BY DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, THE WEEKEND EDITION NOV. 17-19, 2017) — Not to knock your socks off, but THE PLANET finished third in the Ward 1 race behind Helen Moon and Mike Cirullo. Our total of two votes topped by infinity the number of tallies scored by the fourth-place finisher. Given that were no fourth-place finishers makes our score even more amazing. We are drunk with power. Do you realize that if something were to happen to Moon and Cirullo — an act of God, perhaps, God forbid — THE PLANET would be obliged to take the seat on the dais. Our first official act in would be to cross ward lines and dispose of the Tyler Street trashcans, the ones made famous by your eponymous mayor.

Wal in for Walmart — There’s some high-level Texas fold ’em going on even as we write concerning the proposed Super Walmart on the PEDA property at Woodlawn Avenue. Let THE PLANET clarify in an obfuscating way. On Monday, lawyers for developer Waterstone presented architectural plans to city hall, which, sources say, were warmly received. On Tuesday, Walmart issued a statement said that “at the current time we no longer plan to relocate our store in Pittsfield.”

What gives? It’s hard to say, because everyone involved — the city, Waterstone, PEDA officials, and Walmart — have been pretty tight lipped save for the obligatory for-public-consumption statements. PLANET sources in Pittsfield, speaking strictly on the condition of anonymity, directed us to the phrase “at this time” from Walmart press release. This indicates, we were told, that Walmart’s pull back is a stall tactic while feverish parties try to iron out the wrinkles. One city hall source says the deal isn’t dead and insists “it will happen in time after we take care of a few hiccups.” Hiccups? They might try scaring Walmart by doubling its tax rate to $40 per thousand. Oh, wait. The city already punishes businesses large and small with that ruinous rate. Hiccups? Maybe they should put Walmart’s head in a paper bag and tell it to breathe deeply. Other PLANET sources claiming inside knowledge say that after the plans were filed, “the city got greedy.” How so, we asked. The reply: “Go ask Deanna Ruffer. She [messed] this up.” Ruffer mans the point for the city on this project. Another source, this one close to the mayor’s office, strongly disputes that account, telling THE PLANET the story is “fake news” from someone in a citywide office trying to “pass the buck” for “irresponsible” action.

One strain of thought kicking around these back-room discussions relates to the toxicity of the PEDA site, though no one among the interested parties will confirm that let alone go on the record. It seems the toxic condition of the land has raised its ugly head and has become literally unmentionable in public. As you know, Pittsfield got rooked on the Consent Agreement (CA). The city allowed GE to walk away in no harm, no foul fashion. The concrete foundations remained, as did the industrial poisons underneath. Did Walmart realize that even $12 million in remediation wouldn’t be enough to build a retail store there, one that would contain a full grocery? In other words, has the severity of the pollution exceeded previous reports? If so, kiss goodbye to ANY development of that portion of the PEDA property. A bit of honest disclosure  by those in the know would help clarify this point and, if off base, relieve the concerns of any potential developer or company, to say nothing of citizens.

The initial CA forbade food operations, retail or wholesale. Has the CA and the failure of city leaders — hunting for political “glory” — once again doomed Pittsfield? Waterstone and Walmart were tight lipped, the first having “no comment” and the latter standing by its initial statement, sent to the local press from the office of Phil Keene, the company’s director of corporate communications. Waterstone insists it will continue with its development efforts, but how can they ever convince a large company to relocate to the PEDA cite given the enormous upfront remedial costs? Bottom line, it looks like the pollution underneath those “Woodlawn” foundations is worse than anyone’s letting on. Until that is openly refuted by the city or someone in the know, the suspicions will not vanish.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave …

Between a Rockwell and a Hard Place — You have to laugh at Bill Lee cute remark. No, THE PLANET isn’t talking about the Spaceman of Red Sox lore. We mean the head of the Berkshire Museum’s legal team, William F. Lee. It makes you wonder if the BM is so hard-up for cash, how are they going to pay a seven-figure legal bill from the “team” after they find out they can’t sell off its art? Lee said the attorney general’s office’s “induced delay has already put the museum at risk.” What a howler. Maura Healey hasn’t put the BM at risk. The museum’s executive director and board did that by running up nearly $12 million in debt. PLANET prediction: The art work will not be sold because of the legalities. Even if the courts allow the auction to proceed, short of a Supreme Court ruling, any lower court permission will still scare off potential buyers. That’s the word on the street in art circles. The BM’s foolish and immoral action, not to mention the inept programming that caused the debt, has now forever tainted the provenance of the works in question. There’s only one proper way to dispose of the art after the museum folds, and that’s to return the Rockwell paintings to the family and donate the remaining works to other museums, responsible ones that consider their social and cultural role to be fiduciary in nature. That stands in contrast to the BM’s disastrous attempt at cultural and community rape.

———————————————————————-

“If people had no legs, they couldn’t kneel in church” — Sir Tiberius Fruitjuice.

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.

The Usual Disclaimer.