ARA Story: Questions Still Need to be Answered

[Steve]

The latest on the ARA is the revelation that ghost writers, posing as "concerned Attleboro neighbors", were used to attempt to sway public opinion in their favor.

Attached is the document from the firm bragging about the services they provided to Milanoski's crew, with the full support of Jim McGovern. Could it be that this is their payback to the ARA for unpaid bills? Were they the behind the Kool-Aid letters?

http://www.oneillandassoc.com/results/attleboro.php

[steves]

Thank You.
I love the Kool-Aid pack
For anyone not aware there is a poll going on about this

www.misterpoll.com/polls/437983 "

Please take a second to reply the more responses the better.

[Steve]

Steve's Thanks, I should have started with the poll link, so thanks for providing it. We may wish to use this or another page going forward to keep track of these issues.

[Steve]

Below is the letter to the editor emailed on 15-June-09. Let's see if they run it. If not, I'll follow TB's advice, and use other means to get the word out. No matter what your political stripes, I assume you agree with the concept of a free press.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City Held Hostage by Bureaucrats tied to Housing Authority and its Own Paper…Paper ignores residences in a plot to remove elected officials.

This would be an accurate Headline if The Sun Chronicle reported facts. Unfortunately, it has seized upon all opportunities to insight ill will against Attleboro’s elected municipal council and mayor, in favor of a small group of well connected, out of control individuals.

Last week this paper chose to publish a press release from the ARA as front page news, despite a mailing that each council member, city activists, and this paper received, which outlined the views reflected in the paper’s own blogs by average citizens. The document declared our independence from the ARA and this paper, and re-stated our support for the officials elected to run this city.

For this paper to advocate the overthrow of our elected officials who we chose to represent us, in favor of an appointed rouge set of individuals, is a dangerous alliance. This paper has consistently mis-stated or made up “facts”, leaving the casual observer with the wrong impression of what reality is. This must stop.

At best, this paper is guilty of mal-practice, and at worst is guilty of colluding in an act of tyranny, to overthrow our city government.

The facts will surface, and citizens and residents will be heard.

We demand that you cover this story.

Regards,

Steve Plumb
Attleboro

[Steve]

So all are aware: This letter was rejected by the Sun Chronicle. They appear to be willing to publish it if I take credit for the Kool-Aid letters. I wish I was involved in authoring and mailing them, but unfortunately I was not. I now wonder if Mr. Flanagan, who is typically open to publishing most any opinion, is getting pressure from his people. And if this is true, is the paper being pressured?

[Steve]

This is a summary of the story behind Councilor Allard’s motion to re-zone the IBP “buffer” lots, reported with distain by The Sun Chronicle on 7-June-09.

The city donated this land to the ARA for the specific intent of building an Industrial Park. Under the agreement, the lots in question were to be left vacant, to provide a buffer zone when/if the IBP was actually built.
Just as any addict would break into his mother’s bank account when strapped for cash, Milanoski had announced his intention to sell these properties for some quick cash, breaking the agreement with the city to leave a buffer zone around the Industrial Park. The council took a proactive measure to re-zone the land, thereby ensuring that these lots could only be used for their intended purpose. It is clear that the council was working in the interest of the city’s residents to protect their interests. Unfortunately, the ARA is fighting against “we the people” yet again. To make matters worse the Sun Chronicle has attempted to place a wedge between the council and those who elected them, over the interests of Mr. Milanoski. Why are we, the residents, always on the receiving end of this paper’s wrath?

[ricknkim]

I'm not sure I agree with "addict" example at all. Obviously the ARA is trying to get the funds in order to finish one or both the roadways in hopes of attracting buyers. Selling those lots was a way to do that - it is not like they are selling land and giving themselves bonuses with the proceeds. Unfortunately, authoring such a silly comparison detracts from his/her credibility. For the lack of better alternatives, the ARA proposed the sale - provide an alternative and perhaps that will prove a better option.

[Steve]

Sorry, but the land is to be used as a buffer, and only "if" the IBP is ever built. I think the addict comparison is no more reckless or harsh than the paper's treatment of the council we elected. The land isn't his; it's ours. Also if you do the math, they should have been out of business for quite some time.

