New, Sneaky Landlocked Housing in West Bridgewater via Brockton Street

We get a lot from them....mutual aid, public schooling for many children, and friendly relations!

It doesn't matter how the people vote or what they want. Do they ever win?
What's in it for me is the final answer and that doesn't refer to the PEOPLE.
All I ever see is Ca Ching, Ca Ching in their pockets.
As for Carpenter, he has way too many drinking partners to lose anything.

At last, we agree! A debate requires research, presentation of logical facts, supporting evidence, flow, reasoning, and a lot of other things. You are indeed at that level 101.

To dad and Capt, a member requested via the Mayor's office that a "stop order" be placed on the road. They suggested Albanese and friends return to West Bridgewater to work with their land-owning neighbor to access this from the safest and rightful place. So far, after the pipes were connected, no further Brockton action is evident.

To clarify the point of abutters, it is the access road that is being challenged. This project is NOT scheduled to be built on Brockton land, so there is no argument there. Hell, there isn't even a debate! People can not legally construct a thruway just because they own a piece of land. That is what this is about. Those who aggressively dominate and rationalize this hostile intent to force a street leading to a pot of retirement gold are inflicting their hostility on their neighbors. Too bad, but the developers must follow the rules.

Even if Brockton approved the street, West Bridgewater must issue permits for the houses. They do not want it (public record, do a web search). So boxerfamily should check the facts. We are doing no favors for WB by approving something their own Planning Department already denied. As the expression goes, Albanese and friends are approaching this ass-backwards hoping a sneaky street leading to nowhere will be forgiven by the City of Brockton, thus inspiring WB to allow them to build the houses.

On to August 1!

Clifton,
I did not research this issue.........nor does it much impact upon me or my family. However, my point was from the side of business. We have never been a friendly city to developers. I thought small steps help us complete the march. But, I believe, also, that we must adhere to the zoning rules. It seems like Mr. Albanese knew he'd get this through. That is disturbing. As for the mayor, he has no competition so he feels that he is safe and is able to do what he wishes. I am not sure who would ever want his job anyways. The mayor's job pays a pittance for the time and effort and we may have found the man who wants to keep the job a very long time!

boxerfamily wrote: Clifton,
I did not research this issue.........nor does it much impact upon me or my family. However, my point was from the side of business. We have never been a friendly city to developers. I thought small steps help us complete the march. But, I believe, also, that we must adhere to the zoning rules. It seems like Mr. Albanese knew he'd get this through. That is disturbing. As for the mayor, he has no competition so he feels that he is safe and is able to do what he wishes. I am not sure who would ever want his job anyways. The mayor's job pays a pittance for the time and effort and we may have found the man who wants to keep the job a very long time!

boxer -- on these points, we agree. Those who oppose this feel a shady deal is not a good one and, if Brockton approves the street to nowhere, that does not mean West Bridgewater will allow development on the other side. The Mayor is a whole other topic. Extending the proverbial olive branch to you ---->

I may not be understanding this situation correctly but does Albanese have a position with the city in some sort of real-estate capacity while representing the developers of this project?

He is currently the Real Estate Custodian for the COB. He handles I believe, the auctioning off of City Properties. Sounds like a bit of a conflict, no?

He is also the former City Solicitor. You might want to take a look at the Donors to Carpenter as well.

Here's a link to the Wicked Local article that does a fairly good job of detailing the entire issue.

brockton.wickedlocal.com/news/20170605/b...r-subdivisions-plans

Thanks for the link. If I lived in that area I'd be pretty upset as well. If the homes will be in WB as well as any tax revenue then they should find a road in WB for access with no cost to Brockton tax payers not to mention the increased traffic.

Yes, seems like a conflict to me. Also, if I were trying to get something passed that would be a negative for Brockton taxpayers then I probably wouldn't refer to them as an angry mob.

---

"As far as we can see, we’re well within our legal rights to be doing what we’re doing, and we’re not going to be intimidated by angry mobs,” Albanese said." ---Probably not going to garner a great deal of empathy from those most affected by the proposal.

Thank you!

Let me point out that, when Messina decimated wetlands to build Chestnut Woods (the over-55 development also on West Chestnut) many of us had concerns. At least it is in Brockton and the City informed us properly in writing of his intentions. Despite promises to the contrary, tampering with that area of wetlands has resulted in a lot of water in some of our nearby yards and houses. Messina abandoned Chestnut Woods financially, prior to its completion. Now he is working with Albanese, Petronelli, and friends towards Meadow Woods. We are not a mob and they are not threatened.

