``To be perfectly honest, [the NGF study] made my decision. . . . I came away thinking that this isn't going to work. . . . [T]he piece of property gives me goosebumps.''- Joyce Terrio, Selectman ``I thought it was a great idea; I still think it's a great idea. . . . We [he and Joe Byrne] both know it's in trouble because of the numbers. . . . My responsibilities to the town have to outweigh the desires of my heart''
- Jack McFeeley, Selectman
Question 1, Schools:
Yes 794, No 339, Blank 17 (69% / 29% / 1%)
Question 2, Library:
Yes 632, No 501, Blank 17 (55% / 44% / 1%)
- VR
[This has got to be my earliest post - Wm.]
[I haven't heard anything recently, but they have a web page with status updates. The location is on the corner of Rtes. 1A and 115, across from Tyler's - Wm.]
Based on the presentations done by the library building committee, my answer to both is "Yes!", and I hope people agree and vote to support the library in addition to the KP North Junior High.
[I realize the demographics may not be similar, but I was trying to explore the size of the financial burden towns will impose for one project. After subtracting out state and private grants, the out-of-pocket cost to town residents in Woonsocket and Norfolk are surprisingly dissimilar. However, I am in agreement with your summary of the points to consider, and perhaps adding:
Personally, my thoughts on the library are colored by being a fairly frequent patron myself, and deriving both benefit and pleasure from my visits there. - Wm.]
[Is this the one you had in mind? I had to search for it, but it came up on Google. - Wm.]
[The difference is likely to be the cost of renovation vs. new construction; adding the cost of the architect, furniture and equipment only raises the Woonsocket cost by $21, to $146 per square foot. Overall, however, the two libraries would be similar in final size and cost. What I found interesting, however, is that in Woonsocket the total cost per resident was $95, while in Norfolk it would be $550 - Wm.]
[12/20 Actually, that's Winter 2002 schedule - Wm.]
[Apropos cats, here's a page cat-lovers should like. As luck would have it, I came across it in my hosting provider's monthly newsletter just after having posted the note. - Wm.]
- With the roads becoming more hazerdous with the (long anticipated) snow it is incredibly important that people remember the leash law. A car that could normally get out of the way of a stray dog, may not have that same degree of luck when the conditions are icy/slippery.
- Remember to check on your pets when they are outside. Some breeds cannot hold their body heat as well as others, and their core temperature can drop to dangerous levels.
- If your dog is outside for extended periods, make sure he/she has an ample supply of UNFROZEN water. There are special buckets that can be plugged in to regular wall sockets that heat the water to prevent it from freezing. Snow is NOT an acceptable form of water for any animal to survive on. Actually snow eating can, again, put the animal in more danger from dehydration because of the amount of energy expended to eat, disolve, swallow, and then the body to warm up the mouth/throat again is more than the benefits of the snow in the first place. Along with being outside, a draft free dog house or another suitable place for retreating from incliment weather. And remember, if you're dog is barking extensively... He most likely wants you to bring him in to meet one of his needs.
- Poisonous/Toxic plants. All pet owners should be aware of the following (this also applies to humans as well). Holly (and its berries), Mistletoe (and its berries), and the Easter Lilly are all toxic. The Easter Lilly can cause liver failure in cats. The Poinsetta is considered toxic, but not deadly. Just the same, keeping the decorations/plants away from your four legged friends.
- This one I learned on my own: if you have cats make sure your christmas tree is securely in the tree stand and balanced!!
[What could this be? Frozen water precipitating out of the sky? Last week it was 72 degrees! Could this be normal? - Wm.]
[That AR did, yes. My mistake, and I apologize to have mis-spoken. But is asking Rick Norton the person a few questions the same as talking to NGF the consulting company? Always? Is it the same even after the report is done? After he changes jobs? Admittedly, debating this point is arguing semantics; the truth is it never occurred to me that the exclusion might apply to the circumstances as I understood them. - Wm.]
[Ok, I'll bite ``once again'' - what inaccuracies? As to validating comments - a rumor is either true or not; the source is not relevant. But I never mentioned anyone ``talking to NGF directly,'' what I said was the consultant ``feels pressured to change the conclusion.'' He could have been asked through any number of intermediaries for all I know. - Wm.]
