Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Breaking News: The Cart Monster Is Still Dead

Kenneth M. O'Brien

Contrary to all expectations, the Casellaburg Town Council last night overwhelmingly defeated an effort to revive the Smat Cart program.

By a vote of 7 to 1 the council voted down the agenda items that would have established the program. The sole vote in favor of the plan was cast by council vice chair Denise Clemence. Councilor Darlene Marcucci had been excused anf therefore was not present for the vote.

A large number of citizens braved the uncomfortable conditions in the council chamber and waited for several hours to speak on the subject.

Among those who spoke in opposition to the Smart Cart plan were Raciel Fernandez, Larry Beinema, Rod Murphy, Mike Murray, Kevin Buxton and John Pulawski. (My apologies to those whose names I have omitted. I've had to rely on the memory of those present).

Not one citizen rose to speak in its defense.

It can now be hoped that we will never again have to worry about smarting from this cart project.

56 comments:

  1. That's great. It seems unfair for us to be limited to the amount of trash we can have, but unlimited for other towns is okay.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just because the Southbridge Adult Student Council voted against borrowing the money, they do not have the authority to stop Mr. Town Manager Clark from saving the sussessful program by working with our partners Casella who are so dedicated to the environment that that will devote their own moneyfor the program with their own resources.

    Mr. Town Manager Christopher Clark has the full authority to accept our partner Casella generously paying for this wonderful green program from the tipping fees without Council Authorization.

    Visit GetInvolvedInYourTown.com and discover how to get the HOLE story-not just the opinions of a handful of wannabee activist hungry for attention in front of the TV cameras.

    Thank you councilor Denise Clemence for taking a stand, not bowing over to the pressure of the few that have too much time on their hands.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Typical FOS reply.
    If democracy doesn't get you what you want, resort to fascism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am not an employee of Hydes, and I don't belong to FOS, but what Democracy are you talking about? You think a dozen loudmiuths are a Democracy?

    When FOS saved the Industrial Road plans from ruin, we had twice as many speakers. What we witnessed last night was Mob Rule, not Demicracy!

    Some people are incapable of expecting change and progress, but thank the good Lord that Vice Chairwoman Denise Clemence stood her ground- she deserves a Profile In Courage reward!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Casella "dedicated" to the environment? Thanks for the laugh, but the fact is the only dedication Casella has is to their bottom line. Less Southbridge trash means they can accept more trash from other towns and get more fees. Not a member of FOS, yeah right....

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was one of the people at the meeting last night who did not support the "Smart Cart" program. I understand why this would be confusing to people, considering my commitment to environmental stewardship. Here's why I don't support the current proposal:

    In the Landfill Extension Agreement dated June 9, 2009, section 3.4 d (on page 10 of the contract) stated that SRD, at its sole cost, would provide the Town of Southbridge with free unlimited trash pickup for a period of twenty (20) years for up to 7,000 households.

    Financially speaking, this free trash pickup agreement is a huge asset to the town. The financial value of this agreement over the life of the contract is estimated to be $12.5 million dollars. That's a WHOLE LOT OF MONEY. Even if Casella were to sell our contract to another company, or the landfill were to get filled up prematurely through waste from other municipalities, we would still have a contractual agreement with Casella to get free trash pickup for the town for the duration of the agreement. This is a very valuable thing.

    The Smart Cart proposal would have required the town to bond out $240k to pay for the program, which would theoretically get paid back to us by Casella over the next seven years. (Whether or not this would actually happen is anyone's guess. I looked at their fundamentals on Google Finance and I am not personally all that optimistic about their financial health.)

    Anyhow, given that we already have a very valuable agreement with Casella for our trash pickup for the next 17+ years, I don't see why it makes any financial sense for the town to pay for the privilege of not requiring Casella to adhere to the terms of the contract.

    I am a big fan of recycling, and I think it does make sense for us to look for ways to get people to produce less waste. That being said, I don't want to do it in a way that causes the town to give up one of the few financial assets it has.

    I would love to implement the Smart Cart program if Casella were to come to the table with a version of the program that actually made financial sense for the town. And if it actually did anything to extend the life of the landfill, well hey. That would be even better.

    ReplyDelete
  7. One more thing: On Facebook, Monique M. asked me today what suggestion I would have for moving forward in light of this failed proposal.

