Salem Council Green Lights New Senior Center
After more than three decades of failed attempts to get it done, it looks like Salem will be getting a new state-of-the-art senior center.
Thanks to some last-minute compromises, Salem city councilors voted 10 to 1 Thursday night to approve a financing proposal from Mayor Kim Driscoll to pay for a new $4.5 million Community Life Center at the intersection of Boston and Bridge streets.
The council's historic decision came less than 24 hours after a four-hour standing-room-only informational meeting at the city's current Senior Center on Broad Street that left many of those in attendance with more questions than answers.
According to Council President Jerry Ryan, the turning point in negotiations came early Thursday morning when he hammered out a deal with Driscoll that alleviated some of the concerns he had with her proposal.
The Deal That Got it Done
Prior to announcing the compromise, Ryan noted that the Boston Street location wasn't his first choice but he was willing to move forward because "people have died waiting for a new senior center" and he felt now was the time to act.
Language added to the proposal Thursday night: Construction must commence on the building within 12 months of the bond order being approved; the city will hire a full-time Council on Aging director; an environmental liability agreement will be entered into between the developer and the city before Sept. 1, 2013.
After hearing that a compromise had been reached, many councilors applauded both Ryan and Driscoll for working together to get a deal done.
Thursday Night Surprises
Ward 2 Councilor Michael Sosnowski, who has been a vocal opponent of the project, announced reluctantly that he would be changing his stance and voting for the proposal - though he said he felt he was "blackmailed into doing it."
"This whole thing absolutely stinks...I'm going to hold my nose while I say yes because it stinks," Sosnowski said, adding "this is probably one of the worst things I've ever done as a councilor."
Ward 3 Councilor Todd Siegel, who reiterated Wednesday night that he wouldn't vote on the proposal because the informational meeting wasn't broadcast live - also changed his stance when he realized that the motion would have to be approved again at next week's council meeting before being finalized.
The only councilor voting against the project was Councilor at Large Arthur Sargent, who stood firm in his belief that the seniors of Salem deserved a stand-alone senior center at a better location.
Click the video attached to this post to watch Thursday night's roll-call vote and Driscoll's response to the decision.
What do you think of the council's decision? Have you been hoping for a new senior center in Salem? Do you think it should have been built somewhere else?
Let us know in the comments section below.
Jared Robinson
9:16 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
Any reason for Sosnowski's comments? Most people I spoke to in Ward 2 were in favor of it and contacted him asking for him to vote yes.
Bill
9:55 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
"people have died waiting for a new senior center"
Ironic statement considering how many more will depart before the ribbon is cut with those giant scissors. Predictions on when it actually opens? - I'll throw late 2015 out there, maybe early 2016.
J. Burns
12:12 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
The seniors and children who attend the Community Life/Senior center may get sick and/or die as a result of attending the center (view chemist Phillip Blaskovich's statement on Salem public television at the very beginning of the Council Meeting of March 13 http://www.satvonline.org/monthly-on-demand-spotlight (Click on City Council meeting of the whole 3-13-2013.
But no worry-the intrepid, self-congratulating Councillor Ryan (influenced by Councillor Joan Lovely, I hear) who considers his turncoat vote for the Community/Senior Center the apogee of his career (it may be the nadir I hear from one of his most powerful, now ex-supporters) has added an amendment to the bond indemnifying the city against damages resulting from such illness and injury.
So that if those,(including infants and very young children (age 6 months-4 years who are particularly vulnerable to such sicknesses) who use the Community Life/Senior center become sick " from " pre-existing contamination at the site" the city would be "held harmless". (quotes from Ryan's amendment-page 2 Salem News March 16, 2013. I will be posting the full statement of the chemist analysis of the risks at the site and a list of the Mayor and Councillors' contact info for those who wish to educate them on just how callous of them this is...A petition and voters list
and Call to Reaction e-mail address list)will be made available on this issue shortly. . The Final vote of the Council is in two weeks.
john
12:24 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
The council heard the chemist and I was shocked that only one or two even acknowledged his concerns. The lack of concern by others speaks for itself. I came away thinking the test holes have not been monitored correctly. In the end,I guess,it's build here and if it's sick it's sick.
