At its May meeting, the League of Women Voters Newton voted in favor of supporting the new plan for the Austin Street parking lot. More here.
In addition, this is from Green Newton (formerly Green Decade)
Green Newton supports the Austin Street Development Project proposal, because of the numerous beneficial “green” features that the developers have committed to include in the plans. We call on the City to hold the developers to these, including:
“LEED certifiable mixed-use building (Energy-efficient heating and ventilation systems, fixtures, and lighting along with rooftop solar power and EnergyStar appliances). • GreenStaxx building technology (Quality offsite modular construction with less community disruption). • Green terrace and rooftop garden. • Bike-friendly location with secure stations and storage • Car sharing (e.g. Zipcar), and electric vehicle charging. • Highly walkable location with supermarket, pharmacy, village shops, restaurants and commuter rail access. • Widened Austin Street sidewalk and improved Bram Way.”
Village 14 is eager to post other group endorsements or non-endorsements. Send them via the “contact us” box located at the top right of this page.
Both groups have their agenda. Apparently, making sure the city gets a good deal is not part of that agenda. My opposition to the Austin Street project centers on the artificially low price the developer is paying for the property [$10K per lease year], and the lack of affordable units in a project so heavily subsidized by taxpayers. I’ll quote P.T. Barnum again, because it’s the perfect quote to define Mayor Warren’s role in the Austin Street project….
“There’s a sucker born every minute.”
Interesting perspective @Mike. I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned it before!
It’s worth repeating, Greg. The last two mayors have had no business experience, and they both cut some really bad deals for the city. I’ve got no problem with developing Austin Street. But practically giving it away… that’s a different story.
I agree with Mike Striar’s observations.
Newton residents are committed to excellence in affordable housing, but lets keep in mind we live in a city, not the personal Monopoly Board of Scott Oran and Bob Engler.
I can see why Scott Oran and Bob Engler support it, after all, its a sweetheart deal for them
Oran serves on Mayor David Cohen’s Citizens Advisory Group which advocated for declaring the property as “surplus”
Oran donates to Cohen’s successor Setti Warren
Warren names Oran and Engler’s company as the developers for the Austin Street Project
They get a 99 year lease for a property at an 80% lower price than what their competition will pay
They offer a thin veneer of “affordable housing units” which they will recoup from the 75% market rate units
They don’t have to assume any of the additional enrollment costs at Cabot Elementary that Newton will incur because of this project
What the price reflects is complete control over the development by the city. The city would not have that with a market deal.
What Terry said. A lease also reflects a concern for future generations of Newtonians. It’s not all about the here and now.
I’m sorry Terry, but that’s just nonsense. The City owns the land, and has had complete control of this project from its inception. Warren should have used that control to require a project with more affordable units. He’s selling the city short on price and affordable units.
Jane–No one is questioning the “lease.” What’s being questioned is why the developer is paying less to lease Austin Street on an annual basis than I pay to lease my car.
My dear Mr Striar, please help me out, I’m confused. You refer on many occasions to an annual lease payment by the developer of the Austin St project which you characterize as
“Jane–No one is questioning the “lease.” What’s being questioned is why the developer is paying less to lease Austin Street on an annual basis than I pay to lease my car.”
As I read it, the proposal has a one time lease payment not an annual payment. I only did my MBA in Finance at Northeastern so I’m just a rope-a-d0pe numbers guy, but I don’t get how you get your criticism. You make much of your experience in this real estate business, but you are totally mis-representing the payment flows for this deal if you acutally want us to believe there are annual payments of $10K or whatever. Do you in fact understand the difference between NPV of future cash flows versus NFV of present cash payments? Humm, just wondering, Mr Mike.
@HL
It’s a fair criticism- I’m assuming Mike doesn’t realize that this was a change was from the original proposal.
But being fair-minded yourself- I assume that you join me in criticizing the city in calling the initial proposal a “1 million dollar bid” when instead the payments were over the 99 years, and so NPV was more like 200,000.