    My suggestion to the Town Council last night was to step up enforcement of our existing bylaws. Enforcement works, and it has a positive financial impact on the town's bottom line as well.

    Of course, all that being said, I don't see why anyone thought a contractual agreement with our landfill operator for free unlimited trash pickup at Southbridge residences wouldn't lead to abuse from our large absentee landlord population.

    ‎...which brings us back to the importance of enforcement of the excellent bylaws we already have in place.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If the Town earned $40 a ton for every ton we divert from the landfill, the operator would still bring in another $15-$50 a ton revenue for outside waste-not at all the ideal, but a reasonable incentive, but ONLY if people can get 60 or two 40 gallon trash receptacles.

    That said, we'd have even more financial success AND health security, Dollar for Dollar, by providing compost bins for people willing to compost, or a three stream organic option for people without yard space or elderly that can't compost-that is always an option. If Casella doesn't want the business we can encourage more intense recycling and reuse options from the Private sector.

    When I was a boy a very long time ago, we separated our garbage from our trash, and it was much more sanitary. It can be done once again, it does not require a study, it was done for over a century, and not really that long ago.

    A low tech biogas digestor cogen system could heat a half dozen six family structures, or maybe elderly housing somewhere. It is worth trying a pilot program somewhere in Southbridge-three could be installed for the cost of the smart cart program and heat for one hundred apartments.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Who is going to pay for such fanciful schemes?

    Why should Southbridge get more incentive than casella? You want clean water and clean air rights, but casella shareholders have economic rights, too.

    Casella has invested over $1,000,000.00 for a gas generator, and they have rights to our kitchen and organic MSW garbage.

    And it can't be proven that chromium at the landfill is from any particular commercial enterprise. Such things happened before we understood as much about alleged health risks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Why should Southbridge get more incentive than casella? You want clean water and clean air rights, but casella shareholders have economic rights, too."

    Wow. Just, uh, wow.

    The only thing I could possibly say is this: as a person who is a lifelong citizen of Southbridge and *not* a Casella shareholder, I have certain loyalties.

    Apparently there are some Casella shareholders who read this blog? I am terribly sorry for you; truly I am. You have my genuine condolences for having made such a poor investment decision. I personally know the pain of losing my own hard-earned money in the markets; the only stock I've come out ahead on so far this year is GE. (Good thing for me they don't pay any taxes, I guess! heh.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. casella is our partner-read it in black and white-it is in the contract. For that reason, Southbridge shouldn't make more than Casella-we are using their expertise, and they pay for the lawyer, the health department salaries, and the landfill monitoring, and they donate to local causes, so they deserve a fair deal.

    We will still have the smart carts eventually, but casella will have to pay for it. The town is obligated to assist on permitting and required to be co-operative partners. Allowing mob rule is not being co-operative.

    Have a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why can't we have both? A clean environment, and profits.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The town is obligated to assist on permitting and required to be co-operative partners. Allowing mob rule is not being co-operative."

    I don't see how being one of several concerned citizens makes me part of a mob. And I have no interest in cooperating with a partner on an deal that is not in the best interests of the town's already-precarious financial future. It just doesn't make sense to use our AA bond rating to borrow an additional quarter million+ dollars because our corporate partner doesn't want to pay up front for a program they'd like us to implement. We're already $45 million dollars in the hole as it is.

    Obviously, this is a long-standing controversy and I am only just starting to figure out where I stand on the issues. Thank you, Anonymous (2:29pm), for clearing up some of my confusion: I was wondering who paid the Health Department guy's salary. That gentleman last night seemed an awful lot like a Casella employee. I can only imagine what the lawyer must be like.

    At any rate, my only interest is the greater good of the Town. Obviously this is a topic upon which a lot of good people can have legitimate differences of opinion, and I don't feel that I've done anything wrong in being a part of the debate on this issue. I hope you have a good one as well.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually, the extension agreement specifically states that it DOES NOT constitute a partnership between the town and Casella. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't bothered to read the documents. But why would you want to do that when we have lawyers to do that for us?

    ReplyDelete
  15. There are some very good points being made here.

    We can have a safer landfill and healthier water by keeping food garbage out of the landfill and ammonia out of our water.

