Recent Chelmsford mailing contained l...

Recent Chelmsford mailing contained lies, unjust accusations

There are 144 comments on the Lowell Sun story from Aug 6, 2010, titled Recent Chelmsford mailing contained lies, unjust accusations. In it, Lowell Sun reports that:

Recently, you received another mailing from Roland Van Liew and his self-created and self-funded entity, Bigger Not Better .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Lowell Sun.

First Prev
of 8
Next Last
THE MAN IN THE MIRROR

Lowell, MA

#1 Aug 6, 2010
HEY PHILLY
You must be out of your flippin mind to actually think we the residents of Chelmsford will EVER believe a word YOU or your FATHER ever says again. Your desicration of this last piece of open space in OUR town, not yours, is about the last straw we can bare to stand of your obnoxious and arrogant behavior. How dare you attemt to ROB us of this piece of land which the selectmen and Dr Currie set aside in 1978 to be enjoyed by all the inhabitants of Chelmsford, FOREVER, and then have the gall to turn around and blame a recent mailing for all the confusion surrounding this atrocity. You are a disgrace to this Town regardless of how many years or boards you served. That was yesterday and this is today and you no longer even vaguely resemble the individual that served this town 12 years ago.
kim

Chelmsford, MA

#2 Aug 6, 2010
you r a connected dirty little politician.......you and your family
No Dog in this fight

Prides Crossing, MA

#3 Aug 6, 2010
How is denying a citizen their personal property rights in the best interest of Chelmsford?

It would be understandable if this was public land and the Town actually had a position. Or if Town counsel's opinion was different. Otherwise it is a great waste of everyone's time, money and only promotes a small groups selfish interest.

Roland Van Liew, Michael Sargeant and attorny's (to include ex Joe S.), Richard McClure and John Kurland are only helping to fracture our Town with their insistence for a meaningless public meeting.

.....John K.- let's say you are successful and convince Matt that you know what is best for Chelmsford and the BOS uses the PR to stop the development of 9 North Road, would Epsilon Group then have grounds to sue the Town for damages? Keep in mind this issue was not settled by the Land Court, but swayed by you and town politics. Aren't we setting Chelmsford up for an expensive legal battle? Would Epsilon Group then be deserving of being made whole by the Town?

Considering it was the Town and corresponding Boards that permitted the property and gave Epsilon the green light, can the Town then take it away for no reason other than the BOS was lax and noncommittal? Up to now the BOS's silence has given everyone the impression that the development of this property was acceptable.

Further, I wonder if the same people that would like to protect this private property as public open space would object to the expansion of the existing fire house onto this parcel? If Chelmsford Street is not a viable alternative for the new firehouse--
John K., Michael S., Richard M. and Roland-- would you support the firehouse expansion onto this private parcel?

As a voter in Chelmsford I must question who is really running this town? We elected 5 members of our community to represent us, but yet they defer and reflect their responsibility and accountability.

Has the BOS waited too long and now put Chelmsford in an untenable legal position?
land of the free

Haverhill, MA

#4 Aug 6, 2010
glad to see that psychopath, van Liew, challenged for once.

In this time of cyberbullies, he leads the pack and he gloats over it.

The most person man in chelmsford.

The most ridiculous irony of this whole melodrama is that Joe Shanahan spent prison time for trying to turn the golf course (open space) into a housing development.
land of the free

Haverhill, MA

#5 Aug 6, 2010
should read van liew is the most "hated person" in chelmsford.

wonder if mike sargent has any stock tips for us??
Finally some truth

Lowell, MA

#6 Aug 6, 2010
This whole thing is disgusting. Holding a public meeting on someone's private land! BOS is way off base right now and exposing the town to another law suit.

Sorry, this is not a "voter issue". And for all of you newbie's who want to be noticed, the original building was larger than the proposed one. Sorry you don't get to tell anyone what to do with their land.

The abutters have a right to address their concerns, but that's it, it's been done. We get it Sarg, you don't want another dentist nearby.