The guy who just built the Mc mansion accross the street from me paid $1,000,000 for 13,000 sf of land with a perfectly beautiful colonial house on it 3 years ago. Is commercial property in this city worth so much less.???
@Blueprint Bill: Is the seller of the lot across the street from you still allowed to park his car (or 127 cars) on his former property? And did the buyer agree to repave your street, fix sidewalks, add lighting or do anything else to improve your neighborhood? Oh and is the buyer going to let some people live in his new McMansion at a rate below what it would normally cost to live in part of this new McMansion?
Austin Street Partners has always proposed a $1,050,000 single payment when construction commences. No change has been made and there has never been any proposal to make 99 annual payments.
In addition, the City has requested and Austin Street Partners has agreed to make an additional payment of $750,000 for improvements to public utilities in the vicinity of the project. Hence, the total payment due at construction commencement would be $1,800,000. In addition, building permit fees of over $300,000 would be due.
In total then, the City will receive over $2,100,000 when construction commences.
Moreover, the City will get a newly reconstructed 127-space municipal parking lot and Bram Way and continue to set parking rates, enforce parking rules and collect all revenue from the Austin Street municipal parking lot, just as it does now.
Oh Greg,
Ain’t the City of Newton generous.
Is the city so bankrupt that it can’t cover its expenses on its own. It’s down to the private sector to throw it a life preserver? What a deal !
$1,050,000 divided by 99 years equals $10,606 per year. It’s not a reference to payment schedule, it’s a commentary on the absurdly low price the city is receiving from the developer.
I’m glad to see Austin Street Partners commenting on this thread. And I want to reiterate my support for developing the Austin Street parking lot. My objection to the current proposal is based on the fact that the value of the property far exceeds the price, and the project does not include enough affordable units.
It is common in the industry for developers to offer, or in some cases be obligated to neighborhood improvements. Folks may remember that the Wells Ave proposal initially included about $1M in traffic mitigation improvements. When the city declined to lift the deed restriction on Wells Ave, the developer increased their offer to $3M in community benefits. And as I’ve often said on this blog, when that developer reaches $5M I’ll likely support the Wells Ave project.
An important distinction between Wells Ave and Austin Street, is that the former is private property, and the latter is public property. The Wells Ave property was acquired at a price established by the open market. The price at Austin Street was established by the developer.
Additionally, in their comment above, Austin Street Partners has included the building permit cost in order to present the appearance of a higher property price. Let’s try to stay focused on reality. They are paying $1,050,000 to lease the Austin Street lot for 99 years. The value of that property far exceeds what they are paying. That’s not just my opinion, it’s a fact supported by other offers the city received for Austin Street.
More than price, what bothers me the most about this proposed project, is that Mayor Warren was in a position to demand it include more affordable units, and he completely dropped the ball. The Austin Street proposal includes the same percentage of affordable units as a traditional 40B built on private property, acquired at fair market value. It’s only logical that a public property subsidized by taxpayers in order to reduce the cost to the developer, should include a higher percentage of affordable units. Also, unlike most 40B developments, the Austin Street proposal includes 5000 sf of retail space, substantially increasing the value of the property to the developer.
@ASP
My error. You are correct that you’ve always proposed a $1.05M payment.
Could you please provide us with information on expected profit from this project?
There are many of us who believe that while you are offering the payments as you describe above, another developer offered much more, and as a result we believe that you should be offering more affordable housing units than in the current proposal. Understanding that you to need realize an attractive but not overly egregious ROI on this project, it would help us feel better that you are doing everything possible to serve the community– both in paying a fair price and providing as much affordable housing as possible.
Your transparency and continued responsiveness would be appreciated.