    And we can use more labor reliant solutions, such as hire local people working part time for the town one day a week instead of paying $600,000. a year for pickup from big noisy diesel trucks.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What in God’s name is this “partner” crap?
    We’ve seen repeatedly that the “contract” isn’t worth the Etch-a-Sketch it’s written on.
    They pay for the lawyers, they pay for the BOH, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseam.
    Have you ever heard the expression” He who pays the piper calls the tune”?
    Do you think politics in Southbridge is any different than it is in Boston or Washington?
    They pay for those things because it gives them insider influence.
    If you believe anything else, then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell to you.
    The fact is that we’ve got a” partner” who wants us to continually bend over and drop trow in the middle of Main Street and take it.
    Unless you’re into abusive relationships, that’s when it becomes time to seek a divorce.
    I’ve said from day one that we could have gotten a better deal with a more reputable “partner” and, unlike so many other communities who have severed their ties to this outfit, we continue to play the fool.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I remember from the bored of health meetings on cable and Marketti's webpage that the Director mentions the partnership with Casella and SRD all of the time.

    It's the golden rule-they with the gold makes the rules!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Me, myself and EyeJuly 26, 2011 at 7:32 PM

    Where is the "mighty Marketti"? On suspension, extended leave, maternity? I'm starting to long for the days of Walter Bird at this rate! Good Lord, you write, but can't you draw a picture for us anymore? Anyway, to the person that mocked the Chairwoman, I thought she did a wonderful job last night! In the end, though, only Councilor Clemence had the cojones to vote the right way! Don't celebrate too long, you'll find out why--the Town Manager will fix what was messed up last evening. Later.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mob rule. Screaming and yelling with foul language during the break.

    Outrageous. Will the town attorney investigate, or the DA?

    With elevating the town attorney to Chief law enforcement officer and unitary judiciary on town manager fraud cases, the town manager can "fix" anything he wants.

    Are they expecting fraud charges against the town manager? Shouldn't that change be in the form of a By Law? Why the sudden change after thirty-five years?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Southbridge sux

    ReplyDelete
  21. The fact is that the one part of the Casella contract that was well negotiated was the guarantee for Recyclebank. It is an excellent program that no other community HAS EVER DROPPED. It benefits the citizens with cash incentives, gives money to our schools and cost us... NOTHING.

    Any other program is a red herring and a giveaway to Cassella. Read the contract people. If there were deficiencies in recycling, the burden was on... Casella. Not the town, not the citizens... on the profit making business alone. Demand that the contract with Recyclebank be honored... and while your at it, fire Morin for screwing citizens out of their hard earned money! Take back your town! And FOS, get ready to be challenged on every one of your corrupt self-serving proposals. Hey, cops n' kids, how's the Crane Street " unprecedented drug dealing to teenagers' business reopening going?" Well, Monique? You do care about promoting establishments that deal drugs to teenagers, right... or are you a phoney?

    ReplyDelete
  22. lazy like the rest of SouthbridgeJuly 27, 2011 at 10:37 AM

    The problem is plain and simple lets allow the resident to have unlimited trash pickup. As what has been said in the past bring in larger smart carts for trash....We the residents of Southbridge should recycle and do a better job with it.... stop being so LAZY recycle Southbridge....but if you drive around town you will see we are lazy will continue to be lazy and always will be lazy...blame everyone but us...we are LAZY...just wait the state will pass a law and will require some type of smart cart...

    ReplyDelete
  23. If is fair to bust Chairman Nikolla on drugs because of the way she protected her brother's liquor license after his place was busted for selling actual cocaine, but actually the drugs that are said to have been sold at the other establishment have never been proven to be drugs, so let's make sure we are fair by presuming innocence before being critical about guilt. Isn't issue at the club that closed voluntarily about whether it is legal to sell legal powder as something else?

    I'd love to see RecycleBank come back, I used to get $10-$12 a week off my groceries at Bug Y, and was also able to contribute $100 to the High School through RecycleBank.