Town administrator Bob Markel did a good job summarizing the contents of the report, and the consultant was on conference call to answer questions.- Wm.Some highlights of the meeting that caught my attention:
- discussion of the golf course is no longer about how much money it will make, but about how much taxpayer subsidy it will require. The scramble now is to find a way to reduce construction costs and find unusual ways to finance the project to not be wildly in the red. There are no longer any positive revenue projections on the table.
- when asked how much revenue the golf course will bring the town, the only answer given was ``it depends on the bond rate.'' (By my reading, under most scenarios evaluated the course would be a net money loser for the town for the next 20-30 years or more. Looking at the return on investment, it's worse - consider, if the town were to invest the $12 million cost into goverment bonds at a low 6% yield, it would net us more revenue ($720,000 per year) than the golf course ever would.)
- the latest thinking on the contamination issue is that the sellers would keep title to the studied and known-affected 12 acres for 15-20 years, hoping that during that time the issues will be resolved. Of course, once the money changes hands, it shouldn't be difficult for a corporate attorney to transfer the title of the 12 acres to an un-funded corporation that will be unable to meet any cleanup obligations; in fact, I don't see anything to prevent the 12 acres from simply being abandoned and left to be claimed by the town for failure to pay the taxes.
- the tentative course layout impinges on three known vernal pools on the property; a more detailed look will have to be taken to see whether the layout can be modified without affecting the quality of play
- the golf committee suggested that they are looking at the possibility of building housing on part of the parcel to help finanace the golf course. The irony of their 180-degree turn, from promoting the course as a way of preventing development to building the houses themselves, seemed lost.
Unfortunately we cannot accept perrishable food donations from residents unless it is within the expiration date on the can/bag.
[The report now says (concluding paragraphs): The challenge that Norfolk may have is finding a way to pay for the land. Given an anticipated construction and permitting process of $4.5 to $6 million, an $8 million level of warranted investment may not leave sufficient room for land acquisition after setting aside funds for bond issuance costs and reserves to cover interest expenses in the early years of operations. - Wm.]
[Note: this revised version of the note links to a copy of the document on a different server - Wm.]
Age Range Number of residents -------- ---------------- 1-20 3062 21-40 2120 41-60 3191 60-over 882Thanks Marie.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Who: Parents or other caregivers with children aged 0-Kindergarten
Where: Norfolk, MA
When: Monday afternoons, 2:00 - 3:00pm
Cost: $1.00 per child per playgroup attended (to cover materials)
[Also visit the CSSL web site, it has a lot of useful and interesting information, including Spanish vocabulary lists - Wm.]
[To summarize: debt service of $940,000 a year for 18 years, vs. expected income of $519,000 per year. Bond rate to be fixed after additional town expenditures (eg. library, fire station, schools) are taken on, affecting our credit rating and thus the interest rate (ok, I looked this up - US T-bills maturing in 20-24 years currently yield 5.6 %; would investors purchase municipal bonds that are both less secure and yield less?) And, in the professional opinion of the National Golf Foundation, borrowing $9 million or more for a golf course in Norfolk is too risky and not warranted. - Wm.]
[The photo, taken in Mass., is linked from the SpaceWeather meteor gallery page - Wm.]
``Certainly arguments could be made that a running level of $675,000 to $750,000 in NOI could be obtained and that this course could generate sufficient income to retire $ 9 to 12 million of capitalized debt. However, in NGF Consulting's opinion, the risks do not warrant the rewards.'' (p. 47) [emphasis added]And, of course, nowhere in the report are the costs associated with the site remediation and environmental cleanup addressed.``NGF Consulting concludes that the most prudent level of capitalization for the proposed Town of Norfolk Golf Course would be in the $6 to $8 million range.'' (p. 47)
``At a 6.0 percent cost of debt (figure used in June of 2001) the warranted level of investment would be more in the $6 to $7 million range. An investment level of $7 to $9 million would be considerably higher than the experience of other recent municipal projects in the state.'' (p. 48)
``NGF Consulting learned that even before September 11 th , overall golf rounds were generally down anywhere from 10 to 15 percent in 2001.'' (p. 3)
``The challenge that Norfolk may have is finding a way to pay for the land.'' (p. 7)
``Compared to other metropolitan areas of the country golf is relatively inexpensive in Norfolk County. At the best courses green fees rarely exceed $40 on weekdays and $50 on weekends. Even guest fees at the better private courses are within this range.'' (p. 26)
``Maplegate, Glen Ellen, Brookmeadow and New England CC represent the principal market competition for the proposed Town of Norfolk golf course. The Town of Norfolk golf course must provide services equal to or better than these existing golf facilities.'' (p. 30)
This is a hearing required by state law on tax classification. Many communities, particularly larger cities, use the provision in the law which allows residential property to be "classified" at a lower tax rate than so-called CIP (commercial, industrial and personal property). Norfolk has never done this owing to the small amount of commercial and industrial property. Norfolk uses a single tax rate for all property in the town. The tax classification hearing in Norfolk is thus a formality required by law. There will be no change from current practice.
