It is truly unfortunate that Mr.Van Liew has weighed in on something about which he clearly has not been paying attention. Not only has he failed to attend even one meeting of the Oak Hill Study Committee but he apparently has not even read the minutes of any of the meetings. All minutes from January 5 through September 13, 2012 are on the town website under "Minutes" - "Oak Hill Study Committee". He has stated that both Colleen Stansfield and Paul Haverty are on the committee and they are not. He opines that there is an agenda to build on the parcel and that is also clearly wrong. The fact is that this is a very diverse committee and while they all agree that the property will be preserved as open space, there is no consensus on the exact method to acheive this goal and there is a wide divergence as to the recreational uses that should be permitted. This is very clear from reading the minutes. They will be making a report at Town Meeting. I invite everyone to watch and see how misinformed Mr. Van Liew is on this subject. I cannot help but wonder where he gets his information or why he believes that everything in town is some sort of conspiracy. I just hope that in the future Mr. Van Liew will investigate before he criticizes town officials. In my opinion, he has not done a good job of this in the past and this continues even now. Rather than criticize why doesn't he show up at meetings and engage in the process. It is open to all.

As usual Mr. Van Liew has not done his homework, if he had attended any Of the Oak Hill Study Committee meetings or read the on line minutes he would have known that there is no plans for building in Oak Hill and he might have known the volunteers who made up that committee.
His comment on predatory lawyers is laughable since his practice of serial litigation against the Town and it's taxpayer citizens is legendary. Mr. Van Liew receives far too much print that is unvetted or questioned by the press.

Fact from Oak Hill Minutes that can be found on town web site:
"George moved to place the 66 acres into open space for conservation purposes.
After discussion seconded by Sue.
Ayes: Sue, George, Phil, John A, Jon, Fran, Dave.
Nay: John E., Paul"

I am glad if my comment spurred Better Chelmsford to finally speak out on this open space issue. Despite his errors in just about the entire e-mail the only important fact is as a Tm Rep he is supporting to protect this open Space. As for Oak Hill the committee is taking its time to make sure everything is totally bullet proof on all levels. The lesson learned from North Rd is to take your time and make sure its not "intent" but as Judge Judy says "all that matters is within the four corners". I do wish however he had attended even one Oak Hill Meeting or come on one of the 9 site walks I have set for Sunny Meadow . This week they will be at 1 2 and 3 pm on site. It exciting that almost 100 acres will soon be protected.

As the Chairman of the Oak Hill Study Committee and Planning Board representative on the committee, I would like to highlight several inaccuracies in RVL's e-mail - consistent with the two previous comments.

Colleen Stansfield and Paul Haverty are not on the Committee, nor have they ever attended even one of our meetings. On September 13, the Committee took a formal vote to recommend that the primary use of the property be "Open Space for conservation purposes". It should also be noted that we have expended $ 0.00 of the $ 15,000 budgeted for this study thanks to all the time committee members as well as town staff and members of the community have donated towards this study.

The committee is working out our final discussion points and will hold a public forum to discuss our findings and receive public input on November 15th. All meetings are and have been open to the public and we have strived to get our minutes posted on line. We anticipate wrapping up our recommendations by the end of the year followed by presentations to the Selectmen and Spring Town Meeting.

this was sent out this am. "Folks, in the previous message (“Are we serious about protecting open space”) the snide posting sarcastically soliciting comment should have been attributed to Phil Stanway, not Phil Eliopoulos." .

No other items have been corrected so far, What Can I say I am just a jovial person and a bit sarcastic. Not a bad thing.

Sue, I actually did drop by one meeting of the Oak Hill Study Committee for about 20 minutes after one of my other hearings had ended.

By the way, I see that Mr. Van Liew has sent out a new email partially correcting his original email, by noting that it was Phil Stanway who made the original posting. He doesn't bother to mention that he placed both me and Colleen Stansfield on a committee which we do not serve. I guess admitting that mistake would ruin the narrative.