J. Burns
1:20 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Here is the corrected link to chemist Phillip Blaskovich's (see my comment below )
discussion about contamination at the site and it dangers to those in programs there (see my comment below). (When he apoke Mr. Blaskovich was uner the impression it was only for seniors, The Community Life/ Senior Center will have programs for infants as youn as six months-see below.https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=52800eda76925756&id=52800EDA76925756%21142&Bsrc=SkyMail&Bpub=SDX.SkyDrive&authkey=!ABkWQG_odArzlGw
Cowardly Lion
10:06 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
Way to couragously stick to your principals Sosnowski. Everyone whines about the Mayor and her strong-arm, borderline corrupt tactics when it comes to development and yet those entrusted with acting as a check and balance to her power cave when we need them the most. If you can't or won't do the work of a Council member, it's time to step down.
Jared Robinson
10:23 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
also, they didn't need his yes vote... he could have 'stuck to his principals' and it still would have gotten passed.
Though, from what I gathered, people in his ward wanted him to vote yes.
Flora Tonthat
10:57 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
I've heard many old timers complain about the previous mayors, so no mayor is ever good enough. Driscoll has balanced the budget & got grants, no small feats. Ward 2 folks did want Sosnowski to vote yes. "people have died waiting for a senior center" & I, thankfully, will not be one of them.
50% of Salem was industrial & AUL warnings were issued for them. Yet, schools, housing, public spaces are built on them. We can all agree that more of Salem needs cleaning up. The Gateway Center can be that catalyst to get the rest of Salem cleaned up.
A No vote would have condemn seniors to stay at a leaky place & is on track to becoming an unhealthy environment. This would be worst than going into the Gateway Center that now have such a notoriety of needing cleaned-up, and all public eyes are now on the building process.
The $10million+ difference in price tag to the NO vote's alternative of a stand alone, Willow's senior center is astounding. Not only do we NOT have the money to build it, there would be no tax revenue to sustain it like there would be ($450,000/yr) for the Gateway Center. It is a realistic mean to achieving the end goal of having a new state-of-the-arts senior center. A NO would be just a delusional way of holding on to a utopia that will never materialize.
Jroug
10:29 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
Bottom line is Sosnow didn't have to vote that way or accept any deal that was offered. If he has any integrity, he shouldn't be whining about HIS CHOICE like a little girl with a skinned knee. He made a choice, he should stand by it like a grown man. Appalled at how immature many councillors seem to be.
Cowardly Lion
11:55 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
EXACTLY!!
Jared Robinson
11:58 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
yep. He says "The seniors don't want it there"
But, let's say they voted no... how many more YEARS of fighting before the Willows project would be even a near reality? Probably long enough that some of those seniors will have passed on. Something good now is better than NOTHING good later.
Also, what contamination are they concerned about? Has there been a field study? Nearly every area in Salem could be considered 'contaminated'.
Restless
10:01 am on Saturday, March 16, 2013
Looks like he is going to have some competition for his seat this year. I am interested to see what Heather Famico has to say!
Jared Robinson
11:01 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
Well said, Flora... I agree that the idea of that Willows senior center was great, but the REALITY was inconceivable. Though there's always the ability to BUILD that when fiscally available in the future and the Gateway Center could be used for other things. It also cleans up an area that REALLY needs it. The Willows will survive just fine without a senior center.
J. Burns
2:35 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
Jared and Flora, You seem thoughtful posters. Please read my posts about contamination at the Community Life (sic) center/Senior center site.and the amendment indemnifying the city against sicknesses caused by it.
And please view the chemist statements about such through link to the video of the council meeting.
Jeff Bellin
12:37 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
If most of his constituency wanted him to vote for the Boston Street location, isn't it close to his obligation to represent his district and do so? He can, and has, voiced his objection.
Jared Robinson
12:40 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
I have to say, I really like how Josh Turiel explains his stance on his page and then invites his constituency to interact. It gives a solid idea of what he's thinking and you get to see what some of his people think too.
Most of my interaction with Sosnowski is accomplished by various cryptic emails...
Jroug
2:11 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Regardless of how you feel about Josh's positions (I like them), you have to agree he's a model of how a CC member should communicate. My councillor is virtually unreachable unless you write & mail a letter - he doesn't respond to phone or e-mail.
Jared Robinson
2:20 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
His level of transparency and communication is unrivaled in the council. And I don't always agree with him, but at least he explains his views and he seems to be open to changing them. The trick is being able to educate your constituency with the facts (as unbiased as you can) and be open to their interpretation and concerns... I wish all our councilors followed this model
J. Burns
8:21 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
No it isn't because most of his constituency is not informed about the problems with the proposed Community Life Center (with children as young as 6 months)/Senior Center site. See my other posts especially: Sick Building, Sick Kids: Mayor and Council say: So What: We are not liable..
: .