On Pg 6 (and repeated later in more detail) they evaluate the "warranted investment" is $9.8 million with a 4.25 % interest rate and only 6.9 Million at the higher 6 % interest rate - these figures are lower if the expected rounds is less. [and higher if there are more rounds played]
From a prudence standpoint it seems one should plan for the worst-case - so an investment of $10 million seems too much for a successful course that would contribute to the town finances. The appendix with comparison courses is also interesting. Bridgewater is highly successful - but that course has a bond of only $5 million (half the proposed cost of Norfolk) because the land had been purchased 20 years before. (Pg 48)
[Excerpted from Pg 5]
($ thousands of dollars)
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | |
| Net operating income before debt service | $ 16 | $ 329 | $ 340 | $ 430 | $ 519 |
[11/14 11:49pm Update: It's draft because some diagrams and maps are still missing. The report is also available from the golf committee documents page; it's the topmost one, ``Draft Feasibility Study 11/13/01''. I'll leave the local copy for the time being, but will eventually remove it and simply link to the one on the golf committe page. - Wm.]
[11/11 7:30pm Update: It looks like the new senior center is nearly complete. Though it does seem like the parking lot takes up a lot more space than it needs to, and that it's more a hike to the building from the cars than it could have been - but hey, selling the dirt is pure profit, why skimp. Builders must love Norfolk for the limitless free gravel and topsoil they get as part of any town job :-) - Wm.]
[The cynic in me wonders whether the developer was ever interested in anything beyond operating an unlicensed quarry and making a quick buck . . . It sure is ugly, though, and I miss the blueberry and blackberry bushes that grew on the hillside. But I think there are things worse than even this moonscape - the paved-over moonscape next to it, for example (ie, the MBTA parking lot). At least this one will green out in a few years, and might grow berries again in a few more. - Wm.]
But I do have to correct some of the claims stated as ``fact:''
I'm sorry that things had to get this heated for these concerns to be come
to fore, but it's been really hard getting responses. It was incredibly
frustrating to be repeatedly ignored or not understood.
Public money is a part of it, but integrity and obligations are the core.
This is more than just a difference in opinions, it goes to the heart of
what is proper procedure to follow in large municipal undertakings.
The golf committee is a town agency, and they are entrusted with representing
our interests in this matter. A golf course is a business venture, and a
municipal golf course makes us all venture capitalists. This is not a little
pet project to amuse and entertain the committee members. We have to be
careful, since like in any risky business undertaking, we could all lose our
shirts on it.
If the committee ``bolsters their case,'' then they are not doing their job.
They are responsible for considering all issues fairly, both for and against,
and addressing them. They can not pick and choose.
I believe they have every good intention, but when having such a large
responsibility, it is not sufficient merely to have good intentions.
Real care must be taken, concerns must be addressed, and questions must
be answered, lest things go wrong.
Regards,
Andras
A few hours after this e-mail, Vijay suggested that I consider posting
the above reply, because she thought it does a good job of explaining
my motives; I sent a second e-mail to Paul to ask his permission.
I have no problem with you posting our back and forth comments and I would
expect you to respond to this one as well.But my comments of yesterday and today
should be included. With high regards, Paul
Yes, this has been my strong impression, and I wanted to voice it. If
they ignore a serious concern, one that is critical to the success of
their project, the first time could be an honest oversight. Once it is
pointed out and they still ignore it, it's negligence. When it's pointed
out a second time and it's ignored, one begins to wonder why they are
hushing it up - at this point they can't say they don't know.
This has happened, and this is no way for a committee to conduct
official town business. I don't know what actual they may have had
for it, but it is not right.