The City of Brockton hired a lawyer who advised that a stop be placed on creating the road because there is also a sewer easement that runs parallel to West Chestnut through many of our yards, owned by the COB. Though the restrictions are in our deeds and plot plans, Albanese says the Petronellis can put a road over it and pipes through it because paperwork was not properly filed in the year 1893 granting ownership to Brockton, which became a city in 1881. He says that those living on the easement are trespassing from Pearl to Plain Street.

Regarding the conflict of interest - when auctioned land is sold, Brockton receives the proceeds, but Albanese gets 10 percent of the highest bid directly FROM THE BUYER. From what I heard, some of the adjacent Brockton pieces are selling to his friends. So a $100,000 sale means his friend hands him $10,000. Not a bad deal.

He and Petroneliis are West Bridgewater landowners hoping a quickly constructed street (without permits) will present the opportunity to request "forgiveness", a legal maneuver, that could lead them back to West Bridgewater. Once the street exists, if Brockton forgives, and if WB then changes their mind and issues a permit to build, then Meadow Woods could proceed. Anyone else who wants to construct a road must go through a complex process. Then, the now-hot landlocked Brockton parcels I just mentioned above will magically have access!

For those of you who think this is just a West Chestnut problem, residents of Samuel Avenue and OTHER STREETS OFF COPELAND will be next as these land purchases snake closer to them. If Brockton says "yes" on West Chestnut, they will do the same on Samuel, a street with one end in Brockton that also ends in West Bridgewater! Albanese works for Brockton and profits from its sale of land. He should not be working on both sides of this and gathering his friends and supporters to join in. Somebody has to investigate this. Oh that's right, it takes a Carpenter with a whole lot of buddies to build a city. Ironic, huh?

Proudly posted today is a big "Ross Messina" sign at the bottom of Petronelli's land. Hey Ross, we know this is another intimidation tactic!
Distributed among our "angry mob" is the traffic study conducted on West Chesnut. Interesting reading.

Another Planning Board meeting, another cancellation by the developers. August 2 meeting, they once again backed out. Anyone hear an update on this? Does anyone with knowledge of Planning Board procedures check in here? I would like to know how many times an average citizen can cancel an appearance and still be viewed as credible.

I repeat myself - they are trying to wear us down. Supporters - please don't give up. If you do, you may as well sign the approval papers yourselves. If you do not prepare to attend the meetings, you can't complain. I say to the developers, you are giving us more time to organize and prepare. Thank you!

If I was a cynic I'd say that the Developers would show up the first Meeting after the Mayoral Election in November.

Whatever happened to the good old days of decent politics where people sat down and debated in a civilized manner
without a knife in the back or a treacherous scheme? The money wasted on this foolishness is sickening and it comes out of our pockets!

I hate to say this, but I heard its a done deal.

Most things we have no say in or know about are all done deals.

Gary Keith is on the Planning Board and is running for Councilor at Large in Brockton.

Mayor Carpenter is also running for reelection. I will be amazed if the Developers show up before the November Election.

JB - are you hearing the Planning Board is going to approve this?

They will ask the Planning Board to build a street. Even if that is approved (and there are legal facts that must exist first or they have no right to approve it), it must return to Conservation because a neighborhood requires two forms of egress and the Conservation Commission only approved one. Then it goes back to the Planning Board. Ultimately, the City Council would vote, and at a minimum, Eaniri, Sullivan, Farwell, and Rodrigues say they will not approve. Neither the Conservation Commission nor the Planning Board can push this. Mind you, NONE of this can happen unless there is an actual "go" from West Bridgewater since it is the neighborhood that drives the need for a street. They denied it.

Albanese is trying to intimidate and bully his neighbors. He said all along that they would start working this summer and they are making you believe it. Do you really think they would keep delaying $$$ in their pockets if this was a done deal? At some point they must appear in front of the Planning Board and, so far, they cancelled 4 or 5 times in a row. The Planning Board must hear all of the arguments prepared about this, not just that of the developers.

If this comes back to the conservation commission I can say I will be voting on the WPA not on whether I like the project or not. My like or dislike does not sway my vote. I will be casting a vote on the application and the WPA and the recommendations of our environmental company we use

Sounds like double talk to me

Yep.

Remember when you vote in September and November how those current elective officials and all those on Commissions and Boards vote and either vote them out or don't cast a vote for them.

There are no redeeming reasons that this should be voted in the affirmative . Time for our elected and want to be elected officials to think of their constituents and protect them. And not bow down to big time donors..