J. Burns
10:23 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
No because many of his constituency are not well=informed about the problems at the site.
john
2:46 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
She wins again. Kick the can to the end of the road then turn around and say it's my way or nothing. I will be hoping for Sargent for mayor at some point. Turiel,Carr,Furey and Legault are all there to serve the mayor. Sargent has a different vision and God knows we need one.
William Legault
6:05 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Speak for yourself john.
john
6:07 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
I did.
William Legault
6:42 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Explaining to readers why I voted the way I did is not speaking for yourself. If your intention was otherwise Mr. Lunt you should have qualified your statement with, "I believe, or in my opinion". You did not.
Have a nice weekend.
john
7:15 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
I didn't explain anything. I commented with my opinion. Isn't that what Patch is all about?
William Legault
7:24 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
No Mr. Lunt, it is but is a part of what Patch is all about.
I am always a fan of the free exchange of ideas and opinions. That is how problems and issues are solved.
It is a shame that Patch continues to encourage those, like you who choose to personalize and belittle under the guise of a screen name.
Ironic that you cite Councilor Sargent and his approach to government. He is open, sincere, diligent and courageous enough to stand his ground under his good name. It is my honor to sit next to him and to try to learn from him. He would not approve of your anonymous rock throwing.
john
7:51 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
I stand firmly behind my opinions and I have no conflict of interest,just opinions afforded me by freedom of speech. I said nothing about Mr Sargents approach to government. I made a comment based on the fact that he stood alone on his vote. I do find it odd that a semi-elected councilor,former city employee and former? Patch employee chooses to engage taxpayers here. Good luck in th election Mr Legault.
john
11:16 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
I must respond to your statement about speaking for myself.You have stated that Mr. Sargent would not approve of my comments. Are you his spokesman or is that your opinion? You can't have it both ways. Also you should be honored to sit next to anyone in the chamber because you were not elected by the people. Good luck in the election
William Legault
10:52 am on Sunday, March 17, 2013
Mr. Lunt. I could refer you to the article of your where I quoted Councilor Sargent in regards to anonymous on-line posters, but would prefer that you do your own homework.
Thank you very much for the kind thoughts in regards to the fall elections. If I choose to pursue a full term I look forward to speaking with you personally.
john
12:10 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
I don't even no what you said but I do know that the majority of the people who post here do so anonymously. I enjoy it and sometimes I learn things I didn't even know about people that help me make future decisions. Your welcome.
J. Burns
10:24 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
You speak for many of us, John.
Susan Sturgeon
4:10 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
You guys have the best mayor in the commomwealth and all you do is get in her way. Shame on you!
Jroug
7:05 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Yeah, all these improvements are really the worst
Just kidding - she's the best mayor I've had in all the years I've lived here - highly visible, meaningful, positive changes during her terms. Feel like 99% of the whining here is about rising taxes, as if any mayor could stop that. I far prefer this Salem to the one of 15 years ago. If In didn't, I'd leave (hint, hint).
J. Burns
6:39 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
I strongly disagree with you as do increasingly many in this city. Trying to get a post past the censor here that is critical of the Mayor.. .
J. Burns
7:22 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
Patch hasn't let any posting disagreeing with you through.
J. Burns
8:22 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
They won't let me post a comment disagreeing with you.
J. Burns
10:27 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
Susan, I don't agree but the Patch censor apparently won't let me disagree with you.
Alas, is the Patch now going to be as pro-mayor as the Salem News. It used to be pretty balanced.
melas
10:34 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Besides all of the pros and cons for seniors...That cool-looking building is going to significantly improve the appearance of that gateway intersection. That intersection needs a sparkling gem.
J. Burns
8:26 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
It may look cool but it's on very contaminated ground. See my other posts.
John Dumas
9:20 am on Saturday, March 16, 2013
Just remember the "empire state building" was built in one year 47 days, using horse carts and hand tools. This is a public project so it will take many years and millions to complete.
'
Josh Turiel
9:38 am on Saturday, March 16, 2013
Actually, Mr. Dumas, it is an entirely private project that the city is buying a section of after it is completed. The other proposals that were on the table in 2009 were entirely public. The fact that it is a private project is one of the reasons I supported it.
J. Burns
2:03 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
IF SICK BUILDING MAKES KIDS SICK , COUNCIL SAYS: SO WHAT, CITY WON'T PAY DAMAGES
Please view chemist Phillip Blaskovich's statement on Salem public television at the very beginning of the Council Meeting of March 13 http://www.satvonline.org/monthly-on-demand-spotlight (Click on City Council meeting of the whole 3-13-2013.
