The Truth Squad
Here in Chelmsford... the Truth has been twisted.

Our Squad is comprised of ordinary citizens who are dedicated to making sure that the Truth is evident... despite the flagrant lies of just a few.

A letter from Affordable Housing Plan Committee member Paul Haverty in response to Roland Van Liew’s February 3, 2012 email newsletter.

Dear Residents of Chelmsford,

Once again Roland Van Liew has circulated an email newsletter attacking the recently passed Affordable Housing Plan. This latest attack contains many incorrect statements and/or omissions of important details. I have included Mr. Van Liew’s text, with my response in white bold italics which are highlighted in maroon.

----------

RVL:
As reported in the Chelmsford Independent this week, a Chelmsford landowner is refusing potentially lucrative opportunities to sell his 13 acre forested land holdings for housing development between Westford Street and Bridge Street near the center of town.

RESPONSE:
Although this statement is true, curiously, Mr. Van Liew neglects to mention that the proposal to use the land in question for housing development was made by his former attorney, Richard McClure. It is difficult to believe this oversight was unintentional.

RVL:
Dr. Paul Canniff and his wife hold the land in trust and have a forestry restriction on it which has to be renewed every 10 years. The Canniffs plan to renew the restriction on the “pristine” land in 2014, despite talk that the land would be valuable to 40B developers.

RESPONSE:
I am happy that Dr. Canniff intends to renew the forestry restriction. A fuller report by Mr. Van Liew could have noted that the Chelmsford Housing Authority declined an offer to purchase a portion of Mr. McClure’s property for access to the back 13 acres, because it determined that this property was not suitable for housing development. I can only presume that Mr. Van Liew omitted this significant piece of information because it did not fit his narrative.

RVL:
The land has intrinsic value as watershed and wildlife habitat. Given the virtually nonexistent services the town has to provide, the taxes paid by the Canniffs improve the fiscal health of the town. Their resistance to development contributes to everyone’s quality of life and to the town’s fiscal solvency.

RESPONSE:
Because the land is restricted, Dr. Canniff has been paying very little tax on this property. Keeping this property restricted, while admirable, is not contributing to the Town’s fiscal solvency.

RVL:
It’s too bad that public officials on the Affordable Housing Committee, the BOS and the Planning Board don’t value of open space the same way as this civic-minded private citizen. The AHC “Plan,” approved by both the BOS and the PB, calls for dozens of acres of several town-owned open space parcels (including “Oak Hill”) to be developed into high-density 40B and 40R housing over the next few years. The plan isn’t just idiotic, it’s genuinely harmful to every aspect of the community: our fiscal health, the quality of life for residents, and the dwindling natural environment.

RESPONSE:
This paragraph is written to suggest that the Affordable Housing Plan lists multiple town owned properties as appropriate for development. In fact, the only such property listed is Oak Hill, and that was listed with the caveat that it requires further study to determine if it is actually appropriate. In decrying the Affordable Housing Plan as “idiotic”, Mr. Van Liew has clearly failed to appreciate the purpose of adopting an Affordable Housing Plan, which is to provide the opportunity to protect the Town from inappropriate Chapter 40B developments. More than one hundred cities and towns throughout the Commonwealth have adopted Affordable Housing Plans approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development, including the town of Carlisle, which Mr. Van Liew has previously held up as an example of having the appropriate strategy for fighting Chapter 40B developments.

RVL:
Dr. Canniff obviously deserves a big “thank you” from all of us as residents of the community. And town officials deserve the bum’s rush for not only creating a plan to do the opposite of Dr. Canniff with our communally owned assets, but for lying about it as long as possible.

RESPONSE:
The Affordable Housing Plan Committee met for more than two years, with every single hearing posted and open to the public, consistent with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. Perhaps if Mr. Van Liew was able to attend one of these public hearings, he would recognize that his claim that public officials have been “lying about [the plan] as long as possible” is patently false. The creation of the Affordable Housing Plan was completely open and above-board, and Mr. Van Liew’s claims to the contrary are without support.

RVL:
As little as two weeks ago, Phil Stanway of the Oak Hill Study Committee stated that “nothing is decided” and Fran McDougall echoed that “This has nothing to with how can we get in there, what can we put in there.”

RESPONSE:
Mr. Van Liew appears to be unable to grasp the concept that the Oak Hill Study Committee and the Affordable Housing Plan Committee are two separate entities, with differing goals. Neither Mr. Stanway nor Mrs. McDougall were associated with the drafting or approval of the Affordable Housing Plan, and their visions for Oak Hill may not be consistent with that of the Affordable Housing Plan Committee. Mr. Van Liew offers nothing which suggests that these statements were anything other than the absolute truth.

RVL:
But there’s that pesky “Development Production Schedule” right in the Affordable Housing Plan along with supporting prose for hundreds of units at Oak Hill and other open spaces.

RESPONSE:
Mr. Van Liew is correct that the Affordable Housing Plan contains a “Development Production Schedule”, which plans for the creation of 375 affordable housing units, or just enough units to allow the Town to reach its 10% affordable housing requirement. The Development Production Schedule was not included in the Affordable Housing Plan on a whim, it is required by 760 CMR 56.03(4)(c)(2) to be part of the plan. If the Town is able to have its Affordable Housing Plan certified as complying with the Development Production Schedule (by producing the requisite number of units in a given year, there is no requirement that the units produced be the ones envisioned in the Affordable Housing Plan), it will eligible for a one or two-year safe harbor. This would allow the Town to deny inappropriate Chapter 40B projects, such as a potential development of Dr. Canniff’s property, and such denial would automatically be upheld by the Housing Appeals Committee if appealed.

RVL:
Planning Board member Colleen Stansfield repeated the canard that there are no plans to build again this week, stating that the Housing Plan is “just a document we have to produce to give to the state,”and “there are no plans to build.”

RESPONSE:
Mrs. Stansfield’s statement was incontrovertibly accurate. The Development Production Schedule is essentially a “best guess” as to where affordable housing units may be produced during the five-year period in which the Affordable Housing Plan is in effect. The Affordable Housing Plan may still be certified if units are developed in locations different than those envisioned in the Development Production Schedule. Furthermore, the Affordable Housing Plan most certainly does not constitute a plan for, or approval of, construction on any property.

RVL:
The Hillside Gardens 40B, still tied up in court, relied heavily on exhortations in the last Affordable Housing Plan to “encourage” residential development on commercially zoned lots.

TRUTH SQUAD RESPONSE:
While the Hillside Gardens applicant may have pointed to its consistency with the prior version of the Affordable Housing Plan as support for the appropriateness of its project, that does not mean any legal right to build has been granted. The properties which have been identified in the Affordable Housing Plan as potentially appropriate for affordable housing development must still follow the exact same approval process as any other lot in town. At best, these property owners can assert that their site have been superficially determined to be appropriate, however a more thorough review would still be required. On the other hand, properties which have not been listed in the Affordable Housing Plan (such as Dr. Canniff’s property), would be presumed to be inappropriate for affordable housing development. In either event, the property owner will be required to follow the same review process.

