Get it straight, please!
Since Rumbo was created in 1996, our aim was to showcase the positive things in our community and serve the non-profit organizations that do so much to keep our people healthy, educated and happy.
We don’t chase ambulances or cover police brutality cases. We don’t have an investigative team or the resources it takes to probe situations. For that reason, we only cover the Merrimack Valley. We publish four times a month and that would make it extremely difficult to take current issues that may have new developments in a day or two. It’s just two of us doing something we are passionate about: Bringing good news to you all.
While Rumbo could be called “The Good News Paper,” I have this column offering my personal opinions on things where I tackle local concerns. This is not Rumbo’s opinion: That is the Editorial.
I know my comments are harsh at times but I try to remain respectful, not issuing personal attacks or calling people names. This column is also very clear offering examples or proof of my reasons for feeling that way. That’s why I am so saddened to hear people misrepresenting my words without reading them thoroughly.
A good example is the recent controversy of Mayor Dan Rivera using a city car purchased by the Water Department. I never said I don’t want him to have it. What was pointed out is that he broke a promise made during the debate and the fact that the Water Department is an Enterprise Fund and no money should be touched by other departments, which makes it illegal. Let’s face it: It’s illegal to use those funds!
The right way to do it would be reimbursing them the cost of the car and paying back from city funds. That leaves only the problem of not having been “authorized” by the City Charter or the City Council.
Speaking of the councilors, have you noticed how silent they are on that topic?
What puzzles me is the silence from Robert Nunes, the state overseer and Mark Iannello, director of Budget and Finance. They are supposed to be watching the city budget and how money is spent so they both should know that using money from an Enterprise Fund is wrong.
Please take the time to read and analyze what I say.
By the way, all opinions are welcome in Rumbo. Just like I express my thoughts, everyone is greeted the same way if they desire to send an article – even with opposing views.
Laws controlling the water
The following is trying to explain something that has been on Is mind of Ismael Rondon and many other residents. Mr. Rondon went before the City Council last Tuesday requesting information of which law forces residents to change the water meters and install a Meter Transmission Unit outside of the home. I took the time to check on Massachusetts General Laws http://library.municode.com/HTML/14860/level2/TIT13PUSE_CH13.04WASESY.html that control how a City establishes a Water Department, operate and manage the department. What I found is that each city has authority to establish if it chooses to distribute water to its residents. If so, the Water Commissioner is responsible for establishing the rules and regulations which he will enforce.
Pursuant to MGL c40, s39A through L, the Lawrence Water Works (PWSID 3149000) was established to provide safe, reliable water treatment and distribution systems for human consumption and public safety, and is managed, improved, and controlled accordingly. In making the aforementioned claims, the Water Commissioner is exercising the authority granted to him under state law to manage the Lawrence Water Works in a manner deemed for the best interests of the city.
That means that there is no law forcing anyone to change the water meter or install a Meter Transmission Unit outside. This will cause that the city could elect to shut off the service if they cannot get inside to read the meter, which is one of the reasons for this system to be implemented.
The meters for the electric and gas companies are outdoors and they have a Meter Transmission Unit built in but the water meter must be installed inside the home, thus making it necessary to do it in two steps.
Snow and ice removal
Mayor Rivera is asking for the residents’ cooperation with the removal of snow and ice in front of their homes and businesses in order to avoid treacherous conditions for people forced to walk on the streets, particularly children on their way to school.
There has been some controversy with that and some people even think that he is trying to establish a new law. Well, that is the law!
On August 1, 2010, I wrote in my column, “The Supreme Judicial Court announced this week that property owners are responsible for removing snow and ice from their properties, or be subjected to heavy fines.
This new law affects residential and commercial property owners. They must clear areas open to visitors or public use. Clearly, the decision as to whether the areas were cleaned properly or not will be made in court because this will increase the number of fake falls as well as the insurance costs.”
Contrary to what some people have said to me that the city is responsible for cleaning the sidewalks, that is what this law refers to. The front of your home or business means the sidewalk, not just your driveway. I know what an inconvenience it represents for many residents including the elderly and rental properties where the owner must make arrangements to get it done.