Mr Mike, I’m still confused – you never answered my question, in fact you seem to have made an even more opaque statement:
“$1,050,000 divided by 99 years equals $10,606 per year. It’s not a reference to payment schedule, it’s a commentary on the absurdly low price the city is receiving from the developer. ”
Please explain what you mean – there are no annual payments for 99 years that I can see, and I just don’t get what you mean by “it’s not a reference to a payment schedule. it’s a commentary on the absurdly low price the city is receiving … ”
Are you seriously advancing this as some sort of financial analysis of this project? You make claims (which I have no basis for evaluating one way or the other) to extensive experience and expertise in real estate development and specifically 40B projects, but I can’t quite parse how you are getting from point A to point B on this one. Do you have some basic assumptions and financial parameters you’ve fed into a model that tells you this project is such a bad deal? Could you share them with us? You say the price to be received by the city is ‘absurdly low’ but elsewhere in your post you refer to 99 years of payments when in fact there are no such payments in the Ts&Cs. What do you believe to be the correct price, on what terms, over what time period?
In short, it looks to me like you are blowing smoke, but I am not a real estate guy so I’m happy to give you the benefit of the doubt on that score. I do have a fair amount of experience with financial analysis and evaluation of capital projects and investment proposals, so I’d love to see your assumptions and pro formas if you really want to get into it.
Start with the pricing model. If you think the price is wrong, what do you think it ought to be, based on what evidence, what’s the term sheet look like, payment schedule, and so on. Show your work. I don’t have a problem with blowing smoke by the way, that’s what blogs are all about. But let’s be clear about what game you think you’re playing.
Here’s a deal for you Admiral Dewey… Struggling with the math? Don’t understand how to divide $1,050,000 by 99? Not happy with what you learned at Northeastern? Wanna come out of the closet and tell us who your shilling for?
617-834-2222. Leave your caller ID unblocked. Ask me any questions you want. I’ll answer each one to the best of my ability, although I think I’ve clearly articulated my issues with Austin Street on this blog. Too low a price! Too few affordable units! Bad deal for the city!!!
As I’ve expressed in the past, I’m sick of people using fake names on this site to obscure hidden agendas. If someone wants to be taken seriously, try using your real name. Mike Striar has a new policy on V-14. Hence forth, I’m only engaging bloggers with the courage to use their real name.
Mike Striar, some of us in the V14 community understand the intent behind your car lease payment comment. I think it is a valid comment given there could be 127 cars parked on the land in question.
And I second the suggestion offered on V14 that Newton residents take a ride from Waltham center to Watertown center via River Street and Pleasant Street to get a preview of what some people envision for Newton.
I do not expect a reply from you because I choose not to provide my real last name.
—- a comment was removed from this thread —
for spreading an “unsubstantiated rumor” from an anonymous source, by an anonymous poster, that was a personal attack. Feel free to come back with something more factual.
@ Jerry Reilly
On Nov5,2013 it was announced by the Massachusetts board of the League of Women Voters, that Meryl Kessler was appointed Massachusetts Executive Director of the LWV’s. Scott Oran, a Newton resident and a part of the Austin Street partners, owns property here in Newton with a certain Meryl Kessler. If these two Meryl Kesslers are in fact , one in the same, might an argument be made that Newtons LWV should have disclosed this relationship before announcing their support for the Austin Street project?
I want to take a half step backward in this V-14 theatre of the absurd, to once again offer my support for developing the Austin Street lot. I think Scott Oran and Austin Street Partners have done an excellent job of reaching out to the community and addressing every issue that’s been raised about this project. Scott was kind enough to call me at home to help clarify a couple of points. I told him I would prefer any dialogue we had regarding Austin Street, take place right here on V-14. Scott was gracious enough to honor that request, and I’m thrilled Austin Street Partners is participating on this thread.
Honestly, I don’t enjoy playing the role of naysayer. A lifetime ago when I ran for mayor, I made it a point on issues of the day, to include solutions along with any criticism. Today, I am critical of the deal struck by Mayor Warren with Austin Street Partners [ASP]. I blame the Mayor, not ASP. Mayor Warren works for us, ASP works for themselves. Our guy is a pretty darn good mayor, but he has the business skills of a goldfish. And nowhere is that more apparent than Austin Street.