RVL:
The Affordable Housing Plan is not a meaningless document at all, and the BOS and Planning Board should not have approved what is essentially a plan to give away millions of dollars in town owned assets to benefit developers at the expense of the community; in short, institutionalized graft.

RESPONSE:
The claim that the Affordable Housing Plan “is essentially a plan to give away millions of dollars in town owned assets” is unvarnished nonsense. Nothing within the Affordable Housing Plan proposes to give away any land owned by the Town. It is simply a document that indicates where affordable housing development may be appropriate in Town, which includes a schedule showing how the Town may reach its 10% affordable housing requirement. The sole purpose of the Town drafting and approving the Affordable Housing Plan was to provide the Town with leverage against unwanted and inappropriate Chapter 40B developments. It is unfortunate that Mr. Van Liew has chosen to demagogue this issue rather than acknowledge that Town officials are taking prudent steps, consistent with numerous other municipalities throughout the Commonwealth, to protect itself from unwanted Chapter 40B development.

Warmest Regards,
Paul Haverty
Chelmsford Zoning Board of Appeals
Chelmsford Affordable Housing Plan Committee

AND

The Chelmsford Truth Squad

_________________________________________________

DPW Facility Study from 2009 rates the Chelmsford and Wilson Street site as most highly scored for a new Central Fire Station with the current location scoring much lower.

There are a couple of flies in the ointment. Besides the strong opposition of residents to such a brainless plan, the matter of the fraudulent acquisition of Center Park by the Eliopoulos clan is far from settled. The town should at least wait until investigations are completed and the situation rectified.

RVL’s continued characterization of a privately-owned and lawfully purchased property as “a fraudulent purchase of Center Park” completely contradicts the facts. Characterizing the purchase of 9 North Road as “fraudulent” is absurd, even if the vicious accusations against Phil Eliopolous were true, because the Town did not own the property and neither party to the transfer is asserting a claim of fraud. What is worse, however, is that it has always been abundantly clear that RVL’s attacks had no basis in fact. The Massachusetts Land Court on two separate occasions failed to find any wrongdoing concerning the construction of the Epsilon building on private property that they purchased lawfully. The State Ethics Commission and the Attorney General’s Office, in response to several requests to investigate, have also found no basis for such allegations. Accordingly, the investigations have been completed, and there is no situation to rectify, as no wrongdoing occurred. Unfortunately, we doubt RVL will choose to accept reality and discontinue his abusive and unfounded attacks on our public officials.

The latest plan is to build a new station next to Town Hall on Route 129, at a cost of some $6 million to $7 million.

Yes, this site is less than one hundred yards from the most highly rated site in the 2009 report and is the least expensive alternative to date.

Permanent Building Committee chairman Pat Maloney has made it clear that the value of any structure will be about half what is spent because of burdensome and inefficient state requirements for administrative oversight and other costs that do not contribute to the structure itself. Maloney has previously pointed out that it would be more cost effective to wait until such state regulations are fixed.

In an earlier presentation for the Chelmsford and Wilson Streets site there was some discussion and comparison to another proposed station in Pelham, New Hampshire and it was noted that public work in Massachusetts is more costly due to requirements for the use of an Owner’s Project Manager, prevailing wage etc. It was never stated that the value of a new facility would be about half of what is spent nor was it stated that it would be more cost effective to wait until such State regulations were fixed. Anyone with a slight sense of Massachusetts policy and politics knows that the current station would long be crumbled into the ground before regulations like these were repealed. In addition, some of these regulations, like the use of an OPM actually aid in protecting the Town.

He’s planning on using the money to fund an unpopular and unnecessary pet project, a new fire station when we have a perfectly good one– in fact, five perfectly good ones.

Apparently, RVL has never visited the current station to investigate the need or has not seen any presentations showing the existing conditions of the Central Fire Station. The entire first level of the Central Fire Station contains structural cribbing to support the bays housing the apparatus. This cribbing effectively negates the use of the first level and reduces the amount of weight allowed in the bays. The living quarters, toilet and laundry facilities, day room etc. are atrocious. Decontamination rooms as well exercise areas are non-existent. Technology is long outdated as well. As for having five fire stations, the 2007 study clearly spells out the need for a five station configuration.

You might ask why he’s doing this. One answer is that it appears to be part of the deal to gain complicity from then Fire Chief Parrow and the Firemen’s union once they found out the Eliopoulos clan was buying the land behind the current station out from under the town and build on it in such a way that it greatly constrained options for the current station. Rather than fight it, Cohen reportedly advised them to join in and support a comprehensive plan to let that land go and relocate the fire station.

Again, the highest rated site in the 2009 study is the Chelmsford and Wilson Streets site. The majority of the members of the Fire/DPW Facility Study Committee were always staunchly against the existing location as a viable site for a new station.

Of course, there’s a little complication in that this is dismissive of the interests of the vast majority of residents of the town.

By whose accounting?

It was a lie when Paul Cohen announced in 2009 that “repairs will cost more than new construction” and it is still a lie now as Paul Cohen tries to provide justifications to build a new station. But Town Meeting has shown a propensity to accept such lies, and too many reps simply vote the way he tells them to.

Regardless of the accusations and who said what, the truth is we have a Central Fire Headquarters that was constructed in 1952 as a volunteer Fire Department serving what was then a rural community of less than 10,000 people. It’s probably safe to say that things have changed a little in the past sixty years. We are now a diverse community of over thirty-three thousand people with major highways, industry, and above all else, hazards that require a modern facility and approach to maintain the safety of the entire community. The truth is, to repair, alter and add to the current facility would cost more as exhibited in previous proposals. The truth is, Town Meeting Representatives are the voice of the citizens and it is highly unlikely that one person wields enough power to sway their membership of 162.

As long as Roland and others continue to make false statements, we will be responding. Please share this page with your friends and neighbors through email and social networking in order to help us keep the TRUTH in the forefront.

Thank you,

THE TRUTH SQUAD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECEMBER 4th, 2011

Here’s the latest from Mr, Van Liew (RVL) in black, with our factual responses in maroon and white:

The Affordable Housing “Forum” last Tuesday provided little in the way of new information but was interesting nonetheless. It was interesting because it cemented home the fact that our top government officials have once again lied to residents for months while laying the groundwork for development that is counter to the public interest and directly in conflict with the expressed wishes of the town’s residents.

We did not see Mr. Van Liew at the Forum. Once again, every opinion that runs counter to his worldview is characterized as a lie, and those who express such opinions are portrayed as actively working against town residents. We are still waiting for specific examples of how the legions of town volunteers have profited from any of their supposed “illegal” and “corrupt” activity. Name calling and character assassination may work for a while, but eventually thoughtful and fair-minded people see the emptiness and the fraudulent nature of such rhetoric. We have faith in the basic common sense and fairness that most citizens exhibit when it comes to evaluating those issues that impact Chelmsford’s quality of life.