    Director Moron stated over two years ago that he was replacing out incentive program in two months. It has been over two years, and still no incentive program! Smart Cart is not an incentive program, it is a trash container. Maybe if Gucci made trash containers they'd be considered an incentive in some way? The price of those things were high enough to be designer made.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I meant to write "bust her chops about drugs". I am not saying that she sold drugs, and I feel if she uses them, that is her own personal business, and I do not have any knowledge that she uses hard drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  25. We are all entitled to our opinions, but Catherine Nikolla and others were reasonable enough to sit through a four hour town council meeting that was uncomfortable due to heat, she did NOT act in an unwelcoming manner to any of the speakers while they were at the podium, and she voted for what is best for Southbridge.

    Citizens and Councilors reasoned the strengths and weaknesses of Smart Cart, and Catherine Nikola, Pam Regis, Conrad Vandal Butch McDonald, Larry Spinelli, David Langevin, & David Livengood all voted wisely, so let's be as considerate as possible, especially when these same people have the influence to convince Mr. Clark that Chloramines are not the only method approved by the DEP, and that the lead it will release into the drinking water in Southbridge is not in the town's best interest.

    ReplyDelete
  26. John, you are starting to sound like Martinek now.

    Did you forget that Vice Councilor Clamence tried to shut Raciel off from speaking after four minutes of talking?

    Did you forget that one of the "ladies" on the Council swore ( F Bomb) at Mr. Buxton during her nikotine break, and called him bad names that was uncalled for?

    What about Mr. Clark and others talking while people where addressing them from the Podium.

    One time they voted the right way, that doesn't mean they aren't dysfunctional-they are still going to poison some of us just to be able to get more money selling water to Charlton.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Funny, though, anonymous at 1200, Martinek was right. An aim at compromise seemed to work. Go at your Chloramine issue like an attack dog, and you'll lose that one. You have no grace (or courage), and hide with anonymity.At least Martinek and Pulawski see what you don't : your ways are a path to failure!

    ReplyDelete
  28. ( I am a different anonymous and I think you are all partially right.)

    If you listen to the biter attitude expressed by Mr. Livengood, you'd realize that there was no compromise-he voted as he did because he is up for re-election and didn't want to be exposed for borrowing a quarter million for Casella. Mr. Buxton was sworn at and chased away from Town hall with vile language-she who done it should be cenured or maybe she can learn to censor her own big mouth instead of fun interesting Blogs from the town website?

    Karma, the people trying to save the landfill from being all used up in ten years have been polite from the start. You con't come up with one example of rudeness by any of the rats at the Podium, and the attitude that Dennis and Pulaski and others expressed on Speak Out was usually justifiable outrage.

    I agree that people should treat each other nicely, but just because an uptight Councilor didn't attack Buxton in front of the camera don't mean it is OK or didn't happen. Politics should not be a blood sport any longer. The women play it best.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anon1200, jspulawski at gmail is a better place to ask me a question privately, but allow Mr. Buxton if anyone make issue about how he was treated. I'm glad that you refrained from mentioning the alleged culprit. Kevin deserves better, and he has watched the recycling business changes for over 16 years, so of course he is frustrated and annoyed.

    As far as Mrs. Clemence cutting a minute off a speakers time, he lost his cadence but stood his ground. The vice chair is in charge of the clock, and this was her first meeting. I'm sure she will count better next time.

    Was it Forrest Gump that said "Dysfuntional is as dysfuntional does?" This is a new session. Ring out the old, ring in the new. Let's be political in the springtime when fresh ideas fall upon more anxious ears, and advocate preventative health via quality water and air.

    Monday night was a promising start and the Council is meeting to establish their agenda for the year. Bury the hatchet and take out the pen or pick up the phone and contact your Councilor representatives politely with your concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This isn't about the smart cart, but it is about democracy and representation.

    The council is a deliberative body. If they feel they should add a few members to the board of health, they should add two members to their own body, too, to ensure more balance.

    It surprised me that they cancelled the recyclebank and use the money to hire cops to write trash tickets. And I didn't even know that putting trash bags out are against the bylaws.

