154 acre parcel targeted for eminent domain taking
The Retreat, a badly needed student housing development in northeast Amherst managed to dodge the first scud missile launched their way as the Conservation Commission last night abstained from making a recommendation on Amherst Town Meeting article #43, the unAmerican use of eminent domain to steal the property development rights from W.D. Cowls, Inc, the largest private landowner in the state with local business roots predating the American Revolution.
God Bless America.
Claiming to be a reliable source of local issues, I have some concerns about your partiality about this housing project, Larry.
ReplyDeleteThat you are a staunch advocate of this project either indicates that you feel passionately that it is the right decision and that the neighbors are acting selfishly. Or, I wonder if you yourself are a NIMBY, urging the town to develop N. Amherst so that your backyard won't be encroached upon, because you realize that development certainly IS inevitable.
Perhaps you are lobbying so strongly for this development to occur on the other side of town simple because it is just that, on the other side of town.
How can we trust your opinion?
Last I looked I live 50 feet from the DPW (great neighbors by the way) and about 500 yards from Mill Valley Estates, The Boulders, Southpoint, and The Brook at Amherst Green.
ReplyDeleteGet a clue dude.
Anon 10:08 a.m.'s post is another finalist in the contest for "Dumbest Comment In The History of This Blog Not Submitted By Dr. ED".
ReplyDeleteWe have a problem in town. It needs to be solved. Something needs to be done. That's it.
There's no ulterior motive in that.
Use commas much?
ReplyDeleteThat you live near a few established apartment complexes doesn't negate the possibility that you wouldn't want MORE development to occur.
ReplyDeleteAlso, how the hell would I know where you live, exactly? You could live over on S. Pleasant for all I know. My question was a valid one.
Just setting up for my killer close.
ReplyDeleteYour question, Anon 10:26 AM, shows you don't take the time to do basic due diligence research, so how can we trust anything you say?
ReplyDeleteBesides, you're a CAN -- and that brings with it a host of credibility problems.
I wonder how many people will actually take the time to read the attached letter from Cinda Jones and familiarize themselves with the other side of the argument.
ReplyDeleteHooray for the Retreat!!!
ReplyDeleteI have to laugh Larry. You can always tell when the truth hits home because that's when people turn from the information at hand to blaming people. Like me, when you speak things that no one wants to realize, they make you into the anti-Christ.
ReplyDeleteHow long are people going to complain about your "fairness". This is a blog. A blog is defined as a Web site containing the writer's or group of writers' own experiences, observations, opinions, etc., and often having images and links to other Web sites. You like to use the term journalist to define your work which you are correct in using.
Somehow everyone thinks once you use that term you are Walter Cronkite and only information given, no opinion. I guess these folks stopped reading rags like the NY Times which is about fair and balanced as a pool slide.
Look at how the UK media took yesterday's terrorist attack against that unfortunate soldier in South London and edited the video they showed taking out any and all references to the Koran, muslims, and their quest to kill Westerners. It became an incident with no reference to the Jihad that was behind it. Guess it makes Londoners sleep better.
Notice no one mentions that the person who shot the video was also one of the group that performed the killing. Oh you thought it was an innocent bystander.
So I have to laugh at folks here who think you're the Boar's Head of writers, as in we hold our stuff to a higher standard. You clearly have sides. You report what you want and you have your slant. Like I said, show me a corporate owned rag that doesn't do what you do but under some sort of Journalist "standard". Ha!
It is a blog folks and blogs are anything and everything a person wants to write and anything and everything others want to say that he allows. Get used to it.
"...who think you're the Boar's Head of writers"
ReplyDeleteI never said that his writing is anywhere near that caliber. Of course, you are on the right track since much of his opinions are BOLOGNA.
I hope this letter is made widely available to all Town Meeting members. It is a well-thought out objective and rational presentation why the Retreat should be allowed to be built on that parcel.
ReplyDeleteLarry apparently prefers to think of himself as a "commentator", but he must have overslept the day they explained in journalism class that a commentator is someone who first establishes his credibility and bona fides with years of dispassionate journalism. No one can succeed in keeping his personal biases out of his reporting, but Larry has never even tried. He keeps tripping over his ego, which makes it impossible for him to refrain from trumpeting his opinions and injecting himself into his stories.