The Mayor’s principle purpose behind developing the Austin Street lot was to create affordable housing. So much so, he was willing to substantially sacrifice price to get affordable units. Had he done a better job, I’d be here applauding his efforts. But the fact is he did a bad job, and failed to get any more affordable units out of ASP than would ordinarily be included in a traditional 40B, despite the subsidized price of the property.
So, where to from here? Well, if I were Mayor Warren, I would keep it simple at this point, and try to salvage this proposal from Austin Street Partners. I would challenge ASP to find a way to include 6 more units of affordable housing in their proposal, whether by adding additional units, converting market rate units to affordable, or a combination of those two approaches.
I speak only for myself. But if the Austin Street proposal included 6 more affordable units, I would shut-up, thank Scott Oran for his efforts, and feel like Newton actually accomplished something good out of all this.
@Blueprintbill – I’m an Austin St. supporter and LWV member and didn’t know this. If true, I completely agree with you.
@Blueprintbill and Lucia, Meryl Kessler from the LWV is none other than Scott Oran’s wife.
Mike Striar, I agree with you that Mayor Warren has poor business skills. That’s one of many reasons why I wish Bill Heck won election as Newton mayor in 2009 instead of Setti. Setti and his father had spent their entire adult lives in the cocoon of government, politics and academia whereas Bill Heck had real world experience in the Dreaded Private Sector as a small business owner and also had a successful hotel management career.
I haven’t forgotten that Warren said it was the job of Newton’s mayor to sell residents on 40B developments whereas Bill Heck was the only candidate who opposed them.
Given its advocacy for transparency, the Newton League should have disclosed this.
But any conspiracy theorists who think they’ve found the smoking gun which explains this endorsement, are delusional. This is very much in keeping with things the Newton League supports.
Meanwhile, the fact that Scott Oran is married to the executive director of a civic organization that’s committed to environmental sustainability, election reform, civic education and, yes, affordable housing, does seem to cut into the stereotype that Oran is nothing more than a greedy developer.
I can assure you that the vote by the League of Women Voters of Newton (LWVN) had nothing to do with Meryl’s connection. Our Board based our decision on positions created by LWVN in the 1970s (on affordable housing) and in 2011 (on land use and zoning.) Meryl did not participate in any of our meetings or in our educational/informational session that we held months back at the YMCA. We have one Board member who also sits on the board of the state organization (LWVMA) who abstained not only from voting, but also from speaking during the discussions held over several Board meetings.
For the uninitiated, there is a difference between LWVN, LWVMA, and LWVUS. While we follow the positions that the national and state Leagues create after national and state studies (respectively), we do not consult them when we take a position on a local issue, like the Austin Street project.
@ Sue Filcop,
Much as Ms Filcop would like to assure us that the vote taken by LWV Newton supporting the ASP housing proposal, had nothing to do with ms Kessler and her husband Scott Oran, it seems obvious by Ms Kesslers apparently friendly association with local LWV events that there may well have been influence here. For example on May 22, 2014 Ms Kessler spoke at the LWV Newton Annual Meeting. On June 12, 2014 Ms Kessler served as a judge at a LWV Newton sponsored Civic Education Competition event. She no doubt must have some influence, being invited to participate locally, and one must be left to wonder to just what extent that influence is being exercised .
Greg, have you ever heard that opposites attract?
Greg, the only things the League supports add to the size, scope and cost of government.
They endorsed the Community Plundering Act
They endorsed the 2002 override
They endorsed the 2008 override
They endorsed the 2013 override
They support banning plastic bags even though plastic bags have been proven to be more environmentally sound than paper or lead-laden “reusable bags”.