    Me I prefer that people use just bags if possible, because they go away after the trash is picked up. I rather look at a clear lawn most of the day than an empty trash can after pickup.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Lost in all of this is the impact a group of people had on changing the minds of councilors on the Smart Cart. I'm talking about the "United Southbridge" group. This group of citizens put out a flier, ran an ad, and got people to attend the meeting to voice opposition to the plan. The Chair tried every trick in the book to get this through without public input. She scheduled it for the end of a long meeting. She allowed Morin and the councilors to filibuster the discussion. Through all of this, United Southbridge refused to give up. Other citizens attended as well and talked against it. The councilors went back and forth and argued, tried to intimidate citizens, tried to cut off debate. Finally the vote came. Most of us thought for sure the council was going to ignore residents and vote for the Smart Cart. Final count: 7-1 against. Congratulations to United Southbridge for a hard fought victory, and to the other residents who came to the meeting and spoke up, or just came to lend support, thank you. There is strength in numbers!

    ReplyDelete
  32. There is no doubt that the citizens of Southbridge helped in this fight. They do deserve credit, but so too does the Council. You say that they don't listen. Well they did. They also deserve credit. Whatever your group is about, and is trying to achieve, I applaud you. In the same breath I would caution you not to take too much credit for it, for it's that divide that has ticked off the Council in the past. Be gracious enough to give credit to all who participated in this victory. That way, you may see many more. It's one decision, one victory, but gloating won't help.

    ReplyDelete
  33. It's a victory for the whole town.

    Nobody is gloating - what you are seeing is shock that the speakers on Monday night weren't scoffed at or humiliated as usual. Hardly any under the breath comments, no eyes rolling, intelligent ideas by speakers and Councilors asking questions instead of just saying yes to everything put before them-tah isn't gloating-that is rejoicing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Amen.

    Why was Livengood "offended" that people clapped ?

    Is Clemence incapable of counting to five minutes, or was she trying to cut Raciel intentionally because he was making so much more sense than Morin did?

    Why are they suddenly changing how fraud by a town manager is investigated? How can the man that was hired by Clark investigate the man that hired him? Is there a pending fraud allegation ?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Nobody is gloating? Read Marketti's comment and the one after yours. More bitching and moaning by one side. That side will choke the next time with their continued gloating.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I call it how I see it. This town council was set to vote for the Smart Cart. If it wasn't for the action of United Southbridge and many other residents who attended Mondays meeting and voiced opposition, it would've passed. Give credit where credit is due. I know some of the "mouse" on here are depressed, you lost this one. So now you are looking for a reason to discredit those who stood up to the council. "It wasn't the citizens, it was the councilors!" "The people who applauded are rude!" (even though FOS applauded loudly when the Road was passed and no one complained then) "Gloating!" I suggest you stop your crying and come work with US. There are issues we can find common ground on.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Pats, I think you are being a little uptight about this so-called gloating.

    I voted for Dave, Darlene, and Cathy, but I am as happy as any of those speakers because i don't have to throw away my six month old trash cans.

    BTW, despite what our Councilors and Morin stated, it is NOT against the By Laws to put out plastic bag-s read the By Law. It is ridiculous that the Health Director went on and on about it being illegal, and the Councilors ( some of them) following his lead, threatening people with fines. RIDICULOUS!

    Another example of ridiculous was Livengood saying he was "offended" by the applause. He should treasure applause it happens so infrequently.

    Another example of ridiculous was your comment: " That side will choke the next time with their continued gloating." We see it very differently. First, there are not two sides, unless you want to claim that an informed electorate convinced a compromised local government to do the right thing. Let's face it-the Council was about to borrow money once again for a particular company that is already getting valuable landfill space for a dime on the Dollar., a form of Corporate Welfare that our town can not afford.

    If I see any of those speakers in public, I am going to go out of my way to thank them and buy'm a Sam Adams. Those United Southbridge people are a very good example of the sayiong " When the people lead, the leaders will follow'. That well balanced mix of Southbridge citizen's knocked it out of the park. Now let's stop the ammonia from going in our drinking water and put it in the mop bucket where it belongs! Keep it up US, your patience monday night not only achireved the result you wanted, but you helped me see and other see exactly why some speakers in recent years have looked so frustrated with the Council-our own council doesn't even know our by laws, but are willing to repeat the sound bites of an underperforming uninformed health director. Go Southbridge !

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ok, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but isn't it weird that George Chenier was quoted by the town manager as proof that Chloramines are safe?

    Everything the US people said was true, but the Smart cart was $250,000. in town money, the ammonia in the water is a bigger threat, both financially and especially health wise. but my Doctor said not to drink the water , to spend the $150 a year to buy bottled water, and the only thing wrong with me is I have the gout and I am old.