The person selected to present the current plan was long time 40B advocate and self-styled “economist” John Edward. As an “economist,” Edward has always placed zero value on open space despite the common knowledge – and all objective studies for the past 15 years, both local and national – that destruction of open space is financially destabilizing to communities, reduces property values for nearby property owners, eliminates wildlife habitat and of course is generally bad for the environment.

The notion that the draft Affordable Housing Plan encourages destruction of open space or that Professor Edward has no regard for the maintenance of same is ludicrous, and reveals either a complete lack of understanding of the Plan or a deliberate attempt by RVL to misrepresent the facts to achieve his exclusionist goals. The Plan explicitly identifies environmental issues, including preservation of open space, as a requirement for evaluating potential locations for affordable housing. Another requirement states a preference for reuse. In fact, of the 14 locations designated as potential sites, only one (Oak Hill) is considered open space, and one other is a vacant lot.

But the really striking thing about Edward is his lack of understanding that taxpayer-provided funding is not “free.” Even economists are supposed to understand that. But Edward has stated that funding a redundant “study” of the Oak Hill parcel with an eye for developing it (despite all obstacles already documented in a state-funded report last year) won’t cost taxpayers anything because the money’s coming from the Community Preservation fund.

Apparently RVL relies heavily on the fact that very few in his audience will bother to actually read the studies and documents that he cites. The so-called “state funded report” itself recommends further study by town officials. Of course Professor Edward and others understand that Preservation Funds are taxpayer dollars.   Voters approved the annual collection and set-aside for such tax dollars to fund just the sort of activity (studies relating to land use) that is contemplated here. Once again, RVL spins the truth by conveniently ignoring the fact that Preservation Fund set-asides were approved by a majority of Chelmsford voters, and their dispersal can only be allocated by elected town meeting representatives. The point is that no additional taxpayer funds will be allocated for such a study. Preservation funds are explicitly targeted for three initiatives: preservation of open space, historic preservation, and promoting affordable housing. Trying to promote the ability of families to continue living in town is a valid form of preservation as codified in state law.

The irony of using “preservation” funds to destroy open space notwithstanding, here’s the really big laugher, presented as a serious point by this dummy on behalf of our entire array of top officials: the proposal to destroy a second town village green, the 66-acre Oak Hill parcel owned by the town, by placing almost 200 units of housing on it, “will guard against unwanted development.”

We are sad that his rhetoric has deteriorated to the level of name-calling. No one has proposed destroying Oak Hill, as anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to the Oak Hill issue can tell you.   Who has designated this area a “second town village green?” and who has proposed that it be destroyed? What has been proposed is a thorough study of the property, as endorsed by the “state funded report” that RVL mentions above to determine if a portion of the property would be appropriate for affordable housing and/or recreation. Open space and historic preservation would be a major component of any plans for the property, as anyone who has followed the issue even slightly understands.
ANY development plans regarding development of this 66 acres or any town-owned land for that matter must by law be approved by Town Meeting. If the town wants to protect itself from private development on sites that are inappropriate, then developing on town-owned land where the town has much more control over what gets developed should at least be considered. That is the position that Town Meeting Representatives endorsed by voting to fund a study.

You know, if I torch my own car that “will guard against unwanted theft.”

It’s just unbelievable.

Edward went on to incorrectly state that “reaching 10 percent affordable housing [provides] leverage when opposing projects proposed under Chapter 40B.” That’s just plain not true. There’s a regional standard that allows the state to rule in favor of developers even if an individual town is over 10%.

RVL should read Mass. General Law, Chapter 40B. Not only does reaching its ten percent (10%) requirement give a town leverage in combating 40B development, it completely absolves it from having to approve 40B applications. Once 10% of a town’s housing stock has attained affordable status under the law, any decision by the town denying a comprehensive 40B project build permit will automatically be upheld. However, until a town reaches its 10% threshold, it remains subject to unfriendly 40B development. The town of Andover is facing this situation currently, as it is just under 10% affordable housing, and it has two large rental developments currently pending, either of which would put the town well over 10%. Because the town was under 10% at the time these applications were filed, and because it did not have an approved affordable housing plan governing the production of affordable housing, it is in the unfortunate position of potentially having to approve two large rental developments. We don’t want that situation to be “business as usual” in Chelmsford. We would prefer that our town take a smarter approach, and plan for its affordable housing development. RVL’s assertion that there is a regional standard that allows the state to rule in favor of developers even if the individual town is over 10% has no basis in fact. Once a town has surpassed its 10% requirement, it cannot be forced to approve additional comprehensive permit applications.

But the big lie is that the state DHCD’s 40B “court” is the final authority. The REAL courts are the final authority. That’s why Aspen Apartments was shot down in court, and why the BOS-proposed “Hillside Gardens” 40B is still in court after years of the town’s officials fighting against residents and businesses who understand what a stupid proposal it is.

No one has suggested that the trial and appellate courts do not have the authority to review decisions of the Housing Appeals Committee (the “HAC” or as RVLcalls it “the DHCD’s 40B ‘court’”). RVL disingenuously omits the fact that over 80% of HAC decisions are upheld on appeal. Furthermore, the references to the Aspen Apartments and Hillside Gardens projects are inappropriate, as neither project was appealed to the HAC. Additionally, a decision on the merits has not been issued in the Hillside Gardens case. We believe the Town should actively oppose inappropriate Chapter 40B developments that have significant problems and that may reasonably be expected to be upheld on appeal. However, we do not believe it is wise to spend many thousands of dollars fighting developments that will almost certainly be approved on appeal, simply because some residents oppose any new development in town. We believe that it is much smarter to plan for the development of affordable housing in Chelmsford, so that we will be in a better position to deny inappropriate projects if and when they are proposed.

Another lie is that 40B private developers pose any kind of current threat. The only 40B developer threatening us is the town itself, that is, the self-interested officials like Paul Cohen, Evan Belansky, Paul Haverty, Jim Lane et al who push this nonsense.

The Affordable Housing Plan is a 5-year plan. The objective is to define a reasonable and legally sustainable strategy for minimizing the undesirable effects of 40B development. RVL seems to think that town officials are free to flaunt state law simply because townspeople don’t like it. Whether RVL likes it or not, the first duty of any local official is to uphold the law. The consequences of not doing so are well documented daily by the media. Whether we like it or not, developers have the legal right to develop land that they own within the confines of the laws and zoning regulations that apply to real estate development. 40B is state law, and the town must abide by its mandates. Until such time as the law is changed, the best town officials can do is to adopt policies and strategies that will minimize its undesirable effects. Given the state of the economy and in particular the housing market the current threat may be minimal (or it may not, as the two large rental projects currently pending in Andover suggest). However, the long-term threat is out there, it is real, and developers will respond to market forces when the economy improves. We all must recognize that reality.

Edward went on to state that because Oak Hill belongs to the town, it presents a “good option” for 40B development. This is the same mentality that led to the only serious 40B development threat in the past six years: Hillside Gardens. That project was the brainchild of Sam Chase, Bill Dalton and Phil Eliopoulos, a town-proposed 40B in cooperation with a developer buddy that is still in litigation six years later because it was such a dumb idea. It’s proposed to be built on commercially zoned acreage abutting heavy industrial firms. Brilliant, eh?

