughout the years,” said Chief Mazzie. |
|
|
|
makemelaugh
Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2009 : 11:56:11 AM
|
| I know cause he does such a good job informing the public doesn't he |
|
|
|
scamore
Member
78 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2009 : 12:53:15 PM
|
| I hear you there MML so why did they stop towing for three or more tickets? does anyone know? no wonder why we are heading for layoffs in the city, I bet there are people out there that owe a lot of money to this city and they stop a program that alderman Marchese started go figure |
|
|
|
tetris
Advanced Member
1480 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2009 : 11:26:40 AM
|
A couple of tidbits from this week's Advocate. First, a portion of their cover story (full text on their website):
"Facing a financial crisis, the aldermen Monday night approved $837,878 in budget cuts proposed by the mayor to offset the state’s reduction in its “local aid” commitment to the city and they also called for a “hiring freeze,” but then the local lawmakers unexpectedly agreed to provide the money to give pay raises to two assistant city solicitors.
At the board’s previous meeting, Mayor Carlo DeMaria asked the aldermen for permission to use $14,600 in budget office surplus funds for salary adjustments for Jill Barringer and Melissa Murphy, whom the mayor maintained were both “underpaid from the day they were hired.”
That request two weeks ago, however, was denied 4-3.
This past Monday night, however, Ald.-at-Large Wayne Matewsky, who voted against the pay raises two weeks ago, asked for reconsideration because he said that he had done some research as to the extra duties that Barringer and Murphy have taken on.
That research convinced him, Matewsky said, that both are deserving of a salary adjustment. He switched his vote to “yes” on the $14,600 fund transfer and on the re-vote, it passed 4-3. Jason Marcus, Frank Nuzzo, Sal Sachetta, and Matewsky were in favor of the raises, while Michael Marchese, Robert Van Campen, and Chuck DiPerri remained opposed.
The mayor didn’t specify how the $14,6000 would be split up between the two assistant solicitors, but Matewsky indicated that one of the two (not saying which one) would be getting the lion’s share of about $11,000."
I had thought that I had said all that I had to say on this piece. But when I saw the word "unexpectedly" in this article, it dragged it all back up again. Unexpectedly?? Anyone that follows Everett politics knew that when Alderman Matewsky asked for reconsideration on the piece, it was going to pass.
A quick recap. I'm not so much against the piece as I am the way that it went down. If the Mayor thought there was a chance that either of these solicitors would be deserving of a raise during the fiscal year, the money for it should have been included in the budget. That's how budgets work!
As far as Alderman Matewsky having a change of heart after the piece was voted on, his description of it is just not believable. Even though it is his right to call for reconsideration under City Council rules, it wasn't because of any information that wasn't available before his first vote. This piece has been around since the beginning of December. It went to the Finance Committee. It didn't come before the Aldermen until the third week of January. Plenty of time to do the necessary research before a vote. Didn't the Mayor chide the Aldermen the other night for not doing their homework on a long list of budget cuts that was first made available to them a few days before? What's Matewsky's excuse on a piece that's been around from a month and half? None of the information that he has found out since his first vote was new; it been available since the piece was first discussed. Of course, we've seen this before from the Alderman, too many times for anyone's liking (ask his friend Leo McKinnon about last year's residency piece); but, this may be Matewsky's greatest "flip-flop" of all times.
If there was any "new" information introduced, it had to do with the salaries increases being asked for. Numbers seemed to be picked out of the air and tossed around. The only one that seemed to have a grasp on the number was Mrs. Mejia and I'm baffled about why not one alderman asked her for the full details. Here are the actual numbers folks. Ms. Barringer's salary is being increased from $57,651.00 to $69,391.86, an increase of $11,740.86 or 20.37%. Ms. Murphy's salary is being increased from $49,574.00 to $60,845.69, an increase of $11,271.69 or 22.74%. This translates to an annual increase of $23,012.55 in the City Solicitor's salary line item. Obviously, a transfer of $14,600 won't cover the raises for an entire year. I doubt that the raises were meant to be retroactive for the entire year but, as far as I have been able to determine, that question was never asked, even in the Finance Committee. There's also the possibility that other money exists in the Solicitor's salary line item that could also be used for these raises in this fiscal year. These would include the amount over budgeted for Mrs. Mejia's salary (which is more than she is allowed to make by ordinance) and any money budgeted for Mr. Miller's salary that was not used (wasn't able to find that if there was any). Why all of these actual details weren't discussed the other night, I'll never know. But now, it’s a done deal and time to move on, but not to forget.
The other piece that caught my eye in the Advocate was this week's installment of the bludgeoning of Stat Smith. This week, it came in the form a letter to the editor. The name of the letter writer was "withheld upon request". Just the usual recycled stuff about Stat with the twist being dragging the Stephanie Smith residency issue back into the spotlight...again! I don't know about the rest of you but I'm getting really tired of this issue. I have no idea where Stephanie lives but I can't see it being difficult to figure out. Didn't Mr. Jordan file a complaint with the city and the state ethics commission about this last Semptember? I just don't understand why this issue can't be sorted on in this amount of time, one way or another. Just issue an official statement and take any action, if necessary, and let the rest of us move on.
|
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
1756 Posts |
 Posted - 02/14/2009 : 11:58:43 AM
|
I cant for the life of me...with layoff's approaching and happening as we speak............people worried about how to feed their families and loosing their homes.... giving a 22.74% percent increase to a city worker.
Does anyone know anyone, City of Everett worker or otherwise.....at this time of crisis......... that is getting a 22.74% increase??
Screams of political favors all on the taxpayers and this is exactly what Carlo DeMaria said would NOT happen. It's happening now more so then EVER!
As for the bludgeoning of the Smith's......enough is enough. The State Representative has had his family name tarnished throughout the city, courtesy of the Advocate. Stat needs to take this harassment to the next level. As for Stephanie, if they had solid ground proof that she does not live in Everett, it would have been taken care of already. Why only bring this stuff up about her when election's are approaching. Because....it all comes from nasty people, that will one day get theirs.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Everett Advocate Newspaper