> not directly stated by you. I can only assume from the tone and content of your
Of course it does -- using the CDM report to gloss over serious doubts
raised by another report is not acceptable. The CDM report and the work
they've done covers a tiny fraction of the issues related to the site.
The CDM report also points out a large number of issues about the site
that have not yet been addressed, and additional work that will have to
be done. To rely solely on a positive interpretation of it and ignore
other issues is irresponsible. Their mandate as a town committee also
includes being prudent and responsive to concerns.
> town committee. It seems non-sensical to me for the Golf Committee to take your
CDM may be a well-respected engineering firm, but the work they did on
the Buckley/MAnn property (as documented in the report they filed with
the DEP) is incomplete, and will obligate the property owners to more
work. Their report effectively documents that contamination exists at
the site, that the worst of it was removed, but the amounts left at the
site still exceed the legal limits. Now, you tell me what that says
about their work. Vijay has over 10 years of experience in the
environmental field (doing exactly this type of remediation), and I've
picked up enough from her so even I, a non-expert, can clearly see that
the work done is not up to state requirements. The details are highly
technical, but Vijay did a good job of citing state law by chapter and
paragraph to show which sections are being violated, and her review is up
on Norfolknet for anyone to critique. She does excellent work, even as
a volunteer, and you won't find fault with her technical conclusions.
The real point, though, is not about the quality -- it is that the CDM
work is not sufficient to protect the town if were we to buy the property,
because much more assessment and remediation remains to be done.
> have alleviated some of the PIP's group stated fears that "there has not
It was never a question of how much work, but whether the work is
adequate. Sure work was done at the site, but a lot of work was also
not done which is required of the owners, which will be noticed during
the audit. And if the owner is the town, the town will have to pay.
> mentioned to me before the the PIP meeting that you expected the report that CDM
The consultant carefully dodged the real issues during his presentation.
Jack caught on, that's why he was getting upset, and that's why he was
pressing on several issues (like the PCB's, which were claimed both to
be present and not present). Dangle also several times alluded to the
"Method 3 Risk Assessment" which he did not perform, but he carefully
omitted the fact that the state requires a Method 3 to file a valid
RAO under conditions that exist at this site. Without it, he might as
well not have bothered. And when Vijay's slide went up that pointed to
his pants around his ankles, he did not answer, did did not even read
it, but shut off the overhead projector as quickly as he could.
They are in violation of several laws. You can show the PIP review
to qualified experts and ask their opinion -- none will argue.
Vijay has shown it to four, and they all agreed with her conclusions.
But it's specialized, technical law, and it's very difficult to
explain to non-experts. But it's still the law.
> that if that land is unsuitable for us to purchase, it will become known without
I agree with you. I wasn't trying to ruin anyone's reputation, but I
was angry at being ignored and brushed off. Unfortunately, it took
direct, straight language for people to finally sit up and notice. I
regret it having come to this point, but I feel it was important to get
a dialogue going.
> the opposition claims criminal conduct, my guess is that there will be
This sounds like shades of an argument I read about the recall petitions
a long time ago :-) Ultimately, I believe people volunteer because they
wish to contribute, and put up with the public exposure as part of the
job. Integrity is demonstrated by actions and by explanations. I
believe the best way to avoid being mistrusted is by being open,
forthright, responsive, and honest.
> I have no problem with you posting our back and forth comments and I would
Thank you, Paul, I really do appreciate you taking
the time to write me in this much detail.
Best regards,
The GC has been active and working with the idea of potentially making the
Town better by building a municipal golf course for almost two years. We
have not been able to draw on much empirical golf course development
experience and have sought out that expertise in the best way we knew how.
We have worked under the Town's direction and various committees to ensure
that we were addressing all the important issues and gathering all of the
relevant information that is necessary to make the best decisions we could.
We are not outsiders looking to cash in on an opportunity, rather concerned
citizens who are directly affected by the outcome. One way or the other.
What benefit is it to us to drive something through that is detrimental to
the Town and to our own well-being? It's not just "other people's money".
Our intentions have always been sincere and the thread of the dialogue (here
and in emails) paints a portrait of conspiracy and misdeeds. It is so
disheartening to hear this from our fellow citizens that we live with and
are trying to make a better place for. We acknowledge that as a Town
committee we are held in the public view and as a result accept that we are
open to criticism of our performance and process. We have been faced with
opposition and attack for our idea yet we have refused to make it a personal
issue and have kept to the task at hand. Further than disheartening it
angers me greatly to know the level of effort and honesty that we have put
forth, and then to be accused of lying and false deeds. One person wrote of
fact and opinion and I will challenge anyone to produce any factual evidence
of our dishonesty or deceit. To make such unsubstantiated statements creates
a dangerous atmosphere for one to live in. And one highly distasteful.
