I would like to thank Patrick Berry, owner of the Westfield News Group for his invitation to the City Council members to submit articles. He has proposed a weekly rotating schedule and this should allow you, the voters, to be informed on the issues in front of Westfield.
I would also like to thank the voters for electing me to the City Council. It is a high honor to once again have an opportunity to represent the citizens of Westfield in elected office. Congratulations to Mayor Sullivan on his election. A new administration, filled with new energy has an opportunity to make great progress.
The Council President, Brent Bean, has assigned me to the following committees of the Council: Business Development, City Properties, Government Relations and Chairman of the License Committee.
As of this writing, only the License Committee has met. Recent business in front of the Committee included the granting of a “Junk Dealer” and a “Junk Collector” license to Furniture Recyclers, located in the Hampton Ponds Plaza. The term “Junk” essentially refers to previously owned items. Upcoming business includes a meeting on the same licenses to a different business on Court Street. That meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Feb. 18 at 6 p.m. in City Hall.
An exciting development is occurring now on Elm Street. The Flahive Building, recently purchased by the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA), has begun to be demolished. I strongly believe that in this coming year, the city should move to acquire the three remaining properties on that site. The PVTA plans to begin construction of their new facility later this year. If we were to acquire the remaining parcels, demolishing and clearing of the site could coincide with PVTA construction and our request for development proposals could be advertized close to the time period when the Gas Light District construction is completed. It has been a long time coming on Elm Street and we are stepping closer to the finish line. There have been a number of city officials and citizens that have served on the Westfield Redevelopment Authority that have worked with Mayors and Councilors past and present. Thank you to all of them for continuing to move the “ball” forward.
A great Happy Birthday to all of those people who were born in February. I know in my family, February was a big birth month. My brother Michael, my mother Alice, my wife Tricia and son Jack (on the same day) and my Connecticut Cousin Hanna all have a birthday celebration this month.
I’ll close my column this month with a response to my good friend the Ward Four Councilor, Mrs. Mary O’Connell, who wrote a column in last Saturday’s newspaper. As some of you who follow Westfield politics know, if I said it was raining out, she’d likely proclaim that is was bright and sunny. Such is the way it goes. On January 4th, at our first meeting she pledged to be a kinder and gentler councilor by proclaiming to us and the voters that she was going to work to put past animosity aside and work with her colleagues for a better Westfield, or something to that effect. That pledge, made at our very first meeting, seemingly doesn’t apply to me. And with her article last week, she seems to have gone astray already.
Among some of the incredible inaccuracies in her article she claims the Ashley Street School has been certainly delayed because of … and I quote, “The past administration failed to follow the law.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The process of building a new school is long and arduous. We had an opportunity to obtain close to 70 percent reimbursement on this project back in a time when the economy was still in terrible condition. Faced with the closure of three schools within a short amount of time, this process began in 2009. There were many hurdles along the way, and the law was followed as we knew it at the time. To make an incredibly long story short, it was brought to our attention, by opponents of the school that it may be subject to certain conditions of the National Park Service. Instead of working to resolve this issue directly with the city, the opponents filed a restraining order in Superior Court in 2012. That order was subsequently reversed by the Court a year later. In effect, Judge Ford, looking at the case, agreed to lift the order as the city had pledged to find suitable replacement property for a 1.37 acre portion of the 5.10 acre site. Additionally, the Judge did not agree that the property was protected park land per Massachusetts General Law. That case is presently under appeal.
She goes on to say that the city will now have to pursue other alternatives because the appraisal the city performed on the Ashley Street site was not done properly. The truth is that the National Park Service, in a letter dated to the State of Massachusetts on November 23, 2015, provides a pathway for the city to address the identified deficiencies within the report. It is important to note, that by their own admission, the NPS had already approved this transaction, but persistence by the opponents, has caused the office to issue this letter.
The good news is, the city’s consultant, addressed the NPS concerns in a letter date January 25, 2016. Having read both documents, I would categorize the deficiencies as rather minor as opposed to fatally flawed. In any event, the Councilor from Ward Four would have you believe this avenue of conversion is now a dead end and the city must move on. The truth is… from the NPS letter, that once the city addresses their concerns, the state will need to review the document to ensure compliance. Then the letter from Mr. Jack Howard, Manager of State and Local Assistance Programs states, “It should be noted that if it is found that the replacement property is not of at least equal fair market value to the converted property, additional or alternative replacement property will be needed.”
By reading the Ward Four councilor’s article you would not have came to that conclusion. So where are we now? Much like in 2009 when we started this process, the city’s options are limited. This site was selected for its proximity to Abner Gibbs, which was the originally cited closing school, its past use as a school, and the fact that the state reimbursed the city for demolition of a building that needed millions of dollars in repairs to stay viable as an office building. That coupled with the accessible locations of utilities and at the crossroads of two major roadways made access very good. The site was assembled by purchasing three parcels from two owners. Both owners I might add, were very much willing participants to the real estate purchase. The School has received all of its needed permits, it meets all of the city requirements for a building in this zone and the open space requirement.
The fact is, a small group of neighbors is opposed to this school. But I can also tell you (because I live in this area) I am frequently asked by other neighbors, “When will this school get built?” They have told me in very clear terms it isn’t the whole neighborhood that is opposed and those that want the school appreciate the opportunity that a new school could have on raising the value of their property.
Presently many of the Ward Four Councilor’s student population attend school in Russell. The Ashley site is by far the most cost effective. It was assembled without eminent domain land takes, and that says something as many of our past projects had that as an obstacle. The opponents have two outstanding court challenges on the horizon and the city is diligently working to address the National Park Service concerns. I would hope she takes a “mulligan” and gets back to her pledge for the good of all our citizens.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not the staff, editor, or publisher of this publication.