    So I called long distance to ask Dana farber, and they want a copy of the town manager saying that they said it was OK> The lady at Dana Farber said that they have special filters to remove the ammonia and chlorine from the water.

    The thing is I don't have a recorder on my TV, so maybe one of you computer geniuses can send Dana Farber a copy of the town manager saying that they said something they didn't say, because she said that it was actionable and they don't like it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. With all that Casella has done for our town, would it have really killed you people to give them a hand in saving the enviroment by borrowing a little money that was going to get paid back?

    No reason to gloat, because you are getting smart carts anyway, it is just that Casella will buy them for us from the money we make from out of town MSW.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous 12:26, Chloromines are on the agenda for United Southbridge! If possible, please send me the info for who you spoke to at Dana Farber to raciel.fernandez@unitedsouthbridge.com and don't forget to join us to speak for the people. We meet next Wednesday!
    http://thepoliticaltrash.blogspot.com/2011/07/baby-democracy-is-born-in-southbridge.html

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm sorry, that's raciel.fernandez@unitedsouthbridge.org

    ReplyDelete
  43. You know, I had wondered about that Dana Farber thing. Someone privately relating what someone's individual doctor said to them is not the same thing has having an official opinion from a hospital spokesperson. I've gotten plenty of weird, conflicting, and just plain bad advice from doctors in the past myself.

    Individual doctors say all kinds of weird things; I had an OBGYN one time that told me it was too dangerous to walk a dog while I was pregnant, because I might fall down and it would kill the baby. This same person also counseled me against having recommended genetic tests due to her personal anti-abortion beliefs, and gave me all sorts of weird advice about nutrition. I'm sure the hospital she worked for at the time wouldn't have wanted its name attached to any of that advice.

    My biggest concern with the Chloramines issue (aside from the lead issue) is that it moved forward despite the Board of Health voting it down in April. What is the point of having the Board of Health vote on anything if it doesn't matter what their vote is? Is *that* actionable?

    At the very least, I would very much like to see the Council bring this up for a vote, so I know who not to vote for next year. One could ostensibly argue that the science is not conclusive on the chloramines issue, but the political process that brought that shiny happy pamphlet to my house was pretty clearly broken, dysfunctional, and flat-out wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This is for Jim Morin, Chris Clark, Denise Clemence and all the FOS idiots who keep trying to claim that we're partners with Casella, direct from the contract itself:

    "13. NO JOINT VENTURE

    13.1 The Town is and will continue during the Term of this Extension Agreement to be
    the owner and permittee of record of the Landfill Facility. SRD will, in accordance with the terms of this Extension Agreement, be the Town's designated operator of the Landfill Facility. It is further understood and agreed that neither this Extension agreement nor the method set forth herein for computing payments to the Town by SRD, nor any other provision of this Extension Agreement, are intended nor shall ever be construed as to create a legal partnership by and between the Town and SRD, make SRD and the Town joint venturers, or make the Town in any way responsible for debts and/or losses or SRD."

    Now cut the BS.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Has there been a second confirmation of bags of trash not being picked up?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Of course not! That's why this tactic of planting false rumours always fails: it's excrement that is never verifiable because it didn't happen. Now what loudmouth in town is king of false and inaccurate information? If we fight for issues, let's use credible people and sources.

    ReplyDelete
  47. It isn't productive to put down Councilor Clemence like that. She may go on an on, and her facts are often absurd, but we aren't ever going to earn her vote blogging like that.

    ReplyDelete
  48. How to spot BS on a blog?

    "So I called long distance to ask Dana farber, and they want a copy of the town manager saying that they said it was OK> The lady at Dana Farber said that they have special filters to remove the ammonia and chlorine from the water.

    The thing is I don't have a recorder on my TV, so maybe one of you computer geniuses can send Dana Farber a copy of the town manager saying that they said something they didn't say, because she said that it was actionable and they don't like it."

    July 28, 2011 12:26 PM

    Called long-distance? Someone impersonating some elderly person? Seriously? Yes, they probably have the party line, right?