We have always held open meetings and invite anyone who wishes to contribute
to the process to attend. It sure would have been nice to have all this
effort put forth during the process rather than after we were approved to
move ahead.
Having said that let me attempt to respond to some of the material posted
previously. This is how it was. We had an idea, gathered as much
information as we could, presented it to the BOS, and proceeded to take
action to provide further information based on advice from those that are in
the know and that we respected for their experience. We informed the town of
our progress as best we could with the resources at hand. We presented to
the Town Meeting and it was approved, understanding that at any time the BOS
could cease the project if they deemed it to be harmful to Norfolk. We
acknowledge there are outstanding issues to be resolved before moving
further and support the BOS' decision to cease if they are not resolved.
The sellers of the land and the Town agreed that any purchase is contingent
on the land being fully permitted and clear of liabilities due to the state
of the land at purchase. There are issues the town can take action on to
protect itself that we are willing to address if necessary. We believe that
all cautionary steps are being taken towards that.
We spent a lot of time researching the demographic feasibility of a course
in town which leads to the revenue projections. WM cites his "common sense
analysis" that leads to a $6.6M shortfall. I would be interested to see what
detailed assumptions, factors and contingencies he/she used for ONE course.
I suppose we had no common sense when we used multiple data sources from
multiple courses? We have communicated many times how we determined our
projections and acknowledge that there needs to be further, substantiated
information produced on the feasibility. A third party, outside consultant
has been hired to do this per the direction of the BOS and if the results do
not come up favorable then again we support a decision to not move forward.
That has been stated publicly.
From WM:
[Ok, we had to look this one up. We're not ``old timers'' enough,
I guess :-) Anyway, here's an
explanation,
and
a picture of their ad.
- Wm.]
PS: that was a butterfly in my bicycle spokes, not windshield, and I
did not kill it, it lived! It flew on! It was not yucky at all!
[They are linked from the menu bar on the side of the page (in the
Municipal Pages section), and the
direct link is through here - Wm.]
Written by Wm:
Re: post by Todd Monjar on deceitful wrongdoing -
I'm sorry you perceive my objections as ``accusations of lying and false
deeds.'' I was trying to point out actions and statements that I found
repeatedly incorrect, and unwilling to be corrected. Insisting that there is
no contamination on the site after having been informed by town counsel, in
writing, that the opposite is true is not very forthcoming. I don't know why
the continued insistence, but one may consider this ``factual evidence of
dishonesty or deceit.'' And with that substantiation, I suppose that should
now dissipate the ``highly dangerous atmosphere for one to live in. And one
highly distasteful.'' I agree about the distasteful, though I ought to make
certain and ask, dangerous to whom? One in general, or to me in particular?
Why, if I didn't know that we live in such a peaceful little town, filled
with kind warm-hearted people, I would think that was a threat.
ARRGGHHHH!!!! This is so frustrating. When has anyone said there is NO
contamination on the land? Maybe you heard that we were told by CDM that
levels
were acceptable with in the state boundries. The GC are not
environmental experts, supposedly CDM is. This seems to be an issue with CDM
and their responses (or
lack thereof) and the CURRENT owners of the land. We are on the same page
sir. But let me state this for the umpteenth time: the GC's clear position
from it's
inception (and LONG before any folks opposed to the idea ever took a
position) is if along the way there arises issues that would prove
detrimental to the Town, that
we would SUPPORT THE DECISION BY THE TOWN TO CEASE DEVELOPMENT OF A GOLF
COURSE IN TOWN. You seem to know so much about the
state of our minds, intentions and thoughts so let me ask this again:
What is in it for us as residents to do something that is detrimental to our
own well-being?
As to my common sense analysis, all of it fits into one short paragraph on
this page. But the next line, even though it incorrectly parses my use of
the term ``common sense,'' requires comment: ``I suppose we had no common
sense when we used multiple data sources from multiple courses?'' If using
data sources from high-profile tourist spots like Cape Cod to compare to
out-of-the-way backwater like Norfolk is common sense, then I suppose you
used it.