Once again, RVL distorts the facts. Hillside Gardens is a Local Initiative Petition (LIP) 40B project. It was conceived and proposed by a private developer, as required by state law.   After almost two years of the town and project abutters negotiating with that developer to reduce the size and scope of the project, the developer went bankrupt. The land and rights to the project were then purchased by a subsequent developer, and it is that version that is currently in contention. To suggest that a Board of Selectmen or any of its members conceived and worked to implement a 40B building project is a complete misrepresentation of what is possible under 40B. But again, RVL trusts that very few in his audience will bother to check the facts. We can’t think of any action where RVL could show more contempt for his supporters mental ability than his tacit assumption that they cannot think for themselves, and will just accept his version of events as Gospel. How insulting.

Hundreds of residents signed petitions seeking to protect Oak Hill from development. So why is it a good idea to develop it? Where is the petition supporting development? Paul Cohen’s response is always the same: “If that many people signed petitions opposing me, the rest of the town must support my position.”

Answer: No petition is necessary because no development is planned. Town Meeting endorsed a study, that is all.   Town Meeting must also approve any development of any town owned land, which certainly includes Oak Hill.

David Hedison, the handsomely paid Director of the Chelmsford Housing Authority, has never come up with a regional plan or redevelopment plans, despite the fact that the local and regional population is stable. Every unit he builds under 40B contributes to the housing glut and does nothing to ameliorate the need for affordable housing. Every unit he builds using public funds and public space consumes assets that could be used more efficiently for redevelopment and buydowns.

While those who have an affordable place to live may consider any additional housing a “glut,” the Boston Globe reported just this week on the severe shortage of affordable housing in Massachusetts – a situation that studies cite as holding back the state’s economy.

I don’t think that housing that requires an income of over $50,000/year is affordable, do you? But that’s our criteria under 40B. National economists – real economists – have warned that approximately 3 million housing units would have to be destroyed nationwide to restore health to the housing market. But here, instead of redeveloping or buying down existing properties, Hedison just keeps on proposing that we eat up more and more town-owned open space.

The Affordable Housing Plan specifically acknowledges that there is a need to develop/make available affordable units that can be purchased/rented by people who are well below that $50,000 per year threshold. In fact, the plan documents the need for rental units at lower incomes. While the plan must work within Chapter 40B definitions of affordability, the plan specifically designates certain properties for low-income, very-low income, or states that units should be “truly affordable.”

The way to fight unwanted 40B development is not to eat your own. The proper way is through common sense regulation and a focus on the real problems. You don’t see Hedison focusing on Carlisle, because Carlisle has instituted common-sense protections against unwanted development, 40B or otherwise. Chelmsford could do so as well. But the BOS has historically refused to even consider such a path, declining offers for free legal advice and refusing to spend even a couple of hours to protect the town. Instead they opt for multi-million-dollar high-density developments that do nothing to alleviate the real problems of low-income households in the area and create all kinds of problems for the community as a whole.

Comparing Carlisle’s 40B activity to Chelmsford’s is laughable. The main reasons that Carlisle lacks 40B developments relate more to the fact that Carlisle has high land acquisition costs and lacks municipal water and sewer infrastructure. If a developer wants to pursue 40B in Carlisle, he must make a much greater outlay for the land, and then pour hundreds of thousands of dollars more into the project to develop private water and sewer disposal systems. The fact is that the costs of doing a 40B in Carlisle and small towns like it are prohibitive, and there would be little opportunity for a developer to earn any return on such an investment. Chelmsford, by contrast, has relatively affordable land and a utilities infrastructure that is already developed and in place. Towns like Chelmsford will necessarily attract developers, whether or not 40B, because investment costs will be far lower than those for rural communities. It could be said that Carlisle’s “plan” for combating 40B is, “Keep everyone on wells and private septic disposal systems.” That is not an option for more densely populated communities like Chelmsford.

People like Hedison and Edward think wildlife and quality of life are worthless values. Hedison likes to boast of the millions he gets from the federal and state governments for new development as though that money is “free.” He sees eye to eye with “economist” Edward on this point. On average, he blows over $100,000 per unit of public funds on new unit development, sometimes closer to $200,000 per unit. For that kind of money, he could refurbish or redevelopment more total units, and they would be more affordable. Real affordable housing, imagine that!

When private developers build or redevelop property, they subsidize the cost of building affordable units by selling or renting market rate units at the same time within that project. Chelmsford Housing Authority (CHA) costs are high because the units are 100% affordable, and there are no market-rate units included in the projects to offset the costs of building and offering affordable units at below-market rates.

The CHA redeveloped the Highland School into housing. They are currently developing two housing sites to serve veterans returning from Irag and Afganistan. One project is located in Chelmsford and one is in Westford. Both are redevelopment projects; both will be 100% affordable. CHA headquarters is located in the old McFarlin School, a building that was completely redeveloped and adapted for residential housing.

It should also be noted that site acquisition and redevelopment can be very expensive. For example, the CHA has estimated the cost of acquiring and redeveloping the Odd Fellows House in the town center at approximately $200,000 per unit.

But that would require mental effort, and real work. He’d actually have to earn his fat salary. That’s clearly out of the question. And no one on the Affordable Housing Committee, appointed by pro-development ignoramus Paul Cohen, is going to make him earn his salary either. AHC reps Paul Haverty, John Edward, Susan Carter, George Dixon all have a long record of knee-jerk “before you ask the answer is yes” approach to new construction.

Town Manager Paul Cohen did not appoint the Committee. Five members were appointed by their respective town boards: Board of Selectman, Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Conservation Commission, and the Chelmsford Housing Authority. Two citizen representatives were appointed by the Board of Selectman (out of the total of three people who applied).

These people never intended for the development of Oak Hill to be a public discussion until it was a fait accompli. The Affordable Housing Plan still isn’t on the town web site. If you click on the Affordable Housing Committee you get two-year-old information. You can’t get a copy of the state funded Oak Hill report, because town officials have instructed the consulting firm that created it not to hand it out. Town employees have been instructed not to hand it out without prior approval from Cohen and/or Belansky. That’s illegal, but what are we going to do, go to court every time we want a public document? Once again, Chelmsford public officials know that there’s no real penalty for breaking the law, and there’s no real downside to forcing citizens to sue just to retrieve information under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Affordable Housing Plan Committee has been holding public meetings since November of 2009 (in fact, representatives from the RVL-funded Slow Growth Initiative group attended and spoke at the first meeting). The Affordable Housing Plan has not only been posted on the town web site for over a month, it was on the home page – at the top!

It’s the same reasoning that keeps them from providing the town’s Ethics Bylaw on the town website. Too embarrassing! Top town officials violate the bylaw constantly. But Cohen has historically made it very clear the bylaws aren’t for town officials. They’re window dressing to be used only when convenient to harass opponents.

