Friday, November 24, 2006

Lynne Simonds for District Four

Lynne Simonds for District Four

Why we need to support Lynne.

Lynne has been a good friend of mine for some time now. I have never met someone who is as passionate or committed to this District as Lynne. She seems to be everywhere I turn - helping with the new park being built by Women Together, meeting with seniors in the Webster Towers (she was the only dancing candidate at one forum), standing up against tax sweetheart deals, and promoting a great platform for everyone in the district.

WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO ME IS THAT LYNNE IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD CANDIDATE!!!!!!!!

Contrary to rhetoric about people who are "pro-neighborhood." Lynne lives it - she's been here for decades, slogging it out for youth, for cleaner parks, for cleaner properties, for less crime, for less dumping and more economic development.Second, she stands up for all citizens in the district, from what I have seen - whether helping College Hill neighbors worried about developments that include dynamiting ledge, or a real plan to help Elm Park. This is a campaign that is important for the people of this district - it is a microcosm of Deval Patrick's campaign insofar as there is a mass of grassroots people powering Lynne's run, and I can tell this groundswell will match the 100 plus volunteers we had last election day.This campaign is crackling with energy already, and I am rearing to go.Lynne Simonds for District Four

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Worcester Mag

Just came out today. Correct if I am wrong but are the ten worst properties listed in the issue in District 4?? It appears that way to me.. What particularly bothers me is that DJ Realty (Conrad Swartz) properties on Grand Street (39-43) and Grand and Canterbury corners has been on the worst ten properties for years.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Sweetheart Dealing in Main South



Shame on Who?

Worcester Magazine should be complimented on their “30th Anniversary Issue” especially their section highlighting their “Most Controversial Stories.” Every time I ride by 809 and 811-813 Main Street, I want to thank WoMag for their January 16, 2003 cover story, entitled “Sweetheart Deals,” which has since prevented transactions exemplified by the sale of these blighted vacant lots.

In the summer of 2002, the City of Worcester Executive Office of Neighborhood Services had control of these 2 abutting lots on Main Street. The first was 809 Main Street (8,400 sq feet) and the second was 811-813 Main Street (4,695 sq feet). Imagine the potential of 13,095 square feet of land on a heavily traveled Main Street; the possibilities are endless.

What happened to these lots?

Although there was an advertised auction by the City Treasurer for these lots and three parties, which I am aware of were interested in bidding; the properties were never auctioned. Instead these two parcels were sold separately to the 800 Main Street Realty Trust, via direct negotiations on August 19, 2002.

Book Page Address Price Buyer

27246 252 811-813 Main Street $10,000 800 Main St Realty Trust

27246 256 809 Main Street $17,500 800 Main St Realty Trust

Why were they sold separately?

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (40B) requires a public bid, if the $25,000 threshold is broken. Although the total sale price exceeded $25,000, the requirements of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to publicly advertise these parcels were avoided by conducting two separate sales under $25,000 each.

What was suppose to happen to these lots?

Per the terms of the deed, the land is to be exclusively for off street parking for the adjacent properties abutting this land. More importantly the commencement of the development of this land had to start within one year. Although work has begun on a parking lot at 807 Main Street, no work has ever been started on these specific lots.

Who is the 800 Main St. Realty Trust?

The person who signs, as trustee for the 800 Main Street Realty Trust, is Frank Zitomersky. One of trustees, however, was City Councilor Barbara Haller, but she terminated all interest in the trust in a document (bk 28006 pg 147) dated December 13, 2001, 9 months prior to these sales. This document, however, was not recorded until 3 months after the sale recorded on November 6, 2002.

807 Main Street

Councilor Haller must really like the 800 Main Street Realty Trust, because she sold 807 Main Street (10,930 sq ft) for $1 (bk 25928 pg 357) to the 800 Main Street Realty Trust on February 8, 2002. Why would anyone sell a property (807 Main Street) for $1 in February, 2002, to the 800 Main Street Realty Trust, when she supposedly had no interest in this trust effective December, 2001?

807 Main Street Corp

On August 19, 2003 (exactly one year after the initial sale), 809-811-813 Main Street were deeded (bk 31292 pg 117) from the 800 Main Street Realty Trust to 807 Main Street Corp, Frank Zitomersky, President. Can the City of Worcester now enforce the terms of the initial sale to the 800 Main Street Realty Trust on the 807 Main Street Corp to develop the parcels into off street parking?

This is my response to the accusation of “Shame on Womag” for calling this a “Sweetheart Deal.” My detailing of the transactions of theses parcels is to let your readers decide for themselves. It is also to validate the thinking of and to give a voice to other developers, businesses and residents of Main South who for a long time have believed it was a “Sweetheart Deal.”

Sunday, November 12, 2006

REAP Ordinance

In light of the City Manager's new 5 year plan to limit borrowing and improve the City "free cash" position, it only makes sense for a stronger enforcment of the REAP ordinance. I believe it stands for Revenue Enforcement and Protectin (REAP), I could be wrong. Both goals of the City Manager are extremely important to maintain our bond rating. A slight drop in the rating next year can cost the City of Worcester millions of dollars.

It more or less says if you want to do business in the City of Worcester; for example, licenses to sell alcohol, building permits, occupancy permits etc, you can not owe the City of Worcester any monies. It only makes sense. Why would I do something for you, if you owe me monies??

The City of Worcester needs to enforce this ordinance to its fullest extent.