Next time please get your FACTS straight. Are Brockton, New Bedford,
Bridewater, Lexington and Holliston (towns that we used) on the Cape? Last I
checked
they were not....
(Ok, that was a cheap shot. I'm sorry.)
Par for the course, pun intended. I'm sorry.
But I do have to correct some of the claims stated as ``fact:'' ``[T]here
are steps in place to determine the severity [of soil and water
contamination left] and acceptability
is a fact'' - umm, no, this is not a fact. No consultant has been hired to
run independent tests, and without them, the extents and severity can not be
measured.
Very much agreed and until those studies are done NO ONE knows what is
fact. The steps I referred to are IF the project moves forward.
The Earth Tech report has such a tiny budget that it will barely reach to
reading the existing reports, and we know what they say (well, ok, if one
chooses to ignore the PIP group then one has to repeat that work and pay for
it, but the rest of us know what the reports say).
It would be nice to be so clairevoyant. The scope of the feasibilty study
is limited. The purpose is to help determine if there is enough revenue
potential to warrant
developing a course. Earth Tech will assess what to expect for
environmental issues. They are not contracted to solve every environmental
issue at this early stage.
As to the area needed for an 18-hole course - forget 150 contiguous acres;
how large a golf course will fit on 117 total? Championship size? This is
another important question that affects the financial projections, which has
been quietly ignored. The CSM report ``assumes'' ``permitted availability,''
ie. that special permits will be given to allow some environmentally
restricted land to be developed. The BSC report ``assumes'' this will not
happen. The BSC group specializes in wetlands assessment, the CSM group in
building golf courses. Which one would make a better assumption about
wetlands? Two assumptions - place your bets, folks, and let it spin!
And you are so certain that only 117 will be available? Why should the
Town spend money on consulting and permitting studies when they can ask you?
I choose not
to make any bets on assumptions if I can help it. I would prefer to see
real facts that cannot be disputed. We have not got there yet.
``That the buildings and materials left on the property are safe and the
purchase of the land is contingent upon that is a fact.'' - See, I again
have a problem with that statement. Asbestos siding? Lead paint? ``Safe?''
Sure, as long as we don't have to drill, hammer, scrape, wire, plumb, or
demolish. But the real problem is not safety, it is the legal liability for
cleaning up contamination as required by law. Town counsel informed the golf
committee of this before. We don't know what's in the yard, below the
foundation, under the drains (But we do know what's at the bottom of the
carbonizer lagoon, and that alone will be a pretty penny to remove). What we
don't know will cost real money to find out, more than all the feasibility
studies to date combined. Until that's done, saying ``safe'' is dodging the
issue, and playing donw a serious
concern; not about safety, but about cost. Oops, was that another
substantiation, again helping dissipate that oppressive atmosphere?
If you have followed the course of action then you would know that the
Mann's said they would be responsible for any cleanup of the buildings.
Before the Town
makes any purchase. If after this activity the buildings or land are not
safe then I suspect the land could not be permitted and we stick to our
initial position and do not
go through with the purchase. But we don't know that yet.
``[T]hat the taxpayers of our town would receive full effects of additional
revenue from a successful course is a fact'' - umm, again I have to dissent.
Technically, the above is true, but technically, all that it says is that
the town will get the benefits of any money the town will get. A tautology.
By my understanding of how Enterprise Funds work, the golf course can keep
as much of the profits as it wishes to reinvest in the course. Anything
spent on the course would not benefit the taxpayers, even if we had the
nicest and shiniest carts and the lushest and greenest lawn (well, with the
exception of the golfers among us taxpayers, of course). I.e., the golf
course takes all it wants, and what it can't use is the town's. Unless
another Enterprise Fund business is started, which will automatically has
first dibs on the money. Now, since I'm not fully up on this aspect of town
finances, I can't argue that this is yet another unsubstantiated claim just
to sway support; perhaps someone familiar with Enterprise Funds can educate
me.
You say, "the golf course can keep as much of the profits as it wishes to
reinvest in the course." Who do you infer the "golf course" is? Are you
aware that the Town
and the BOS are to decide how to allocate generated funds back to the
town? The GC has no say in how to manage the town's funds.
``[I]t is a bad habit to offer irresponsible opinions regarding the
integrity of other people.'' - fully in agreement here.