They supported the bottle bill tax
They supported the automatically increasing gas tax
They support the pay-as-you-throw garbage tax even though Newton taxpayers already pay for trash removal through their property taxes
They support efforts to undermine the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
They support federal government usurping the role of state and local governments when it comes to providing “public education”
They support forcing Newton taxpayers to pay $8.5 Million annually to educate 600 non-resident students who attend Newton Public Schools
They support 40B housing projects that privatize profits for politically connected developers while socializing costs to taxpayers
They support the United Nations’ efforts to undermine American sovereignty
I’m a bit puzzled.
Is it standard practice for the LWVN to get involved in supporting specific projects such as Austin St?
Do they have an opinion on other development projects?
I’d have expected them to be involved in much more general principle/practice advice.
Can we expect them to render opinions on any development project of scale in Newton?
Do they have an opinion on the Zervas project which goes way beyond what most voters expected and appears to be wasting about $20M on a knock down and mega sized school rather than a smaller scale renovation more appropriate for the site. Do they have an opinion on the totally unnecessary redistricting it is triggering, which will greatly damage local school communities?
Do they have an opinion on the clear move away from the neighborhood elementary school model which has served Newton so well for many decades?
Why is LWVN so focused on Austin St when they appear to have abandoned school communities who are currently under attack as a major Newton value is being discarded?
@Sue Flicop: Does the Newton chapter of the League of Women Voters get any funding from the state chapter?
It makes perfect sense that the League endorsed this project but they made a mistake by neglecting to disclose that the executive director of the state chapter is married to the developer of the project. Scott Oran’s company has a right to do business in Newton; Meryl Kessler has a right to serve as executive director of the LWVMA; and, the League of Women Voters in Newton has a right to endorse development projects in Newton, even those proposed by developers who live in the city.
I think that LWVN taking a position on a specific development, conflicts with its mission, which simply stated from its website is:
“The League of Women Voters has two separate and distinct roles:
1. Voters Service/Citizen Education: we present unbiased nonpartisan information about elections, the voting process, and issues.
2. Action/Advocacy: we are also nonpartisan, but, after study, we use our positions to advocate for or against particular policies in the public interest.”
Just as LWVN does not support specific candidates in elections, so they should not support specific development projects.
It would have been much more appropriate for LWVN to advocate for policy rather than project.
I think that the LWVN should remove itself from Austin St project advocacy of any kind.
I think it’s more relevant for the LWVN — whose members actually reside in Newton — to be taking a position on this than, of say, the author of this particular comment, who DOES NOT live in Newton
UPDATE: The LWVN has added this statement to its endorsement announcement...
#2 seems to allow for the fact the League will take a position when they so desire. I see you are differentiating “policy” from the actual project itself, so it depends how you define things there.
Either way, if they want to make a recommendation, fine with me- I can agree with it or not.
I do agree that, based on the information in this thread, the League should at least have acknowledged the appearance of a conflict of interest.
I guess I would be very interested in knowing if LWVN has taken an advocacy position before on any development project of a purely residential and business nature in Newton.
Also, is such a position consistent with its non-profit status?
It seems to me that just as LWVN does not advocate for specific political candidates, even if LWVN might agree with their issue positions, so LWVN should not advocate for a specific commercial project even if it finds certain aspects of the project appealing.
LWVN is inserting itself into a fight, taking sides against a fair number of local community residents who think they will be adversely affected by the project.
That appeals to me as exactly what LWVN should NOT be doing.
It should provide advice and perspective but not take sides in such an adverse manner.
It currently seeks to block the wishes of local voters to decide the future of the locale they live in.
Hardly a position which furthers the democratic process.
When I was elected as a junior member of the Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council, I had to take an on-line ethics course where it was stressed that the “appearance” of a conflict of interest is often as corrosive as an actual conflict. I’m secretary of the Council and I’ve started diligently posting all the group type things I take notes on at the City website to avoid any hint of conflict.
That’s why I sense a disturbing degree of tone deafness here on the part of both the League and the developer although I’m not implying that the League’s decision to endorse the Austin Street project was made in bad faith or corrupting circumstances. It’s the appearance that something isn’t entirely right that makes things like this far more salient than they would have been 20 or 30 years ago when there was far more trust in our public and private institutions than there is now.