A suggestion: In my opinion it is always wise to research with the mind before opening the mouth. .....

Tom,
I did not know that it was the job of the press to vet anyone's comments. I thought that was the reader's job to make their own decisions as to the validity of someone's point of view. I may not agree with his point of view, but I am not sure I have the right to stop him from expressing it, just as you have you right to attack him

Actually I attended one meeting and was very satisfied with the Oak Hill committee members and the direction they were heading. As a planning board member, Susan Carter gives updates at the end of all our meetings and keeps the PB very well informed on their activity. Her comments are available for viewing on Telemedia. Just look for PB meetings and you can scroll towards the end of the meeting and hear her updates for yourself. I think they all should be commended for their hard, thorough work on this study.

What weight does Roland's opinion carry? None. Who really cares? He's one person who hasn't attended one Oak Hill meeting, obviously hasn't even read the meeting minutes, doesn't have his "Phil's" straight, isn't involved in any open space initiatives. Nothing he writes is based on fact. Why is there even a Patch (or other media) article about this? I'm going to start sending mass mailings about my opinions on things and see what happens. He's a cartoon character. I'm even pissed at myself for continuing the conversation. Sheesh.

Re: what RVL says: SO WHAT? His opinion should carry no more weight than any other under- informed individual.

NEVER. NEVER. NEVER has HWSNBN attended one of our OPEN TO THE PUBLIC meetings. The meetings ARE NOT ON TV. The only possible way to get information about what has been discussed is by referring to our posted minutes or being PRESENT AT THOSE MEETINGS. If the opinions put forward on Bitter Not Better have been obtained by hearsay and gossip, SHAME on whoever would purposely send out such erroneous information. SHAME!
I am on this committee. There are no practicing attorneys on it that I am aware of. There are nine members and the group includes, Lowell Rod and Gun Club members, a member from Cons Com, Planning Board, North Congo, Housing and interested residents . We have worked very hard and, personally, I am offended, one more time with the attack on my integrity. Good people have volunteered to complete this task and we are trying to finish our report with the INTENT OF OUR DECISION clearly stated. We DO NOT want a rogue resident several years from now to try to alter our final decision to place it in OPEN SPACE! Open space is where it's going but the mechanism to achieve that is all that's left to do. See you all on Nov. 15 for the Public Info session. Peace.

Fran,
relax, I think he is a misinformed person with an agenda that you and all who are now commenting allowing him to perpertuate. I find it interesting that you all find the need to go out of your way to attack him. I do not care what he thinks and I would think that you should not be baited. Also, it is slander if it is spoken and libel if it is written. If he has done either, then either sue him or ignore him, I choose the later

Fran,
If the words are incorrect, then sue and do not post comments, you should be talking to your attorney, not responding to his comments in a public forum and you are right, I do not care, as you have said, and it is not my battle, so go ahead and engage him. I no longer. I just find it interesting that he speaks and everyone comes out of the woodwork to argue with him.

Paul,
Have you been damaged in any way? I really do not care what you or he have to say. He has an agenda, you and all the others who he attackes jump through hoops to respond, thus making his day and for some maybe his point. I have no problem with what you chose to do either way. If I was interested I would have arrived at the same point without your imput. I as an outsider and observer, do find it interesting how the same people lead by Mr.Kurland feel the overwhelming need to respond though.

I believe we have enough open space in town and we don't need any more. The common is a Tim Tebow throw from the remains of the field where 9 North stands. Why do we have to have space somewhere else? Its going to take more police to patrol, leads to more crime (who knows that happens in between all those trees), and might make people who don't use it feel sad.

The space we have is more than enough. If you don't like it, go to Nashua.

;)

This is too funny. Way to go Van Liew.

Ron Johnson ... You are tough!

So tired of listening to windbags like Phil Stanway.

Ron, yes Fran is a moron and even more of a windbag than Phil Stanway. She is another one that she stick to clipping coupons.