The mayor and city council have added an amendment to the bond indemnifying the city against damages resulting from such illness and injury.
So that if those,(including infants and very young children (age 6 months-4 years who are particularly vulnerable to such sicknesses) who use the Community Life/Senior center become sick " from " pre-existing contamination at the site" the city would be "held harmless". (quotes from the amendment-page 2 Salem News March 16, 2013.
I will be posting the full statement of the chemist's analysis of the risks at the site and a list of the Mayor and Councillors' contact info for those who wish to educate them on just how callous of them admendment is...A petition and voters list
and a Call to Reaction e-mail address list) will be made available on this issue shortly. (We are working with the people who organized the petition for the overturn of the Steve's market-Gedney street four-hour parking meters ordinance for Gedney St. . The Final vote of the Council on the Community Life (sic) Center/Senior Center is in two weeks.
J. Burns
2:12 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
John, I am not necessarily saying this but I have heard many people call the Councillors who routinely support the Mayor "Rubber Stamps." Councillor O'Keefe has sometimes been included in the list. I would like the Councillors iin this discussion online to list the tiimes they have opposed the Mayor..
john
2:50 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
I am not sure that would work. Only one or two use this forum. When they sit around a room and listen to qualified chemist give factual information and act like he didn't say anthing,It makes me wonder what they would add here. They have the council chamber and we have places like this and that is probably the way it should be. It appears going to the meeting and speaking is a waist of time. Some get very defensive over criticism and anoynomus post but they all ask for our anoynomus votes.However, the overwhelming majority of councilor who have been crucified on various issues never respond on this site.Voting on an issue like this based on frustration of having no other otion is a very low standard.
William Legault
3:20 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
To all here on Patch:
Those of you that know me well. and those of you who know me fairly well are aware that I make my own decision for my own reasons. Criticism does not bother me, and as a current council member (appointed by those YOU elected) I accept criticism as a part of the gig. If I respond to that criticism, then that is a part of the gig for whichever poster I respond to (true even for the anonymous types). If my responding to anonymous barbs bothers anonymous posters, so be it.
Mr. J. Burns. I don't believe that my very short voting record would be enough to indicate any sort of pattern.
This will be all for me in this thread.
J. Burns
4:56 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
I agree but would love to see a list of the times when Councillor Turiel has opposed the Mayor. He was the hand-picked choice of Matt Veno (a Mayoral Rubber Stamp in the opinion of many) to rid the Mayor of the very independent and educated attorney, Councillor Ronan.
Actually I'm not sure you should even be voting on issues such as the Community Life Center/Senior Center. I think there might be a rule (I know there is in some cities) that someone like you who has not been privy to Council discussions/information re an issue which was considered over such a long time cannot vote on it.
Keep in mind that you were a compromise candidate-not really the first choice of any of the Councillors to replace Joan Lovely.
I wonder how well informed,(espeiailly with just a few months tenure) you are on the CLC/SC issue.. I'd love to have a dialogue on that.
J. Burns
5:02 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
John, they spent more time discussing the improper disposal of shopping carts than they did the critical contamination issue. Just went right to absolving the city of any liability.it..
J. Burns
5:10 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
Councillior Legault: what I agreed with is that you have been on the Council too short a period to list and be judged by the times you have disagreed with the Mayor (none that I know of). I don't agree that you make well-informed decisions. Woukl love to have a diialogue with you about the contamination and other problems with the CLC/SC.
William Legault
5:12 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
Mr. J. Burns, email me at legaultatlarge@mail.com and I will be happy to arrange to meet with you and discuss any matter you desire.
J. Burns
6:14 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
Why not here on this topic in public?
Let us start with 1.the contamination at the site (Please don't say something Like C. Furey did (in all seriousness) at one Council meeting, holding up a cup of coffee, "I drink coffee from the Dunkin Doughnuts down there, and I haven't gotten cancer," That is on an SAT DVD and it makes one want to cry).3. the very heavy, dangerous, polluting traffic (doesn't appear in the Mayor's idealized photos of the building, does it) 3. the adjacebt.druggie buildings and so on. . .
.
john
5:19 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
With regard to the conditions worked out by Councilor Ryan,what protection is provided to the homes on Federal St if the buiding cause problems that expand off the property? Secondly,a question was asked about getting $25,000 back from the developer if things hit a snag and the question was never asked of the developer even though he was sitting in the room and was not answered one way or the other. Last the proposal to hire a senior center administrator, the wording was that the city should do it rather then will do it. All this in addition to the possibilty of unknown levels of contamination,many questions, few answers.