So we'll have to disagree on this one.

[ricknkim]

Won't a house act as a buffer? Not sure I've read the articles in which the paper has been reckless - perhaps more pro-ARA than city hall, but I wouldn't call that reckless. Is endorsing a candidate for president reckless in your eyes? I've done the math and they are in a tight spot right now, but are still in business until the bank calls their loan, no? I can only assume you prefer there be no way out of their current predicament and that they fail - then what do we, the Attleboro community, have? Would you not prefer they succeed and flourish even if you has personal disdain for MM and the ARA board?

[Steve]

My understanding is that the lots were donated for the Industrial Park; period. The buffer was to remain vacant, to allow a buffer between the IBP and home owners. It was meant to provide a zone to keep the noise, traffic etc, away from the neighborhood.

As for the paper:
When the paper advocates for the ARA despite the wishes of the city's residents...that's reckless.

To interview themselves to obtain reaction to Ottmar's advertizement and then publish those responses is reckless.

To interview council members to understand their reasoning behind the rezoning effort, only to ignore their responses, and report that their incentive was to remain allied to the mayor regardless of their stated intentions is reckless.

To claim the rezoning effort by the council was a shock to the ARA, when they were informed weeks in advance, is reckless (Ref: Rezoning Move Stuns Attleboro Agency 5-June). Removing 90%+ of comments is also reckless, or worse.

You may disagree with some of my rhetoric, and we've had some disagreements / back and forth over the past months, but your sincere efforts to get real answers are commendable. It's impressive to see this level of involvement. Please don't confuse the reporting by the SC, with an editorial. It is sold as hard news.

[ricknkim]

I think you have some merrit in your remarks Steve. However, I think at times your judgment gets clouded with personal hatred (perhaps too strong a word?) towards the ARA and MM. I just try to keep you honest by playing devils advocate and asking critical questions. I too commend your passion surrounding this issue even if I don't agree with some of your claims. Regardless, the most important thing is checks and balances for our pols - I love trying to keep public servants on their toes, otherwise we all know what happens . . . so keep up the heat.

Above all, I want what's best for the majority Attleboro. That is why that even though the IBP was an ill-conceived idea (this I believe is the biggest issue of all and one that is not nearly as publicized as others - nobody held accountable who planned, made projections, site/location choice, etc.) and there have been many mistakes made, I still want to get something out of it eventually. Therefore, getting those roadways completed and the permitting process right is critical to moving forward. I would put my support behind anyone who can creatively and with good intentions, make that happen. The mayor/councils attempts to remove have failed - when is it time to put that behind us and work as best we can with what we have? You will not always agree with a like all team members, but the goal at hand should trump personal feelings, no? I say they should try to keep MM honest and accountable as best they can, but work with him/ARA to move forward - not stuck in quick-sand going nowhere.

[Dick Stuart]

The LOCATION of the proposed IBP is what is "ill-conceived", not an IBP, per se.

Interestingly, the senior member of the municipal council admitted during a council session earlier this year that all knew that an IBP could not be developed at said location by a private developer; and that the (questionable) "thinking" was that the municipality could "break even" doing so and it be a big "plus" for the City as a whole, when completed. I concede that this 'thinking' is tempting; but it neglects the fact that private developers are far more competent and knowledgeable as to where and whether a IBP will "fly" than public sector people. It's no "slam"---just the truth.

The Attleboro IBP would have been better located on the EAST side of County Street and North of Tiffany Street. Mayor Robbins scotched that. Ask HER why.


Dick Stuart

[ricknkim]

Steve, a suggestion for your petition: Put the purpose, mission statement, etc. prominently on the top of the petition. Without it, the recipient of it will have no way of knowing what the signatures relate to. Bottom line: why are you seeking my signature? Otherwise, there is no clear way to prove Mary Smith signed a petition to demand reform at the ARA. For all the recipient knows, Mary Smith signed a piece of paper hoping to win a free plot of land filled with ledge.