The evidence of greed, mismanagement and distorted, unpatriotic priorities in all too many of our leading individuals and institutions keeps coming at us every day. Read the Globe’s series on the sweet and manipulated deals for top management at Staples and Cysco at the expense of their workers that appears in today’s and Sunday’s Boston Globe. My father and Dwight D. Eisenhower would be sickened if they could have anticipated that companies which purport to be American were pulling these kinds of desensitizing actions on their employees.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are rightfully striking a responsive chord when they claim that “the system is rigged” against those that have no personal access to those in power. This is what makes even the remotest possibility of a conflict of interest so flammable.
I have friends I admire and respect on both sides of the Austin Street issue and I’m not taking a position either for or against this project. I’ve got enough to do with stuff in the Highlands.
Thanks Austin St Partners for commenting on here.
HL, I think what Mike was trying to say is that the city once received a 5 million offer on the Austin st parcel (correct me if I’m wrong), and for this project they accepted the offer from ASP which is far less than the 5mil. Even if the project was packaged differently, ie 5 mil for the land straight up vs 1.05 mil for the land for 99 years and the land vests back to the city (ie 99 yr old rental)….Mike believes the city could have done better. Thats all, there’s no need to over analyze his comments or numbers.
As far as the LWV’s participation in all of this is that there was no malicious intent on their editorial. While I agree they should have spent a sentence in straightening Ms. Kessler’s relationship in all of this, knowing the league as I do, it had no influence in the final decision.
Hey @Tom: Did you know you can review all of the proposals and other Austin Street document on the city website? When you do you’d see that the proposal that was for $5 million did not receive as favorable a rating from the evaluation team and that the project was larger and seemingly less flexible than the developer who was selected.
@Geoff Epstein
Thanks Tom. You’ve got that part of my argument correct. More importantly, I’m offering a solution that will let everyone walk away with a win. I’m calling on Austin Street Partners to find a way to add six more affordable units to the equation, whether by adding additional units, converting market rate units, or a combination of those two approaches. That’s what Mayor Warren should be doing right now. I know he doesn’t have much business experience, so I’m trying to give him some guidance.
@Greggy Reibman
I pay substantial property taxes in Newton.
So I do have a right to an opinion on matters that affect Newton.
I may not have a vote in Newton but I do have the right to speak on matters that affect me.
@Geoff: Wow! That’s great to know. Perhaps you’d like to tag along the next time I go to speak to one of our aldermen about a proposal that impacts one of our tax-paying non-voting business owners.
And just to be clear, it’s not that I don’t think you have a right to an opinion, it just struck me as odd that someone who didn’t live here seemed to feel the Newton LWV didn’t.
Newton’s got a great mayor for his people….developers support his political campaigns financially….this gets reversed and history forgiven when he sends the donation money back…..the LWV supports him with questionable logic and risky moral standards for promoting any development, particularly with LWV ties to the developer….he then pushes out an elderly housing project so he can get his developer in….he calls for more affordable housing on the site yet gets many fewer with his developer than others….
I sure hope that mayor is well liked by his developer friends- he’s going to need them in his future work!!
@Greg
You completely miss the point.
Of course they have a right to support anything they want, including support of political candidates too. They CHOOSE not to, in order to remain non-partisan. Weighing in on something very specific that has become very partisan, is an odd choice by them. You can support affordable housing without endorsing a specific project. They are making a very specific endorsement, validating the benefits of affordable housing over other concerns in this circumstance. It’s not consistent with typical LWVN positions.
@Greg
You are wrong.
The $5 million bid received the same score from the evaluation team as Austin St. Partners.
In order to break the tie, the city then had an anonymous real estate finance expert determine ASP to be preferred without clear criteria for that assessment.
Read the report.