    Dana-Farber is not a regulatory agency, and as others have called out, this is the desperate attempt by some of the most vocal speakers at citizens forum to try and act like someone gives a damn at DF. They don't. There is nothing actionable by DF because they are not impacted by it, and in the whole big picture they don't give a damn about Southbridge. We have a cancer center in town and they don't care.

    Wake up and smell the BS here, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  49. It is in fact a civil violation to state an entity as a reference when that reference is false, or even damaging to ones reputation. For example, you can't say that Hyde Tools said it's ok to put chromium in my water, if in fact, they didn't say that. Hyde tools would have an actionable item that could lead to a lawsuit. Get it now?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Pat, it was the town manager that claimed that Dana Farber was alright with the chloramines-call them yourself-ask for the media office you -they may not be able to do something about cancer causing chloramines in our water, but just like they wouldn't like someone saying that Dana Farber doesn't mind if you smoke cigarettes, they especially don't like a Town Official (Chris Clark) claiming that they are OK with another cancer causing agent being added to our water. DF has a reputation to protect. it'll be nice to see Mr. Clark finally held accountable for his failed memory. He is even more "colorful" with his use of creative story telling than Mr. Chenier.

    It was Mr. Clark, not a citizen, that claimed that Dana Farber is alright with chloramines. During the chloramine public hearing, George Chenier claimed that his Doctor said that they have chloramines in the water in Boston, and that it was in the water at DF, but in fact DF has extensive water filtration that treats the chloramine treated water.

    Impersonating an elderly person? Mr. Clark's exaggerates information that was claimed by a citizen, then you come up with a conspiracy theory that someone isn't really elderly like they say they are? What difference does it make how old someone is, except that they may be at a greater risk than the rest of us? Why would such a person lie?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Raciel, I got it before i read your response. With all that Dana Farber has on it's plate, they're not going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to sue a government agency. Got it?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Who said anything about wanting them to do a major lawsuit? You people are so angry on the opposing side. We only need a very cheap and simple Cease and Desist order to knock his credibility even more down the tubes than it is.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Pats, who said ANYTHING about Dana Farber suing the town?

    As long as Mr. Clark clarifies that Dana Farber spends serious money to remove the chloramines to protect their patients and admits he misspoke,why would they sue the town?

    Why would they sue the town anyway? If they did sue, it would likely be a case against Mr. Clark as an individual.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "The thing is I don't have a recorder on my TV, so maybe one of you computer geniuses can send Dana Farber a copy of the town manager saying that they said something they didn't say, because she said that it was actionable and they don't like it."

    Maybe you people should coordinate your lies first. I know, by actionable you meant Dana Farber would be throwing tomatoes, right? On a wing and a prayer-feel free to use that as your motto. Or the most defensive (and offensive) group since the last one. At this rate you'll be disbanded very quickly. Credibility leaves as fast as it comes.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Pat, your problem is that you want your conspiracy theory to be true- that everyone here is a part of that new group and that we are co-ordinating some master plan.

    Yes, it appears that someone did quote DF that the false claim by Mr. Clark is actionable, but that doesn't mean they would act. You (Go Pats) have made actionable statements yourself on this Blog, it doesn't mean that you'd end up in court.

    And please, the new group would never be as offensive as the Future of Southbridge. They spoke at citizen's forum about an imaginary factory with 600 jobs that was coming to get the town to borrow many millions of Dollars to build a road to a landfill.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Just ask Dana said...

    Good point Dana. Major difference in the groups:

    Future of Southbridge was spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax and borrow, borrow, borrow. Give absurd raises to town employees while raising water, sewer and tax rates on residents to the highest in Worcester County. Borrow huge amounts of money for a road to nowhere and a school next to a brownfield. Ignore health, environmental and quality of life concerns of residents while exclaiming it's the best time ever to "Make Southbridge Home"... "Beyond The Landfill". They were a PAC for Casella.

    United Southbridge from what I see is for fiscal responsibility, accountability, improving the health and well-being of the community and a level playing field for businesses. Not the same thing at all. Oh, and you can throw in thoughtful leadership instead of whining about things getting too personal and having hurt feelings up at the podium.

    ReplyDelete

All comments subject to moderation. All commenters must use their own name or a screen name. No comments labelled as "Anonymous" will be published. To use your name or a screen name select "Name/URL" from the drop down menu. Insert you name in the "Name" space and leave the "URL" space blank.