The Town of Chelmsford Code of Ethics is currently available on the town’s website, and has been for some time. From the front page of the town’s website, simply click on “Search Online Documents”, then click on “Municipal Codes and Bylaws”, then click on “Chapter 29, Ethics, Code of.”

OK, so what do we do about the ongoing growthist mentality, petty dictatorship, and graft in town hall? Well, Town Meeting is supposed to act as a brake on this sort of corrupt and self-serving behavior on the part of top-level decision makers. But a lot of Town Meeting is made up of the same officials and their appointees who are the brigands making these decisions. So one of the most important things we need to do is elect Town Meeting members who will represent the values of the town’s residents rather than the small clique of real estate lawyers, developers and realtors, and the town officials who cater to them.

RVL is certainly free to campaign against any town meeting representative he doesn’t like. But to characterize the majority of the dedicated 162 Town Meeting members who devote considerable time and effort to following town affairs, attending Board Meetings, and researching issues to gain a fair understanding of how their votes will impact the town as self-interested corrupt people is beyond irresponsible.    It is contemptible.

Town Meeting rep is an easy gig. It requires attendance at two meetings a year, one in the spring, one in the fall. To be a good Town Meeting rep is exceedingly easy: apply common sense, and reject special interest proposals like the Oak Hill proposal. We know who to replace; we simply need new candidates to replace them in each precinct. Regardless of your precinct, there is a need for good people to run in a few months for town meeting rep to replace the mendicants and brigands who are working so hard to destroy our community. Imagine if all the time and money they spend on creating conflict over new construction could be directed toward improving not only our community, but all of greater Lowell. The difference would be dramatic. It only will take a small commitment from a few individuals to serve at Town Meeting.

RVL should spend some time reading the Town Charter, which defines the responsibilities of a Town Meeting Representative in a straightforward manner. Rather than the “easy gig” and two meetings a year that RVL tries to portray, Town Meeting Representatives are expected to stay abreast of all matters that may come before town meeting, and to make an appropriate investment in time and effort to become and stay informed. That requires considerable and sustained effort throughout the year, and requires “doing the homework.” Town Meeting Members are largely a very conscientious group of people who have demonstrated considerable interest in town affairs, and who willingly give up their spare time to studying and engaging in town issues. To dismiss this responsibility as an “easy gig” is both disingenuous and a gross insult to the many dedicated volunteers who serve the town in this capacity.

If you are an individual who does not have conflicts of interest and would like to combat corruption simply by taking the opportunity to vote in the best interest of the community, please contact us about running for town meeting representative this April. If you’re ready to support clean government, we’ll provide the information and support you’ll need to get on the ballot and unseat the bad guys.

We welcome all who want to make the commitment to serve the town honestly and faithfully. Running for Town Meeting Representative is a good way to start, and we encourage citizens to contact the Town Clerk’s Office for further details on how they may start the process of running for Town Meeting Rep.

A final comment for The Truth Squad:

   If you are fed up with receiving unwanted and harassing emails continually spreading lies and chaos throughout our community please click unsubscribe and remove yourself from RVL's distribution. If the e-mails continue, report this to the Attorney General’s office. Our town has a disease which can only be cured by closing the door on his continuous lies and false information from coming into your homes.

NOVEMBER 22nd, 2011

Here we go again, Folks. Roland Van Liew (RVL)’s latest e-mail trashing our local volunteer town officials, full of the usual unfounded accusations, character assassination, and mischaracterization of events. His current target is the draft Affordable Housing Plan, and his statements are so outrageously misleading that a factual response is required.

RVL’s statements are in quotations - followed by our responses, highlighted in brown :

“The Community Development Office has announced an ‘Affordable Housing Forum’
on Tuesday evening, November 8 at the Police Station conference room to
present their idea of an affordable housing plan.”

The Public Information Session was held on Tuesday November 15, not November 8.

“In short, their ‘plan’ is to build one type of housing – for seniors – that is not really affordable, and that runs counter to everything residents testified we wanted during the
Master Plan Committee hearings.”

It is hard to believe that RVL actually read the plan, because even a cursory reading reveals that it in no way favors senior housing. The Department of Housing and Community Development would not approve a plan that focused only on development of senior housing. In fact, the draft Affordable Housing Plan identifies unmet needs in Chelmsford, and states, “over the next decade, the greatest housing needs in Chelmsford will be for senior housing and various alternatives to single-family housing (housing for individuals living alone, single-parent households, empty-nesters, and younger couples with children). The Plan acknowledges the reality that there are, and will continue to be, different types of unmet housing needs in Chelmsford, and no one single housing strategy will address all unmet needs.

“Chelmsford residents have been quite clear, with multiple petitions signed
by thousands of residents, and with clear messages at the ballot box:

1. We don’t want 40B or 40R projects to be sponsored by the town;

We are unaware of any petitions or actual votes concerning Chapter 40R. Chapter 40B is state law, and Chelmsford must abide by it until we get to the point where 10% of our housing stock is affordable under the State definition. The purpose of the draft Affordable Housing Plan is to provide the town with a measure of protection from inappropriate and hostile 40B developments until we have reached that 10% goal.

2. We don’t want open space to be sacrificed (especially town-owned
open space).

The purpose of preparing an Affordable Housing Plan is to give the town protection from truly unwanted 40B projects. If the town is able to identify appropriate town-owned land that can be used for affordable housing development that would have less negative impact than a potential development on less suitable land, it would be irresponsible not to investigate that opportunity.

3. We don’t want high-density projects.”

That is probably an accurate statement of the feelings of a majority of town residents.   However, if the town does not plan for affordable housing development, it runs the risk of having high-density projects over which it has no control. While RVL may think that it is appropriate for the town to refuse to plan for affordable housing development, that is clearly not in the town’s best interest, and potentially puts the town at legal risk.

“To be plain, the town’s plan, which will be presented at the forum, has the
town aggressively opposing the directives of the town's residents:

1. Advocating for 40B and 40R projects

The draft affordable housing plan advocates for many strategies, including rezoning for expanded inclusionary zoning opportunities, smart growth zoning pursuant to Chapter 40R, and development of appropriate projects under Chapter 40B.

2. Sacrificing priceless town-owned open space for 40B and 40R projects
3. Busting zoning to allow high-density projects that violates everything that townspeople have been saying we want for years. What else did we expect? I certainly didn’t expect less of our self-serving Town Manager, Community Development Director, real estate lawyers and developers who dominate our housing and zoning committees and boards.”

Again, more unsubstantiated attacks on our town officials. What are the specific allegations, and where is the evidence to support them? RVL’s ad hominem attacks are nothing more than nasty and unsubstantiated charges that substitute for an actual fact-based argument in favor of his position. It is clear that RVL believes the best thing that local officials can do in response to potential housing development is to stick their heads in the sand, wait for a developer to file a Chapter 40B application, and then publicly trash the developer, all state officials that have anything to do with housing, and the process itself.

“The most aggressive and destructive vehicle for achieving their objectives
involves the use of the state’s Chapter 40R statute to bust local zoning
without even requiring a zoning variance.”

