Alex
-
The Basics
-
Alex on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the article Buying Phillips Beach On Tonight's Agenda
-
On the article Buying Phillips Beach On Tonight's Agenda
Alex
4:03 pm on Monday, May 6, 2013
Of course. It also includes paying taxes. So if these owners paid them, then it is an issue of bargaining about the price. If they did not, then it is an issue of them paying to the town prior to making any demands.
BTW, most of these 3.7 acres are totally useless (and not used by anybody) stretch of the bushes.
-
On the article Buying Phillips Beach On Tonight's Agenda
Alex
3:54 pm on Monday, May 6, 2013
Exactly. The owners must pay property taxes as everybody else and, if I understood description of the property correctly, only a small patch of land (space from the parking to the beach) is of any serious value to the public. The owners can keep area near the pond (and definitely on a far side of this pond because nobody uses it anyway) and keep paying taxes for it. Town must demand all (if any) taxes due retroactively and probably request some fence around the remaining property (or clear signs) .
As described, it strongly smells of an attempt just to rip town off a $140K and it is not clear why town is considering complying.
-
On the article Patrick's Budget: Can State Afford It Right Now?
Alex
1:15 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
It can't but the people will keep voting for them no matter what.
BTW, smokescreen aside, 'education' and 'transportation' (400M+) simply mean 'unions': the Dems make sure that their power base is taken care of.
-
On the article UPDATED: Liquor Store Proposed for Burrill Street
Alex
9:15 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
I did not see them 'hanging around under the bridge' for the last 17+ years and a liquor store will not sell stuff to the teenagers so what's the big deal anyway? Or are you implying that the store owners are going to violate the law?
-
On the article UPDATED: Liquor Store Proposed for Burrill Street
Alex
1:31 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Sounds nice except that there are numerous places selling newspapers (not that newspapers are such a hot item nowadays), convenience items, etc. within 5 minutes drive from the area (4 supermarkets, CVS, Walgreens, Home Goods, Marshalls, TJX, Target), which would make store you described financially unsustainable.
-
On the article UPDATED: Liquor Store Proposed for Burrill Street
Alex
1:22 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
It seems that the issue is not selection of one of '20 other uses' but an approval (or disapproval) of a SINGLE business proposal. An alternative to this 'terrible idea' is to have a dilapidated empty space which is not bringing any taxes.
-
On the article UPDATED: Liquor Store Proposed for Burrill Street
Alex
1:19 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
If a new store is not needed, it will go out of business. Taking into an account that 2 existing liquor stores are not centers of the criminal activities or disturbances, it is not clear what your objection is based upon.
-
On the article What Should Go Here?
Alex
1:20 pm on Sunday, December 2, 2012
ReplyThe question is not what we want but which businesses want to go there. Judging by a considerable number of the empty spaces in Swampscott, the answer is "not too many."
-
On the article What Should Go Here?
Alex
5:48 pm on Monday, May 6, 2013
Very good point about high tide mark. This leaves a need to do something about stretch of land something like 5 - 10 yards wide and less than 30 long. The owners can keep the bushes. $140K for less than 300 sq. yards of sand seems to be a little bit costly.