Anna,
I do not know if it toughness or that I have no use for using as a tactic when someone disagrees with them to take a position that the other person's point of view lack's merit and then announce that they will no longer engage. On the other hand that is always someone's right. My point is that every time RVL spouts his nonsense, the "usual suspects" come out and attack in force. I believe that if they just ignored him, he would go away eventually. I will always believe that they will always be insiders and believe me, I am not attacking them for their many good deeds, the issue is that this also does not mean that they are above reproach and not subject to comment once in a while. I have been active in community service as well in my life and I know that sometimes it leads to a feeling of if you do not like what I am doing, then come here and do it yourself. I then decide that that is the wrong feeling and move on. I decide that the value on my contributions outweigh the criticism that sometimes comes my way.

You guys are so ridiculous. Paul and Colleen act like they have never given anyone on the Oak Hill Study Committee their opinions on the subject. Further, they act as if they couldn't influence that committee if they so desired.

This isn't the first time RVL got names wrong and it probably won't be the last (I'm sure that guy has Eliopolous on the brain all the time)! But that doesn't mean his underlying points are wrong. You would be a fool to think the OHSC didn't consider a 40-b on that site, of course they did. I am happy to read here that they have chosen against that plan. I guess there is enough 40-b sites to choose from between the redevelopment of the Marshall's plaza and the site over near brickhouse pizza they want to make a 40-b.

What people seem unwilling or unable to remember is that Roland Vanlue is not a Lonewolf in fact more than 40% of the town voted to oust the entire board of selectmen with no one to replace them. People simply do not trust town government anymore and frankly they shouldn't

With the Illiopolis deal and all the 40-bs that have popped up around town and all the other issues that the town manager seems determined to ignore residents concerns about, Residence have a right to be concerned that something called open-space will eventually be turned into something other than open-space.

Ron, ignoring Mr. Van Liew hasn't been any more effective in the past than engaging him his. Why should I let obviously false statements about me, which appear to have been made with the specific intent of suggesting I have had improper influence over a particular committee, go unchallenged? Would you just ignore him if he repeatedly made untrue statements about you?

John Doe, in fact I have never given anybody on the Oak Hill Study Committee my opinion on the matter. This may come as a surprise to you and other acolytes of Mr. Van Liew, but I really don't care if Oak Hill is placed in conservation. I think that would be a fine outcome. Of course the Committee considered affordable housing development there, that was one of their specific charges.

As far as Chapter 40B developments elsewhere in Town, we can either direct the location of affordable housing development through proactive planning, or we can have it dictated to us through Chapter 40B development. If you don't choose the former, you are choosing the latter by default.

Ron, I'm "worried so much" because what was said about me was not true. Perhaps I should just learn to ignore it, but that is just not my personality.

Paul, You're off base re: 40-b. Town officials LIKE 40b. They find it useful because it allows them to build housing where residents (through voting and representation) have implemented guidelines to not allow housing.

They were given multiple sets of regulations that showed how they could stop 40b altogether, like Carlisle has. They have chosen to ignore it. They could also fight 40b in court, which they have chosen not to do.

Your options are "disingenuous" to use a vanliew term. The option are not "be proactive about high-density affordable housing or have 40b stuffed down your throat".

The town simply WANTS to use 40-b, against the wishes if most residents. But people like you continue to ignore that plain and simple truth, refuse to do anything to stop 40-b from turning Chelsmford into Billerica and you blindly support town officials who slap residents in the face time and time again by doing things that clearly fly in the face of residents.

(I preface this by invoking my 1st amendment rights so I don't need legal counsel to defend me on a defamation of character suit that Roland Van Liew is known for.)
I think that Andrew Sylvia makes a valid comment. By all of us (myself included) commenting, no matter what our stance, it gives him the attention that a man of his stature requires for survival. That being said, how much longer can we let Roland Van Liew make a mockery of our town, and its government.

The government of Chelmsford makes a mockery out of itself it doesn't need RVL