RVL either lacks even a passing familiarity with Chapter 40R or he is deliberately deceiving his audience. Development under Chapter 40R requires a zoning amendment, which must be approved by Town Meeting. How exactly can Chapter 40R bust local zoning when it is, in fact, a local zoning amendment?

“Some folks are a little confused about the details regarding 40R.”

We can clearly count RVL among that group.

“Basically, the more the town builds on land that’s not already zoned for building, the more money the state coughs up for the operating budget.”

Chapter 40R was passed as a housing production statute to encourage municipalities to proactively allow the development of high-density housing in appropriate locations (a fact that seems to escape Mr. Van Liew), a portion of which must be set aside as affordable. Chapter 40R also allows for mixed-uses, thereby allowing for a conservation of resources, and hopefully resulting in less development on open space areas. In return for adopting a smart-growth overlay district, a municipality receives significant financial incentives from the Commonwealth.

“The net result is that Paul Cohen gets hundreds of thousands of dollars to
help cover up his inept handling of the budget, the real estate lawyers get
lots of business, the Chelmsford Housing Authority is relieved of the
demanding task of redeveloping existing structures, and of course the
developers profit handsomely.”

Shockingly, RVL again launches an ad hominem attack that is utterly devoid of facts. It is well-established that the redevelopment of existing structures is one of the preferred methods employed by CHA. The problem is locating appropriate property at prices that make such projects economically viable.

“Everyone is happy except the current and future residents of the town. Oh,
and except people who really need affordable housing. Because the plan
doesn’t provide truly affordable housing, and it certainly doesn’t target
the demographics that most need housing (young working families) instead
targeting the wealthiest demographic (the elderly).”

We’ve already addressed RVL’s erroneous claims regarding the draft Affordable Housing Plan and senior housing development. However, if he had followed his own advice and had attended the Public Input Session on November 15^th, RVL would have heard David Hedison eloquently explain how the development of even the market-rate units will allow him to provide assistance to more needy families in Chelmsford.

“Chelmsford already has more senior housing than any of the surrounding communities, despite the fact that it is ideally located to serve working families, but CHA Director David Hedison isn’t willing (or isn’t able) to work out a regional plan that
truly serves the needs of the region’s underserved working poor.”

RVL conveniently ignores state laws that REQUIRE Chelmsford to establish 10% of its housing stock as affordable. While we are proud that we can assist many financially-strapped seniors to remain in town, the fact is that Chelmsford is well below the state-mandated 10% requirement.

“But the purpose of this message is to educate folks on how 40R works.”

Or perhaps the purpose is actually to misinform people about how Chapter 40R works to scare them into opposing any new development in town.

“Basically, the town commits to building high density urban style projects on open space where otherwise such building would not be able to occur.”

Chapter 40R allows high-density development in “eligible locations”. The statute defines eligible locations as “(1) areas near transit stations, including rapid transit, commuter rail, and bus and ferry terminals; (2) areas of concentrated development, including town and city centers, other existing commercial districts in cities and towns, and existing rural village districts; or (3) areas that by virtue of their infrastructure, transportation access, existing underutilized facilities, and/or location make highly suitable locations for residential or mixed use smart growth zoning districts.” While this does not mean that a Chapter 40R development cannot, or will not ever occur on existing open space, in no way can this statute be reasonably interpreted as encouraging urban style projects on open space.

“In exchange for sacrificing open space, future financial stability and environmental degradation, the state pays an upfront bonus of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a smaller amount per unit as the units obtain permits and are built.”

It is true that there are significant financial benefits that might incentivize a town to adopt and approve a 40R smart growth zoning district.   It would be wise for the town to pursue these economic incentives as an alternative to leaving itself open for Chapter 40B development with no corresponding economic incentives and with no requirement for Town Meeting approval.

“It’s another way to sell us out on the cheap, just as they did with the “9 North Road” project.”

RVL has no reasonable factual basis for opposing 40R, so he tries to compare it to an unpopular local development that has nothing to do with a Chapter 40R development. His appeal to those who were upset that a private business sold its privately owned land to someone who legally developed it has no place in an intelligent and informed discussion of any Affordable Housing Plan.

“The town’s Affordable Housing Plan is a despicable example of abuse of 40R
to the detriment of the community.”

The draft Affordable Housing Plan has been specifically prepared to give the town the opportunity to deny undesirable Chapter 40B developments. In order to have the plan approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development, the plan must contain a production schedule detailing how the town can achieve its 10% affordable housing requirement. The draft Affordable Housing Plan suggests many different ways in which the town may seek to achieve this goal, including the potential for development (or more likely re-development) pursuant to Chapter 40R. It is puzzling to hear these efforts described as “despicable”.

“Here is a summary of how 40R rewards bad decision-making Link omitted.
Note especially the following, which indicates that for the 165+ units they
are proposing for Oak Hill alone (there are multiple other similar size
developments in the plan), Paul Cohen can expect a half-million dollars in
operating budget revenue from the state the first year or two.”

It is not likely that Oak Hill is an “eligible location” under Chapter 40R, as it is not near the town center, it is not near public transportation, and it is not likely an otherwise highly suitable location. To the extent that Chapter 40R is possible in Chelmsford, the redevelopment of the Stop and Shop site on Boston Road is far more likely to be appropriate.

“It makes sense if you don’t care about the future of the community.
Financial incentives: A primary purpose of Chapters 40R and 40S is to
provide a financial incentive to communities to build smart growth
consistent housing.”

Since RVL doesn’t bother to explain Chapter 40S, we will. If the town approves a Chapter 40R zoning district, it will be protected from the added costs of additional in school-aged children by Chapter 40S. The way Chapter 40S protects the town from increased school costs is by taking the increased tax revenue from the project and the increase (if any) in Chapter 70 funding and subtracting it from the increased school costs. If the increased revenue and Chapter 70 funds are less than the increased school costs, the state will reimburse the town for the difference.

“Four types of incentives are offered.

1) Zoning Incentive Payments: Upon approval of a district a municipality
receives a zoning incentive payment. The amount of the incentive payment is
based on the potential number of new housing units (The maximum number of
units possible under the 40R overlay zone minus the total number of units
permissible under the previous zoning.) that can be constructed in the
district. The incentive payment is disbursed to the community after the
issuance of the approval letter by the Department. Payments range from:

* $10,000 for up to 20 units;
* $75,000 for 21-100 units;
* $200,000 for 101-200 units;
* $350,000 for 201-500 units; to
* $600,000 for 501 or more units of housing.

2) Bonus Payments: A community will also receive a bonus payment of $3,000
for each unit of new housing unit built in the district which is payable
once the building permit has been issued for the housing unit.

3) Educational Costs (Chapter 40S): Communities are reimbursed for any net
cost of educating students living in new housing in a smart growth district.
The reimbursement is equal to the cost of educating students living in new
housing in a smart growth district minus the percentage of new revenues from
the district that would be otherwise be devoted to educational costs and any
increase in state educational aid resulting from students living in new
housing in the district.

