BY DAN VALENTI

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/08/08/charles-hurt-the-cuomosexual-and-the-sniffer-in-chief/

Many excellent questions and I assume they are rhetorical because this mayor does not answer many questions. She may very well be riding in the cab of a Drott as we speak on her way to tear up some forest land.
I hope some BCC Environmental students makes filming the progressive destruction a documentary class project. Will the Dean please loan this person some nice camera equipment or better yet a drone? And please make it suitable for PBS or sixty Minutes.
You would think that right now with all the concern for the plane,t such self serving projects might be put on hold. But greed and money are the reasons the country is in such bad shape to begin with so not likely that will change any minds. But it sure looks bad for those promoting it and they will be remembered for it like Doyle is remembered for Hill 78.
Keep those names out front and in BOLD letters please.

Where possible, I’ll speak in specifics, but for stuff I’ll have to resort to generalities.

Answers:
Being that the property is in fact public property was this advertised as an RFP?
Being determined, but likely no. This a project funded and paid for a non-profit (NEMBA) and they are coming to the city with the project in hand. (Note, I’m working on a nonprofit project on public land right now and depending the location, etc. there can be some hoops to go through when a nonprofit entity comes to a public land manager with a proposal.)
Were there any other organizations who responded?
Yes, positive to the proposal. Springside Conservancy, etc.
If it was advertised where can one view the RFP and any other non winning proposals?
No RFP generated (see above), so no RFBs.
Being the park is a public property what are each of the parties responsibilities regarding maintenance, access, liability etc.
All covered by a standard Memorandum of Understanding and Services Contract. Note: opponents of have falsely claimed this bike skills area would be for profit enterprise and its not. So the nonprofit (NEMBA, the mothership, not the local chapter) would be the only party besides the City involved. In most states a MOU is toothless without a services contract, so a services contract for maintenance is usually drawn up, usually for $1 a year. These (skills parks) aren’t rare and liabilities are well known, with less incidents per a user than football/soccer fields. So they fit well with existing city liability requirements.
Where can one view this document.
All documents are part of the public record since December.
Has a revenue stream been identified for the City in exchange for said property?
Again, this is public infrastructure being initiated, paid for and maintained by a nonprofit, so there is no revenue. That isn’t unusual for bike skills areas. Most are connected in some method to a nonprofit. While Mr. Valenti claims this is for profit enterprise, it is not. The only for profit company involved is the contractor who was hired by a nonprofit for services rendered.
Has access, rights of way, and other issues been resolved and reduced to writing?
This is a public land, so there are no true rights of ways, etc. at least in the way you mean them. Easements may cross the property and those would have to be researched prior to construction, but that is typically a pre-construction activity, not a pre-submittal activity. Access is per the land manager’s requirements usually. There will have to the SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) and construction plans, obviously, and all that will have to be hammered out with the land manager (parks).
Currently the entire park is open to the entire world, will part be closed off?
No. Contrary to what the opponents keep saying, the area containing the skills area is about the same as standard baseball diamond (under 4 acres) and it will replace an existing underutilized ballfield. Again, there are hundreds of these bike skills areas in the United States and we know exactly how big they are and how they integrate with parks. Its just like any other active use.
Will the acres be removed from the open space considerations/count?
Not sure what you mean. Well over a third of Springside Park is active use now. This is an active use going into a current active use area. No change in active vs. passive use is occurring.
Will there be ADA access?
This is a bike skills area. Not sure how you have ADA access in those circumstances.

So here’s the deal.
The purposefully did not bid it out because it’s being paid for by a not for profit (NEMBA) but it’s not really. It will be funded by donations, but those donations will come, in large part, from a few donors with a vested interest in securing the property and rights without bidding.

It’s a scam. Let’s say a fictitious company, Pill Town Capital, wants that property but can’t secure it due to bidding requirements etc. They also know the city will eventually have to have a public/private partnership to make sure it’s run efficiently.

So what they do is find a willing not for profit, like NEMBA or NAMBLA or whatever they are called.
The NFP acts as their proxy, since cities and towns in MA can directly sell or lease property to NFPs without going through normal bidding.
Remember Pill Town showed a specific interest in this property a while back, they realized the recreational potential of the land, but knew they couldn’t secure the property outright. So this is the fruition of their long game approach.

NEMBA gets exclusive access to the property, Pilltown finances the construction, a place like Berkshire Money Mismanagement acts as the bagman.
So once it’s all built, and since being built by a not for profit it’s not subject to bidding nor is it subject to prevailing wage, the city realizes it lacks expertise in the area of running mountain biking facilities. They then look for a company/NFP to contract with to run it. They may contract with NEMBA who in turn may subcontract to PillTown, a large company that has expertise in outdoor recreation. NEMBA might get a 10% skim, Pilltown gets a entertainment/management contract and a fat maintenance contract which well exceeds the initial cost of their investment.

Also know that Pilltown will write off any donations to NEMBA. It also will look good for pilltowns books because their capital outlay is minimized and they are secured against future revenue. Also NEMBA being a NFP can secure grant funding not open to for profits, so that partnership give Pilltown an extra revenue stream. This is just a form of money laundering.

This is the same move that they pulled with the movie theater and the seats.
They loaned them the money, allowed Stanley to take the profits, and then forgave the outstanding loan. Stanley walked away with more than he put into it with little or no risk to himself.

It’s the museum scam as well. Cry poverty full well knowing you planned to sell those paintings 7 years prior to the public knowing. Knowing that you planned to sell the museum still asked for public handouts and money from the city all along the way.

If MA law made some changes, none of this would happen. If projects on city or town land, irrespective of who may be paying for it, we’re subject to MA procurement laws, these kid of structure/deferred payment scams would dry up.

Bassomatic lives in Richmond where DA Harrington didn’t pay her taxes because she was a part time public defender who nearly had her house foreclosed on. Luckily she got a fat job on the Kapanskis so we paid her tax bill.

ruth is a certified BASSHOLE for Lefte Wigeged Parrot

And Americans hate You TSC!!!

With a passion!!!

No the people dislike what has happened and how it has happened to them!

Remember Wild Acres? Talk about wreaking havoc on a natural habitat.