33 Springfield Street
Somerville, MA 02143
This is OUR property and OUR LEGAL RIGHTS are continually being manipulated to benefit all but the OWNER. Another $ scheme to push the little person around all while "creating their ideal" neighborhood. WE OWN the property, WE PAY their TAXES, LET US make the decisions...
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
Please vote "no"
C
Charity rossetti
8 years ago
Not right
U
Umberto Rossetti
8 years ago
It sucks
W
William Brant Harsell Jr
8 years ago
29 Springfield Street
Somerville MA
long time resident and long time owner of
31 Springfield St.
N
Nick Bezreh
8 years ago
I love Somerville but there are far too many rules already. This is a bad idea. Property values have been on the rise because we are always improving our properties, not letting them fall apart. We can manage ourselves.
G
George Delaney
8 years ago
This proposal will damage property values, make it impossible to do renovations for the average homeowner, cause rents to increase, and paralyze market forces. The average reo or three family wood frame house in Somerville has zero historic value. This proposal is a fraud.
I
Irina Alperin
8 years ago
10-12 Moore St.
60-62 Gorham St.
28-30 Rogers Ave.
42-46 Fairmount Ave.
50 Cherry St.
P
Paul Demerjian
8 years ago
Please put an end to this and all creative ways to restrict landlord rights. Landlords are the backbone of this city and deserve more credit. We made our property beautiful, paid our taxes, and you are not satisfied. Somerville has enough laws, restrictions, tax obligations and the like with which to operate.
Paul Demerjian
757 Somerville Ave.
M
Mouhab Rizkallah
· petition starter
8 years ago
Featured
30 College Avenue
While I love Historic Architecture, Ordinary Homes must NOT be controlled at the cost of a homeowners civil and zoning rights.
That is simply madness!
S
stacyJonh Thomas - Beacon Hill Property Management
8 years ago
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE CURRENT DEMOLITION REVIEW ORDINANCE. WE OPPOSE THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION REVIEW ORDINANCE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
WE BELIEVE THAT THE NEW DEFINITION OF DEMOLITION IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CANNOT INCLUDE RENOVATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO A STRUCTURE. THAT IS RENOVATION, NOT DEMOLITION.
FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PURPOSES, WE BELIEVE THAT THE TERM "DEMOLITION" REFERS TO DEMOLITION OF A PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED HISTORIC STRUCTURE, AND CANNOT APPLY TO ALL BUILDINGS OVER 75 YEARS OLD, BECAUSE ALMOST ALL OF SOMERVILLE IS OVER 75 YEARS OLD.
D
Dan O'Sullivan
8 years ago
Very concerned about the possible implications of the proposed ordinance. Looking forward to hearing other public comments at the July 9 meeting.
R
Ron Cavallo
8 years ago
Spend. Spend. Spend. Legislate. Legislate. Legislate. As a long term residenct and major property owner of landmark buildings, I AM DISGUSTED. The City that I love and am heavily investing is becoming a "Berkely" and I don't like it. I don't like it one bit. And I think about pulling out. The City would loose one of the best, fairest and caring landlord. I think the City is out of control.
O
oscar leblanc
8 years ago
This is unfair to every home owner and landlord.
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
Bad ideas have the potential to spread rapidly. The proposed demolition review ordinance is a bad idea, inviting economic disruption and property decay over time. Property rights are an absolute - Nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats stay away!
V
Veronika Bernstein
8 years ago
30 years of work on our house.
Please do not do the demolition policy. We can manage ourselves
C
Christopher Lucy
8 years ago
Plse lv property owners to decide appropriate actions in most cases?
S
Steven j Medeiros
8 years ago
Enough with these politicians stealing our money all I see is extreme waste the towns have spending problems not lack of revenue
H
Henry C Sablone
8 years ago
Communist Ideology
J
john amaral
8 years ago
We need to see a lot less ambiguity in your work and less entitlement in your motivation. For our part we need to pay a lot more attention to getting maturity and experience onto the Board of Aldermen. Stop making it hard for landlords to provide basic services by overtaxing and overreaching.
33 Springfield Street Somerville, MA 02143 This is OUR property and OUR LEGAL RIGHTS are continually being manipulated to benefit all but the OWNER. Another $ scheme to push the little person around all while "creating their ideal" neighborhood. WE OWN the property, WE PAY their TAXES, LET US make the decisions...
Please vote "no"
Not right
It sucks
29 Springfield Street Somerville MA long time resident and long time owner of 31 Springfield St.
I love Somerville but there are far too many rules already. This is a bad idea. Property values have been on the rise because we are always improving our properties, not letting them fall apart. We can manage ourselves.
This proposal will damage property values, make it impossible to do renovations for the average homeowner, cause rents to increase, and paralyze market forces. The average reo or three family wood frame house in Somerville has zero historic value. This proposal is a fraud.
10-12 Moore St. 60-62 Gorham St. 28-30 Rogers Ave. 42-46 Fairmount Ave. 50 Cherry St.
Please put an end to this and all creative ways to restrict landlord rights. Landlords are the backbone of this city and deserve more credit. We made our property beautiful, paid our taxes, and you are not satisfied. Somerville has enough laws, restrictions, tax obligations and the like with which to operate. Paul Demerjian 757 Somerville Ave.
30 College Avenue While I love Historic Architecture, Ordinary Homes must NOT be controlled at the cost of a homeowners civil and zoning rights. That is simply madness!
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE CURRENT DEMOLITION REVIEW ORDINANCE. WE OPPOSE THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION REVIEW ORDINANCE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: WE BELIEVE THAT THE NEW DEFINITION OF DEMOLITION IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CANNOT INCLUDE RENOVATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO A STRUCTURE. THAT IS RENOVATION, NOT DEMOLITION. FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PURPOSES, WE BELIEVE THAT THE TERM "DEMOLITION" REFERS TO DEMOLITION OF A PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED HISTORIC STRUCTURE, AND CANNOT APPLY TO ALL BUILDINGS OVER 75 YEARS OLD, BECAUSE ALMOST ALL OF SOMERVILLE IS OVER 75 YEARS OLD.
Very concerned about the possible implications of the proposed ordinance. Looking forward to hearing other public comments at the July 9 meeting.
Spend. Spend. Spend. Legislate. Legislate. Legislate. As a long term residenct and major property owner of landmark buildings, I AM DISGUSTED. The City that I love and am heavily investing is becoming a "Berkely" and I don't like it. I don't like it one bit. And I think about pulling out. The City would loose one of the best, fairest and caring landlord. I think the City is out of control.
This is unfair to every home owner and landlord.
Bad ideas have the potential to spread rapidly. The proposed demolition review ordinance is a bad idea, inviting economic disruption and property decay over time. Property rights are an absolute - Nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats stay away!
30 years of work on our house. Please do not do the demolition policy. We can manage ourselves
Plse lv property owners to decide appropriate actions in most cases?
Enough with these politicians stealing our money all I see is extreme waste the towns have spending problems not lack of revenue
Communist Ideology
We need to see a lot less ambiguity in your work and less entitlement in your motivation. For our part we need to pay a lot more attention to getting maturity and experience onto the Board of Aldermen. Stop making it hard for landlords to provide basic services by overtaxing and overreaching.