Phil is right, the attacks against the people in this town is pathetic.
That is funny

Prides Crossing, MA

#7 Aug 6, 2010
Michael S. having stock tips!
Now that is a little history for everyone. Could that be the motivating factor behind Michael's push to use Chelmsford to square his vendetta with the Eliopoulas clan?
sally q-tip

Tewksbury, MA

#8 Aug 6, 2010
put a fork in filly and his buddy dullberger..........their done
HEARD ON THE STREET

Lowell, MA

#9 Aug 6, 2010
That is funny wrote:
Michael S. having stock tips!
Now that is a little history for everyone. Could that be the motivating factor behind Michael's push to use Chelmsford to square his vendetta with the Eliopoulas clan?
This continuous attempt to redirect blame by the FEW remaining supporters of Phillip Eliopoulos and FAMILY,is quite humorous. Why would SARGENT have a vendetta with the ELIOPOULOS clan. In fact i heard that SARGENT and PHILLIP and PETER ELIOPOULOS were ALL investigated by the SEC for insider trading many years ago.If my memory serves me correct the Eliopoulos Families insider trading case was more recent than SARGENTS. Nevertheless, none of that is even pertinent to this topic. I suppose we should keep an eye out for the kitchen sink next, you are sure to try and toss that after you run out of more irrelevent information
concerned citizen

Lowell, MA

#10 Aug 6, 2010
This is better than listening to JAY LENOS' monologue. Poor Phillip has really gotten himself into a BIG hole today. The trick to getting yourself out of a hole is to not dig it too deep in the first place. Looks like DADDY might have to throw you a ladder to get you out of this one. Might want to make it a 40 footer, you seem to be sinking FAST PHILLIP.
Help

North Billerica, MA

#11 Aug 6, 2010
I got the mailing by Van Liew. A ten page rant that made him sound crazed. I feel sorry for his family. It sounds as though town politics CONSUMES him to the degree that he has nothing left for his family. Maybe someone should see if he needs medical attention. This really seems to be an unhealthy obsession.
Stay on topic

Prides Crossing, MA

#12 Aug 6, 2010
Why doesn't anyone, in the know, comment on "No Dog in the fight" submission? Those comments and questions seem to be relevant. I'm certainly not in the know but no matter what happens personally I think the Town will be on the loosing end.
THE BLAME GAME

Lowell, MA

#13 Aug 6, 2010
IM confused, why do some people on this comment board want to point the finger at anyone BUT the responsible party here. The Eliopoulos Family knew this land was in a Preservation Restriction since 1978, purchased it at a price consistant with the land not being buildable, have heard the 3 surviving members of the 1978 Board of Selectmen and what the Preservation Restriction is and was all about,Phillip has gone on record as saying, as a Master plan member, he wants to preserve open space, Phillip also says he would never do anything that is not in the BEST interest of the Town of Chelmsford, YET Phillip and his FAMILY continue with this project at 9 NORTH ROAD. I guess one can only conclude that PHILLIP ELIOPOULOS and FAMILY can NEVER be trusted as people of their word.Their actions speak volumes as to who these people have become TODAY.
portly from chelmsford

North Attleboro, MA

#14 Aug 6, 2010
Mr Eliopolous,

While its true that the town sold the land in 1978 so it is no longer public land, it was with an attached preservation restriction that was 'intended' to keep the land as open space. Para 7 is clear that no buildings should be added beyond what was there when the parcel was functioning as Emerson farm. Certainly we can all agree that there was never a 16000 square foot building on that site.

I will concede that the PR was a stupid idea in the first place, none the less, the PR exists and the town should enforce it by either truly restricting building on the site, or should be compensated for the removal of the PR. In return for the preservation restriction, the land was sold for a fraction of its actual worth to Rodger Currie who must have believed the land could not be further improved. The land was thus sold to your father for substantially less then the fair market value for land that is buildable. If appraised at fair market value, Mr Currie and the Bank would have been assessed substantially higher property taxes which would have benefited the town.

No matter the facts ... you and the various boards have acted in such a way as to give the perception of impropriety for which no ethics commission will be able to absolve you.