ReplyDeleteAnd apparently he likes it that way, which is fine; it's his blog. But that doesn't make him a commentator -- it makes him a blowhard.
Quite the popular one these days.
ReplyDeleteYes the letter is well written and logical. But then again this case is not about logic. It's about NIMBY. And whenever something is about that, it's never about logic, only fear of the unknown. I heard all sorts of hilarious suppositions made by Cushman residents over the last few weeks including someone claiming that they were building a small amphitheater on the parcel too.
ReplyDeleteIf you've ever seen the Twilight Zone episode called "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street" was just like Cushman.
A shadow passes overhead and a loud roar is heard, accompanied by a flash of light. Their electricity has been cut off. Tommy, a boy from the neighborhood, has read a story of an alien invasion causing similar phenomena, and he predicts the worst. Furthermore, in the story, the aliens are thought to be living as a family that appears human. The power outage is meant to isolate and contain the neighborhood. Much more happens that causes distrust and fear of the unknown.
Panic builds up till the end when a shadowy figure is seen walking towards them. Someone grabs a shotgun and immediately shoots the shadow, thinking it to be the alleged "monster." When the crowd reaches the fallen figure, they realize it is a neighbor who set out in the beginning and is returning from his scouting mission. The shot had hit him in the chest, killing him instantly. This precedes more fear and all out riot over who is an alien.
The scene cuts to a nearby hilltop, where it is revealed the mysterious meteor that had flown overhead is indeed an alien spaceship. Its inhabitants, two alien observers, are watching the riot on Maple Street while using a device to manipulate the neighborhood's power. They comment on how easy it was to create paranoia and panic, and conclude that the easiest way to conquer Earth is to let the people of Earth destroy themselves.
In his closing narrative, Rod Serling says that "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs, and explosions, and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy. And a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own, for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is...that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone.”
Welcome to Cushman.
Walter,
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid you are mistaken in this case. I attended the meeting with the developers during which they stated (as well as in their written materials) that they would like to include a movie theater. That's probably where the small amphitheater came from. I think it's important to remember that there are many stories and rumors going around. In fact, I've directly heard opposing statements from different supporters of the "Retreat" that have left me wondering if they know what's really going on. Your analogy could apply equally well to the supporters.
I'm not mistaken at all. There are lots of suppositions and few facts. There never was an amphitheater in the plans. There are plans for a pool, fitness center, sports arena and movie theaters FOR THE OCCUPANTS. These are common amenities in living spaces of this size. But this is not going to be a drive-in, nor like a Regal theater. Truth is and always has been, this development isn't designed like animal house. It will improve the run down neighborhood and bring more money to the town.
ReplyDeleteCindy Jones said it best and sums up the reality; “It’s reasonable and rational to feel protective when you live next to someone else’s land that’s use is proposed to change. Change can be scary.”
"This development isn't designed like animal house."
ReplyDeleteWell, actually animal house wasn't designed it was created in a SINGLE FAMILY house by its inhabitants. The "Retreat" will have upwards of 190 (3-4 bedroom) SINGLE FAMILY houses which Landmark officials and their literature state will be rented by the room, each room costing $825.00 per month.
It would seem to those of us who have been researching this pro and con for months, that people like you are in-part responsible for the suppositions and lack of facts.
I dare you to view the two web-sites below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1evHPgQnOIM
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwL4Nawg2e4
Animal House would be an improvement!
Change can be scary.
ReplyDeleteIs she intentionally trying to sound condescending? Who the hell does she think she's addressing?
You, obviously.
ReplyDeleteCinda's well-written memo to the Conservation Commission actually contains within it the kernel of another alternative to the development of The Retreat in Cushman.
ReplyDeleteWhy not sell Landmark the Cherry Hill Golf Course? The town gets the money for the land and the golf course is no longer a huge and continuing suck on town finances.
Cinda's never experienced what real change is like, she performs her aerial acrobatics with a net, never to display the strength of her confidence in her abilities to herself, or me.
ReplyDeleteAnd how the Hell would she know who you were
ReplyDeleteParadise paved over with a parking lot.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Cinda scared of change?
ReplyDeleteOr is she brave and we are all scared?
I don't understand.
Cinda needs to become a better listener if, after all the objections, she believes those opposed are "scared".