- Todd Monjar
[(``Now, there you go again'' - Ronald Reagan.) Providing a written answer,
instead of in person, and at a later time, not at the meeting at which
the question was asked, IS ``declining to answer the question in public.''
Giving a public answer (ie, disclosed but written) is not the same as
giving an answer in public (ie, subject to feedback and follow-ups). - Wm.]
The Spring 2001 Town Meeting did not vote $10 million plus dollars to do a
study. It voted for land purchase and construction money. What it gets
after the fact is a feasability study, paid for by monies voted at an
earlier meeting. Can you see where perhaps the chronology is a disordered
here? Am I misrepresenting, exaggerating, or lying yet?
The post by Paul Guertin
that started the e-mails:
10/23 2:59pm
To Wm and others: I find it rather unfortunate in this debate over the
golf course that because public money is at stake some folks seem to
more than willing, and even anxious, to smear the motives and integrity
of those who would
spend it. I totally agree that there are some serious questions about the
suitability of the property in question, but as far as I can tell no one is
manufacturing data but rather seeing it in a way that bolsters their concerns.
This goes for both sides. To suggest that someone is "criminal" by purposely
misleading the town, in my mind, goes way beyond a civil presentation of one's
case. It always makes me suspicious when one side decides that it all right to
demonize the other side.
My reply:
Hi Paul,
Paul's reply back:
Andras-The implication in all that you say is that the Golf Study Committee
is purposely withholding negative information from the public for some reason
not directly stated by you. I can only assume from the tone and content of your
comments that for the Golf Committee to rely on the Camp Dresser McKey report
represents irresponsible and perhaps criminal negligence of their mandate as a
town committee. It seems non-sensical to me for the Golf Committee to take your
position, that the CDM report is not worth the paper it is written on. CDM is a
respected, established firm that does this work everyday. The PIP meeting should
have alleviated some of the PIP's group stated fears that "there has not
been any work done on the site." It seemed to me that their report
demonstrated that there has been quite a lot of work done at the site. You
mentioned to me before the the PIP meeting that you expected the report that CDM
was about to give would expose them with their pants down, showing them to be in
violation of several laws and practicing shoddy methods. I did not come away
from that meeting with that opinion. I believe that the bottom line is
that if that land is unsuitable for us to purchase, it will become known without
having to ruin anyone's reputation. If in out attempts to do the right thing,
the opposition claims criminal conduct, my guess is that there will be
fewer and fewer attempts to do the right thing out of fear of one's
integrity being called into question.
And again from me to Paul:
> From nctv3@earthlink.net Wed Oct 24 13:38:59 2001
>
> Andras-The implication in all that you say is that the Golf Study Committee
> is purposely withholding negative information from the public for some reason
> comments that for the Golf Committee to rely on the Camp Dresser McKey report
> represents irresponsible and perhaps criminal negligence of their mandate as a
> position, that the CDM report is not worth the paper it is written on. CDM isa
> respected, established firm that does this work everyday. The PIP meeting should
> been any work done on the site." It seemed to me that their report
> demonstrated that there has been quite a lot of work done at the site. You
> was about to give would expose them with their pants down, showing them to be in
> violation of several laws and practicing shoddy methods. I did not come away
> from that meeting with that opinion. I believe that the bottom line is
> having to ruin anyone's reputation. If in our attempts to do the right thing,
> fewer and fewer attempts to do the right thing out of fear of one's
> integrity being called into question.
> expect you to respond to this one as well.But my comments of yesterday and today
> should be included. With high regards, Paul
Andras
[Taxes would be good. No housing, little money, zero risk - what's wrong
with that? See also my comments about Enterprise Funds at the
bottom of the previous post - Wm.]
There is a reasonably clear difference between opinion and fact. Since there
seems to be some confusion on this issue, however, let's review:
That the golf course is a good idea is an opinion.
Agreed, that the golf course is a bad idea is an opinion.
That there is soil and water contamination left in place on the Buckley/Mann
property is a fact.
Agreed, and that there are steps in place to determine the severity and
acceptability is a fact.
That the course will receive all the necessary permits and waivers is an
opinion.
Agreed, see above.
That almost half of the total proposed course area is restricted wetlands is
a fact.
Based on the BCS report you summarize, BCS "assumes" (not a fact) that
150 contiguous acres are required for an 18 hole course. A professional
architect familiar
with Wetlands protection stated an 18-hole course could be built,
depending on permitted availability. See next comment.