The reports said Austin Street Partners were flexible on adding more parking which they did. And as some recall the loss of parking was a top objection by many opponents, who even went so far as to try and inflate the parking study.
The other developer proposed using off site parking and said if they had to pay a lot for that, the $5 million price would need to be reduced.
Many opponents tried inflating the parking study? I know of one person, can you clarify the many others?
Again, the evaluation team scored the bids the same. You can cherry pick the advantages of one bid, the $5 million bid had others that you aren’t mentioning. Your statement that the evaluation team rated ASP higher is wrong.
Thank you Paul.
LWVN’s taking a position on a specific project, undercuts their credibility in carrying out their mission, which largely involves making sure people vote and they are informed.
No doubt pressure was brought to bear on LWVN to take sides, which shows the problematic nature of this project.
Much like in the distant past the TAB was presssured to take sides in the Yeo affair, when it should not have.
The LWVN suffers damage here. Just as the TAB suffered damage then.
Both the LWVN and the TAB are at their best when providing unbiased information to help people decide where to throw their support.
@mike striar
I asked a couple of questions about your comments, how you evaluated the financials, and where the persistent reference to “divide $1,050,000 by 99” was coming from since there is nothing in the Terms and Conditions of the proposed deal for Austin St that includes any kind of annual payments from anyone to anybody for 99 years. It’s a Lease, with a term of 99 years, and carries an initial one-time Lease Payment of $ 1,050,000.00 with some additional kickers and sweeteners. As I said in my post, I’m not a real estate guy but I can grok that one ok.
What came back from you was this:
I’ll try one small clarification: I get what your opinion is, you don’t like the deal. What I was asking was for some supporting information about what analysis you did to lead you to those conclusions, what are the aspects of the deal, what are the financial parameters you find inadequate or objectionable? Show your work, share your analysis. I don’t know what hidden agenda or ‘shill’ entity you think is at work here. I support affordable housing, I support Austin St., I voted for McGovern and I support Hillary Cinton. Is that really such a cryptic pattern for Newton?
I’m sorry but I find this kind of thing
“Here’s a deal for you Admiral Dewey… Struggling with the math? Don’t understand how to divide $1,050,000 by 99? Not happy with what you learned at Northeastern? Wanna come out of the closet and tell us who your shilling for?”
just a little out of order. Rather than answer the question your response is combative, agressive, pugnacious and hostile, kind of reminds me of the bully in the bar room who when someone questions or challenges him is ready to take it out back and have it out ‘mano a mano.’
I will tell you that this is specifically one of the reasons I would never use my real identity on an internet forum. Mike, I don’t know you, never met you, never want to, don’t want to talk to you on the phone, don’t care if you are using your real identity (whatever that is), don’t care where you live. Sure, let me sign up to let any random fruitcake, crackpot, wingnut, sociopath or mental defective know exactly where I live and what my phone number is. I have enough trouble with the powerwashing guys and donation trucks calling every day wanting to visit my home.
It’s an internet blog, ostensibly for folks to share opinions, ideas, have some fun, maybe even attempt a little humor. It is not your proprietary space within which you are any kind of arbiter of how when and who can post. Personally, I am disappointed that the moderators allow your borderline threatening tone and language as noted above. I think you’re over the line and need to get a grip, but it aint my URL. Enjoy the rest of your day.
HL – there’s a history on the Newton blogs of new posters with an anonymous pseudonymns arriving to comment – extensively – on a hot-button topic. They purport to be just your average guy around Newton (or in some cases, your average gal with an irrational fear of coyotes), but later turn out to be someone either well known or well connected to the issue at hand, deliberately trying to hide their real identity to influence the discussion. Obviously, I’m not opposed to blog pseudonyms, but there have been a few really nasty incidents here, so there might be some suspicioun – perhaps undeserved – of someone who arrives out of the blue with strong opinions and lots to say on one issue. I think that’s where Mike is coming from.
And that’s as good a time as any to close this thread.