4) Funding Preference: When awarding discretionary funds, DHCD and the
Executive Offices of Environmental Affairs, Transportation, and
Administration and Finance must give preference to municipalities with an
approved smart growth zoning district.

Do you remember the “Smart Growth Forum” this summer that preceded this
“Affordable Housing Forum?””

Yes, we remember that forum because we actually attended it. We didn’t see RVL at either session of this forum, so we’re not sure how he can comment on its content.

“Now do you see the pattern? The theme of that “Smart Growth Forum” was that the town has to find ways to become “more friendly to developers.”

Again, RVL did not attend the Smart Growth Forum, so his characterization of the meeting content is nothing more than speculation.

“That’s the religion in Town Hall, thanks to ignorant selectmen, a corrupt and incompetent Town Manager, self-interested board and committee members, and predatory developer cronies.”

Here we go again: more ad hominem attacks intended to obscure the complete lack of a cogent argument. It is ironic that RVL, who demonstrates a complete and pervasive lack of understanding of admittedly complex issues, calls the Selectmen and Town Manager “ignorant” or “corrupt and incompetent”. If our town is so poorly managed, why did our bond rating improve this year during a recession and why did Forbes Magazine designate Chelmsford as the US’s 28^th BEST town to live in?

“The decisions have been made. The forum on Tuesday will give citizens one
more opportunity to speak and be ignored.”

Where is RVL’s proof?   The feedback received at the Public Information Session was quite positive and helpful. In no way will it be ignored.

“We have a different plan to counter this institutionalized graft, and will keep you posted as events unfold. We are counting on the good people of the town to outlast the half-wits and crooks who are working so hard to destroy our quality of life.”

Finally, in an attempt to talk tough without actually specifically accusing any individual of being a crook (or a half-wit), RVL mounts his final character assault. The Fact is, Mr. Van Liew, there is no proof of any graft. There has been no investigation, despite your several complaints. No hard evidence has yet been produced that indicates ANY wrong-doing by any Selectmen or the Town Manager.   RVL has yet to identify specifically a single benefit that has personally accrued to any town official as a result of that official’s work for the town.

So there you have it folks...the TRUTH.

In summary -

It is unfortunate that volunteer public officials (that’s right, they serve without pay) have to be subjected to the sort of invective routinely spewed by Mr. Van Liew. After the failed recall election, we hoped that RVL would abandon his strategy of personally attacking any local official who did not agree with his agenda. Clearly we were misguided in our hope.

September 20th, 2011

A letter from Selectman Jim Lane in response to Roland Van Liew's latest set of accusations:

Since I began volunteering for the town in 2006, we have permanently protected 204 acres of open space for future generations to enjoy.

2007 Fall Annual Town Meeting: Lewis Property 22.5 acres;

2009 Spring Annual Town Meeting: Heart Pond 1.82 acres;

2010 Fall Annual Town Meeting: Misc parcels to Conservation 73.09 acres;

2011 Spring Annual Town Meeting: Misc. parcels to Conservation 58.42 acres;

2011 Fall Annual Town Meeting (proposed): Misc parcels to Conservation 48.37 acres;

This is a great accomplishment for our town but each of these parcels had NO pre planning completed for them before we either purchased or placed them into conservation protection. A comprehensive open space and recreation plan for these parcels would have identified simple items such as trail maintenance, wetland restoration where natural deterioration has occurred, feasibility for mountain biking, jogging or walking recreation, policing of motorized vehicles, illegal dumping, illegal open fires, parking challenges and agricultural challenges(eg: organic vs non-organic farming).

The 2010 Open Space and Recreation Plan states “The Town should conduct a detailed site analysis culminating in a master plan emphasizing protection of open space and creation of recreational opportunities. Oak Hill should be retained as at least 50% open space and the remaining portion may be developed for recreation, up to 50% of the total acreage.” The OSRP later recommends the Board of Selectmen “conduct a detailed site analysis of Oak Hill culminating in a master plan emphasizing protection of open space and creation of recreational opportunities.” Additionally, the 2010 Master Plan makes a similar recommendation to perform a study on this land in the form of a separate master plan.

With regards to the Oak Hill parcel it has recently been noted the granite formally mined and sold for profit may be historic. If this is valid, it further qualifies the purpose of a detailed analysis to determine the best method of preserving the historic characteristics and accomplishing a plan for residents to enjoy these treasures. Contrary to what was stated in the most recent e-mail blast, the recommendation to perform a study has nothing to do with any preconceived notion to develop the land for housing.

Jim Lane
Chelmsford Selectman

------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 5, 2011

Dear Chelmsford Residents:

In the wake of this past week’s recall election, Roland Van Liew has issued yet another letter/e-mail to Chelmsford citizens reiterating his view that our town government is mismanaged by many corrupt local officials. We do not agree and have decided that his statements deserve response.

THE TRUTH SQUAD RESPONDS TO: Better not Bigger Email From Roland Van Liew dated August 3rd, 2011. (Maroon highlighted boxes are the Truth Squad's responses to his statements)

"Folks, by now you probably know that with some 7,000 residents voting, we pulled 41% voting “Yes” to recall the selectmen who stand in the way of investigation and rectification of the “9 North Road” scandal."

What 9 North Road Scandal? Eastern Bank, a private entity, sold the land it owned to Mike Eliopoulos (Epsilon LLC.), a private entity. This was not town-owned land, and the town had no say in the sale or disposition of this private property, just like the town would have no say in the sale or disposition of your home if you decided to sell it to another private party. The State Land Court has twice ruled (July 10, 2010, and again on July 30, 2011) that the building conforms to the terms of the Preservation Restriction. The Court said that all town Boards involved in the approval processes acted lawfully and appropriately. Citizens may not like these facts, but they cannot deny them, as Mr. Van Liew continues to do.

"The whole point was to let the voters decide what action they want the town to take regarding the graft that has occurred."

Mr. Van Liew has implied and stated many times that the 9 North Road sale and Epsilon’s construction of an office building on land that they lawfully purchased is illegal. A notorious 20^th century megalomaniac Dictator once said, “If you repeat a lie often enough, eventually it becomes the truth in people’s minds.” Saying that graft was involved in this case does not make it so. Although Mr. Van Liew may have filed complaints with the authorities, he has yet to produce any real evidence to back any of his allegations. Does anyone doubt that if real evidence existed, Mr. Van Liew would have presented it to the proper authorities and pressed for action post-haste? The state Land Court on two separate occasions failed to find any wrongdoing concerning Epsilon’s construction of a building on private property that they purchased lawfully. Mr. Van Liew can continue stating his opinion all he wants; that is his right. But just repeating his story over and over does not make it true.

"Apparently a majority agree with the selectmen that it is not worth having the town’s Ethics Bylaw upheld. I'm disappointed but I believe in letting the people decide."