That players will flock out in droves to pay high prices is an opinion.
Agreed, and I would be curious to know how to qualify "flocking out in
droves". We have never used this term to identify potential revenue from
rounds played. Please
see above regarding awaited results from 3rd party feasibility study.
That two, perhaps three towns draw their drinking water from the same area
the course would be dumping lawn chemicals and pesticides on is a fact.
That courses can be and are architected to protect nearby ground water
from said chemicals, more so than the chemicals and pesticides that the
abutters of the land
put on their own lawns, is a fact. Case in point, Widows Walk Golf
Course in Scituate has a Town well in the middle of the course.
That the golf course will make money is an opinion.
Agreed, that the golf course will not make money is an opinion.
That the taxpayers of our town would be financially obligated to pay off the
loan is a fact.
Agreed, and that the taxpayers of our town would receive full effects of
additional revenue from a successful course is a fact.
That the industrial buildings, materials, and unlicensed dumps left on the
property are safe is an opinion.
Agreed, see above permitting and liability issues. That the buildings
and materials left on the property are safe and the purchase of the land is
contingent upon that
is a fact.
That the property title holder is responsible for cleaning up industrial
contamination to applicable standards, regardless of the cost, is a fact.
Agreed, see above and current title holder is Mann.
Opinion and fact are not interchangeable. It's a bad habit to treat them as
such. - Wm.
Agreed, and it is a bad habit to offer irresponsible opinions regarding
the integrity of other people.
> If an argument can't be made in a public forum why
> should we believe what is written here.
[It should be pretty clear which posts are by the Webmaster, since they're the
only ones that are unsigned in Roman (as opposed to
Italicized) font.
[Update: I've had it pointed out that not all browsers render both Roman
and Italic fonts as expected (oops, thanks, Mom! :-), and in that case I
apologize for the confusion my practice may create. I will try to be more
explicit in the future - Wm.]
[A couple of corrections - Vijay (aka VJ) is a member of the PIP group,
Andras is the Webmaster (aka Wm.)
[Update: the slide that was quickly removed by the CDM consultant,
which listed the legal shortcomings of his report by reference to
state law section and paragraph, is available
on-line here - Wm.]
"Enough with the numbers we have hired a consultant to give an objective
comment on the financials (factoring in environmental issues cost).
Environmental issues will be addressed at the PIP meeting tonight, the
12 acres in question have had work completed and submitted to the DEP by
CDM (a leading LSP in Mass.) on behalf of the Mann's."
Not all environmental issues will be addressed at the PIP meeting
tonight. The PIP meeting is specifically for the contamination issues
related to the Buckley and Mann property. The PIP meeting will not
address the environmental permitting related to wetlands issues or water
supply. Generalized statements made as above makes one believe that
this meeting is all encompassing and that is not the case.
[If I went too far in using the word ``criminal,'' I apologize - Wm.]
[By the way, if you can attend, do consider going to the PIP meeting
tonight (at 7pm in the Freeman-Centennial auditorium). The meeting will
not address all the relevant environmental questions, since this is only an
opportunity for the community to ask questions of CDM (the consultants who
performed the partial cleanup work of the 12 acres), but it should be
interesting to learn why they thought that looking at only 12 out of 140
were enough, why they did not deal with the other contaminated areas they
located on the premises, and how leaving contamination in place will
satisfy state law. - Wm.]
As I said, this is the abridged version; I elaborate in more detail in
the summary.
[Update: we are informed that the $10.7 million appropriations bill,
HB 4423, was passed to be Engrossed by the House today - Wm.]
[Job well done! - Wm.]
[The full NCTV schedule is made available by Paul
on this page - Wm.]
[This would pretty funny too, if we weren't left holding the bag - first haul
off all the topsoil, then try to dig a septic system into bedrock! - Wm.]
[Actually, so that the picture could *not* be taken - the first thing they
did was blast the rock outcrop that I stood on when I took the photo - Wm.]
[The NCTV schedule is linked from the About Norfolk section of the menu bar
on the left - Wm.]
[And we're in luck; at last Thursday's golf committee meeting the chairman
stated that there is no written Purchase & Sales agreement yet, and that the
agreement specifies ``no contamination''. Apparently, the town still has
some options open - Wm.]