You know full well the intent of the PR and you're taking advantage of a loophole that leaves its intent open to debate. In doing so, you have tarnished not only your own reputation, but the reputation of many public servants in the Town of Chelmsford .. many of whom will not be re-elected.
portly from chelmsford

North Attleboro, MA

#15 Aug 6, 2010
Finally some truth wrote:
This whole thing is disgusting. Holding a public meeting on someone's private land! BOS is way off base right now and exposing the town to another law suit.
Sorry, this is not a "voter issue". And for all of you newbie's who want to be noticed, the original building was larger than the proposed one. Sorry you don't get to tell anyone what to do with their land.
The abutters have a right to address their concerns, but that's it, it's been done. We get it Sarg, you don't want another dentist nearby.
Phil is right, the attacks against the people in this town is pathetic.
In this case, the town does get to tell him what he can do with his land. The parcel of land was sold by the town with a perpetual preservation restriction on its deed. I couldn't care less about Sargent. This is about my taxes. I paid more for my property over all of these years so that land could have its PR and be assessed lower? BS is what that is, plain and simple. This is a voter issue.

The majority of us paid for this and now I WANT MY GD MONEY BACK !!!!
portly from chelmsford

North Attleboro, MA

#16 Aug 6, 2010
THE BLAME GAME wrote:
IM confused, why do some people on this comment board want to point the finger at anyone BUT the responsible party here. The Eliopoulos Family knew this land was in a Preservation Restriction since 1978, purchased it at a price consistant with the land not being buildable, have heard the 3 surviving members of the 1978 Board of Selectmen and what the Preservation Restriction is and was all about,Phillip has gone on record as saying, as a Master plan member, he wants to preserve open space, Phillip also says he would never do anything that is not in the BEST interest of the Town of Chelmsford, YET Phillip and his FAMILY continue with this project at 9 NORTH ROAD. I guess one can only conclude that PHILLIP ELIOPOULOS and FAMILY can NEVER be trusted as people of their word.Their actions speak volumes as to who these people have become TODAY.
He's not only ruined his own reputation, but that of at least one member of the PB and and the BOS. The PB and BOS simply didn't do their homework and decided it was ok to just go along. This should cost them dearly at election time.
portly from chelmsford

North Attleboro, MA

#17 Aug 6, 2010
Stay on topic wrote:
Why doesn't anyone, in the know, comment on "No Dog in the fight" submission? Those comments and questions seem to be relevant. I'm certainly not in the know but no matter what happens personally I think the Town will be on the loosing end.
The tax payers in town are on the losing end no matter what. Either they lose paying for the lawsuits or they've lost all of the tax revenue that should have been collected for that land over the past 32 years.
Preservation restriction

United States

#18 Aug 6, 2010
Phil is 100% correct. The BOS in 1978 could have made their jobs a lot easier with a one sentence PR: "No buildings shall be constructed on the site."
They didn't do that. Instead, they spelled out requirements on how a new building should look and be sited.
The Epsilon Group's proposal meets these requirements.
Let it go. I'm not wild about yet another new building in town, but they've complied with the law.
Yet again, the conspiracy theorists are running wild. Maybe Harrington was involved?
What about

Prides Crossing, MA

#19 Aug 6, 2010
Just last year we (you and me- the Town residents)) were considering developing this precious open space into an expanded fire house. I do not recall anyone crying to save it then. What has changed?
fact finder

Lowell, MA

#20 Aug 6, 2010
Stay on topic wrote:
Why doesn't anyone, in the know, comment on "No Dog in the fight" submission? Those comments and questions seem to be relevant. I'm certainly not in the know but no matter what happens personally I think the Town will be on the loosing end.
Some comments are not SPONGE WORTHY!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Opinion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Frindly 7,027
News Say it in six words (Jul '08) 3 hr Richies Cool Man ... 9,020
News Why Steve Harvey's joke about Flint's water cri... 3 hr lavon affair 4
News Fracking'seffects must be studied 3 hr lavon affair 1
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 3 hr john parise 32,000
News The Barons fiasco - Bluefield boot lacks fundam... (Aug '07) 6 hr hey Im Ryan 7
News How should an angry liberal celebrate the Fourt... 10 hr spud 568
More from around the web