Mr. Van Liew wants you to believe that a person is guilty if accused, and the burden of proving innocence rests with the accused party. He is confident that the townspeople are willing to convict based only on his version of events. He apparently is upset that most voters are too fair-minded and thoughtful to accept his one-sided opinions as fact without any substantiating proof or evidence. He certainly gets irritated when anyone challenges his worldview. His suggestion that the voters don't want the town's bylaws upheld and do not care whether or not their town officials act ethically is ludicrous. Moreover, the Chelmsford Ethics Bylaw provides that investigations are to be conducted by the State Ethics Commission, not local authority. This statement is a gratuitous insult to the many voters who took the time to investigate all the issues surrounding the recall and vote based on their research and understanding. Evidently anyone who refuses to accept Mr. Van Liew’s version of the events is “just not very bright,” or perhaps “corrupt."

"There will be much gloating and backslapping by those who oppose accountability for malfeasance, but the major state ethics charges against Phil Eliopoulos still stand and the fight for good and honest government is not over. It's never over. That's why the perpetrators of graft need to lie. As long as they need to do that, they will be at risk.""

Mr. Van Liew has accused over 50 town officials and volunteers by name, along with several boards and a few state agencies, of being corrupt and opposing the concept that public officials should be held accountable for their actions. Mr. Van Liew has yet to identify specifically a single dollar or special advantage (that is the definition of graft) that has gone to any of the people he has accused of behaving in a corrupt manner. Where is the evidence of Malfeasance? Where’s the evidence of graft? How exactly have any of the people that have been accused benefited from any of the actions that Mr. Van Liew says they have “perpetrated?” Until Mr. Van Liew can identify any specific benefit that has accrued personally to any town official, in this or any other matter, his charges have to be taken with a grain of salt.

"41% is significant. I was disappointed we didn't reach 9,000 voting as that was what we needed in order to win."

Apparently if 9,000 people had voted, at least 4,501 would have voted to recall. We would love to know how Mr. Van Liew knows that. Perhaps he ought to expand his business into Political Consulting and Prognostication. A lot of politicians on the state and federal level would pay dearly for that kind of accurate and precise prediction.

"Probably most of you on this e-mail distribution voted, but much of the town did not.

We have made a difference. The policy discussion regarding the fire department has taken on a more rational tone, and the South fire station has been funded for reopening."

There is no “policy discussion” regarding the Fire Department. The substations have been opened and closed at various of times over a period of many years in response to annual budget crunches. The need for a modern Fire Department headquarters has existed for over 20 years, and has been formally discussed and reviewed for over four years. Neither of these issues have anything to do with Mr. Van Liew or the recall.

"Paul Cohen was forced to report the Eliopoulos complaint regarding the land deal to the Ethics Commission – two years late – but it at least it is finally in front of the Commission."

Once again, Mr. Van Liew spins the truth. A request to investigate events is not “reporting a complaint.” Paul Cohen wasn’t “forced” to do anything. There are no ethics violations. Mr. Cohen wrote to the Ethics Commission and the State Attorney General requesting that they review the events surrounding the sale of 9 North Road and the construction project because he felt that Mr. Van Liew’s unsubstantiated charges had poisoned the political climate in town to the extent that such an investigation was necessary to assure citizens that their government is not “corrupt.”

"Residents now have the information to make informed personal choices."

Residents have always had, and will continue to have, sufficient information to make informed choices, through a variety of means, public and private.

"I for one will not shop at DeMoulas Market Basket, as they provided the millions in financing for the Eliopoulos’ monument to greed when no reputable bank would touch it."

Mr. Van Liew is free to shop where he wants. How does he know that no banking institution would lend Epsilon money? Give us the names, Mr. Van Liew, of those institutions that turned down Epsilon’s request for a loan, and then give us the evidence that they did turn down a loan request. Just speculating and saying that it happened doesn’t make it so.

"People can also decide whether they really want to reward any firm that locates in the Eliopoulos Edifice with their patronage."

They certainly can make that choice. It’s called “free enterprise,” and Americans do it every day.

"The justice system remains a problem for all of the perpetrators involved in the 9 North Road scandal. Although the law severely limits what we can do as individuals in litigation to rectify this graft, what we can do we will do."

Even a casual review of the facts shows that all of the people and groups that Mr. Van Liew accuses of being “perpetrators” have been vindicated by the justice system. The only person who has a problem with the justice system is Mr. Van Liew. It did not give him the result he wanted. Let’s hope he doesn’t add Judges Smith and Piper to his list of “perpetrators” and “corrupt” officials.

"The justice system works slowly, but we can all hope that at some point in time the building will come down as it should, and the graft that it represents won’t slap us in the face every time we pass what is supposed to be a park for public enjoyment in perpetuity."

The court has ruled on two separate occasions (June 2010, July 2011) that the building conforms to the Preservation Restriction. The building is not coming down. We would, however, love to hear Mr. Van Liew’s plan for accomplishing that objective.

"The fight for good and honest government and accountability for malfeasance never stops. Like many people, regardless of the policy issues I will support officials who speak the truth, and I will fight those who lie and betray the interests of the good people of the town."

As will we.

"As residents, we need to be remain vigilant. There are several major policy issues that will be tackled soon, not the least of which is the renovation plan for the Stop&Shop/Marshall’s plaza."

All meetings pertaining to the design review, planning and eventual permitting of these projects will be posted and open to the public, as required by State Law. Planning Board meetings are televised. We urge all citizens to attend/watch and participate.

""The Town Manager will continue to award no-bid contracts in defiance of the law, and will continue to move to appoint people with conflicts of interest to the various commissions and committees that he controls."

Several months ago a Cheating Chelmsford employee requested copies of all municipal construction project records for the past 5 years. She had every right to do this under the Freedom of Information Act. The town provided the information in a timely fashion. We can only assume that if those copies substantiated any impropriety, Cheating Chelmsford and Mr. Van Liew would have made those documents public. If Mr. Van Liew has any real evidence that the Town Manager has awarded no-bid contracts illegally, we urge him to forward that evidence to the State Attorney General and other law enforcement/investigative agencies without delay. If he can produce any solid evidence, we will support his efforts unequivocally.

"None of these things can be stopped unless someone blows the whistle in a timely way. When you see something happening that doesn’t pass the sniff test, report it. We need to know in time to do something about it."

We encourage all citizens to be engaged. Speak up, call your town officials, call the Town Manager, anytime you think something isn’t right. Chelmsford officials are very approachable.

"For example, late last year when the Town Manager tried to use a quiet subterfuge to appoint Phil Eliopoulos to the Master Plan Implementation Committee, timely public outrage forced him to drop that appointment."

What quiet subterfuge? The appointment process, which includes Selectman approval, is entirely public and open, and was in this case. Selectman meetings where appointment of Town officials is reviewed are always televised and open to the public. Residents are free to attend and publicly speak against any proposed appointment at the Open Forum that occurs at the start of every Selectman’s meeting.

"All those who have worked hard to improve the responsiveness and integrity of our government deserve special thanks, but there are too many to call out individually. You know who you are."

No argument here.

"Thank you.

Yours with best wishes and hope for the future of our town,

Roland Van Liew"

Received August 4, 2011 - Areas in maroon are responses from the Truth Squad

Main Navigation

DECEMBER 4th, 2011

NOVEMBER 22nd, 2011