CPA in Randolph
A recent post about an upcoming employment seminar devolved into a discussion of the Community Preservation Act a law that benefits towns interested in preserving their communities.
Today’s Patriot Ledger had an article that covered an interesting use of CPA for affordable housing. Too often people look at CPA only as a tool to preserve open space. It can also be used for affordable housing, historic preservation, and recreational assets. Back to point. Randolph is using CPA money to give out loans to buy houses. This money is intended for people that otherwise might not be able to secure financing to purchase their own home.
What a great program. Lower income people benefit. Distressed properties are prevented from becoming blighted. The community as a whole benefits.
Great idea.
People in a similar condition in Middleboro can take comfort in the fact that they won’t be able to buy a house at all and so won’t be saddled with that $24 CPA surcharge.
The comments made about Neil Rosenthal on the other thread were beyond insulting because they insinuated that he is involved in town government for personal gain.
Must have been the same stupid poster making completely false comments about me.
I am getting emails to stop posting here because it is gives too much credence to this person(s) that just wants to flat out lie.
Linc, the people for the most part, that posts on this site know better than to think ill of you or Neil. Both of you, as well as Mark and as well others posting have contributed thousands of hours for the good of the dear community you live in. Only a negative, uneducated person, that does not know you guys would write like that.
We all have a right to our own views and opinions and none of the views or opinions should be personal character assasinations on anyone because they do not believe the way some one
else does.
We have lost some very good , people in this community because of the character assasinations.
Shame on those people that do that. That does not help the community it only seperates us further apart.
You said this on the other thread while avoiding the rebuttal to the accusation that Neil Rosenthal is intentionally trying to line his pockets at the town's expense.
"43D has the potential to really undermine local control. CPA doesn't."
It is a very interesting statement. Please spell out your logic clearly.
With 43D, if we fail to permit a project quickly enough – it happens automatically – undermining local control.
CPA projects go through a process that winds up with town meeting approving or denying the funds.
An I'm not avoiding anything. You have a problem with another poster – take it up with them.
"Let's not pretend that Mr. Rosenthal's words are always in the best interests of the town when their in his own best interests."
Would "Anonymous" care to educate us on how she reached this conclusion and give some examples of how Neil has deliberately put his own interests above those of the town?
Mark do you have a problem with that person's accusation?
When I first saw the comment and published it, I didn't see it as an accusation of wrongdoing. It was just one of – what – 70 comments on that post?
The comment was:
"Let's not pretend that Mr. Rosenthal's words are always in the best interests of the town when their in his own best interests.".
You are trying to turn that comment into an accusation that Neil has committed some sort of crime. I don't think that is the intent of the post. If I oppose a Walmart behind my house, that would bring in tax revenue for the town but ruin my property – does that make me bad? No. Has Neil ever opposed something that would be good for the town but bad for him – I have no idea and don't even care.
What you are doing, is taking one comment, spinning, repeating it, rewording it until it turns into an "accusation" that Neil has committed some wrongdoing – which so far nobody has said or even implied. This is exactly what you've been doing on Topix, the old pro-casino forum, and bogo's blog – obsessing over every comment – that most people don't even read – to make bad press for me. Same old, same old.
So do I have a problem with the comment? As written – no. With the way you've painted it – yes. I do not think Neil is a bad person or out to screw the town for his own benefit. That's the way you've interpreted the comment. I never have, and never will fault Neil for his service to the town – or question it. Your loaded question wants to paint me in the worst possible light – as usual. If someone made a comment that clearly accused Neil of wrongdoing – I would not publish it – and more importantly – not agree with it.
The comment can be interpreted in a couple of ways. You've chosen to interpret it as an accusation of wrongdoing – and thereby try to make trouble for me. I did not, and do not, interpret the comment that way.
Hopefully that answers your loaded question.
Defending the indefensible. I have a complete 180 on your view, Mark, but that's why there is vanilla and chocolate ice cream.
But what I looked at was the various comments by "anonymous" and when you do that you see she has a distinct pattern regarding attacks on that thread. That is why I have that view.
As far as posting it if it was my board I'd have no problem with it as it is not your "job" to interpret what someone else has written.
Linc,
You have me confused with treehugger.
I have not made any accusations against anyone.
That is not my style.
I did not point out 43D because I know absolutely nothing about it.
My two posts only dealt with getting the info out there about CPA.
Also, getting you men to concentrate on the issues not the personalities.
I do not believe in belittling anyone.
A little bird spoke to Al Rullo this past weekend and he is against the CPA saying that it is for rich towns and it gets the state government too involved. He says that the town has enough money to buy open space and the way it has been run is the way it should be. He is clueless on the benefit.
One of the reasons I brought up 43D is for this mindset.
There are a number of people who oppose CPA because it is (queue scary music) A STATE PROGRAM. Neil is a person that needs a lot of convincing to get involved in anything that he perceives as ceding local control – which I don't think CPA does.
Al is apparently also in this camp. A lot of these same people were in favor of 43D – something I see a much bigger threat to local control than CPA.
What gives up more control, participating in a state matching funds program used to preserve the town, or allowing an indian tribe to set up a sovereign nation within the town?
It's ironic that some of the same people who support a casino in Middleboro are opposed to CPA because they're afraid of losing control of the town.
HUH???
"It's ironic that some of the same people who support a casino in Middleboro are opposed to CPA because they're afraid of losing control of the town."
WHooo Whoo would that be Owl?
I can think of a bunch of people that were in favor of the casino and are opposed to CPA. Spataro, Perkins, Neil, Marsha, Mimi, Rullo, and even you Lincoln. Correct me if you voted against the IGA. Mimi I think has the potential to favor CPA in a different economy.
But on second read – of the list – not all of them oppose CPA strictly for fear of losing control of the town. Neil definitely has an aversion to state programs as does Steve Spataro. The rest I don't know what all their baggage is.
Just a general perception.
What scenario has the greater potential of loss of town control?
Adopting CPA, or allowing a sovereign nation to aquire a part of the town and influence town politics?
Would those who own 'rental property' in town and oppose CPA please stand up?
"Al Rullo… is against the CPA saying that it is for rich towns and it gets the state government too involved. He says that the town has enough money to buy open space and the way it has been run is the way it should be. He is clueless on the benefit."
8:59 AM
To label Mr. Rullo's comment "clueless" was very kind.
Affluent communities were the first to jump on board because who could guarantee a return on investment of 100%?
Mr. Rullo apparently doesn't understand that Registry fees paid by Middleboro residents are disbursed to towns that had the sense to adopt CPA.
Too bad we elected another 'dead head' who forms an opinion without gathering the facts.