To the editor,
Apparently it is insufficient to be a good resident and tax payer, play by the rules and expect the same quality of living as experienced by other residents in East Providence if residing in Rumford near Omega Pond and the former TLA Pond View site.
Mr. Foley, in his commentary last week went on to describe a perceived “vendetta” against his company, and that he had to “clean-up” after TLA Pond View had been evicted and then filed bankruptcy. I didn’t see any mention that Mr. Foley, according to the application of TLA Pond View to R.I. D.E.M., was hired as a consultant and it must be assumed he had been aware of what went on there as consultant and property owner. Mr. Foley was paid in excess of $600,000 for this “clean-up” given 60 days to accomplish this, plus Saturdays which were NOT counted in the 60 day time frame, and then granted a week extension-taking all summer, so excessive noise, dust and disturbance to residents again at a time other city residents could enjoy good weather outside.
Mr. Foley stated that Pond View’s mandate was “to operate in an environmentally conscious manner” yet in the beginning of that business sold contaminated wood chips to residents and area business – Big John Leydon’s Tree Farm and Confreda Farms to name a few, R.I. D.E.M. issued violations.
There was an accident on the Pond View site (prior to TLA) where two workers were overcome from exposure to hydrogen sulfide and were hospitalized, according to a newspaper article(ProJo Nov.4, 2003) OSHA issued a penalty, this article may be an interesting read for you.
In 1999 there is a report from the Fire Dept . to Councilman Patrick Rogers that the Fire Dept. had responded to 7 alarms at the facility, one fire was an office trailer, the other 6 fires were from mulch/refuse, each was determined to be suspicious in nature or ignition was determined to be spontaneous.
In situations such as these, and for the wellbeing of residents and the City’s future, it is imperative that the City of East Providence maintain the ability to enforce it’s zoning laws, and that is the reason it is critical to appeal to the Supreme Court over a recent ruling.
Mr. Foley considers the two councilors that voted against this appeal to be “good stewards”, however, in reality both are acting against the city’s ability to enforce zoning, acting against the zoning board decision, against the zoning officer, against legal counsel and against the decision of the City Council, itself.
Is that in the “best interests of the city” or in the “best interest of Mr. Foley”? Do you want to live in a City that can’t offer the protection and benefit of zoning to protect health, safety and welfare? Please support this appeal, it is in the best interests of all residents.
RumfordAdd to favorites