Despite Delays, Some Movement Coming in High School Project
The town can unseal trade construction bids on Thursday, and is preparing to move forward with demolition plans.
Photos
After more than a year in limbo, things are starting to heat up for the Wilmington High School project.
While the appeal of abutter Gerry O’Reilly remains at the Superior Court level, there are several upcoming milestones for the project. Thursday is the date that the town will be able to unseal bids for trade construction. If the town is satisfied with the winning bids, it can plan on moving forward and accepting them.
When the town opens the bids, they will know whether or not their projections for the cost increases associated with the appeals over the last year were accurate.
In addition, the deadline recently passed for the town to file its response to O’Reilly’s claim. Board of Selectmen chairman Mike Newhouse said that while there is nothing new to report on the Superior Court front, he did confirm that the town submitted its response.
School officials sent out a letter to high school parents informing them of parking changes that will be due to the upcoming demolition of the gymnasium, set for February break. Teachers will begin parking in the student lot on February 11, and seniors with passes will still be able to park in the lot as well.
“The general response I’ve been getting from the community (about plans to move forward with bids and demolition) has been very positive,” said Newhouse. “People are pleased to be moving forward. On a project like this, we have a long way to go and a lot of work to do. The inordinate delays have people chomping at the bit to move ahead.”
Jeffrey Baker, the attorney for O’Reilly, told the Boston Globe in an article last week that his client’s only interests are for the safety of himself and his family.
“Mr. O’Reilly supports the building of a new high school, but not at the increased risk to the health and well-being of his family,” said Baker, according to The Globe. “For Mr. O’Reilly, this case is about one thing only… Clean water for himself, his children, and his grandchildren. It has been a 30-year struggle to protect his family from the contamination of his water.”
When contacted by Patch on several occasions over the last year, Baker has been unavailable for comment.
Newhouse did not have any update on the potential for taking control of O’Reilly’s property by eminent domain, other than confirming that selectmen discussed the topic during executive session following last week’s meeting.
The chairman did say that the goal continues to be to have the school completed and ready for use for the 2015-16 academic year, which is why the town plans to begin work in February.
“A contract this complex, there are certainly things that don’t always go exactly as planned. Some go faster, some go a little slower,” said Newhouse. “But at this point, we believe that is an achievable goal.”
debmar
7:41 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I am so happy to hear this is moving forward, and the hope is to still be on schedule!! How will this affect fourth of July? Beleive me the high school and first and foremost but I was just curious about fourth of July?
Matt Schooley
9:32 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
This may somewhat answer your question, though the answer to your question is that it isn't 100 percent decided yet. But about 3/4 of the way through this article below that subject is talked about.
http://patch.com/A-0Yn6
Eric J
7:52 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I am so happy to hear we are moving forward on this long over due project. I back the board of selectmen and woman for a superior job and staying on track. "Kudos"
webmom
9:15 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Just wanted to say that it is not Mr. O'Reilly's "water", but everyone's water. Just because someone has a well, they don't own the groundwater..it's not his, it's not just Wilmington's...it's everyones.
Kevin MacDonald
8:49 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Webmom, I think that the water belongs to God since he created it. When the financial tab rockets up and all the supporters of an overpriced school and supporters of knocking down a structurally sound building have to pay the consequences, we'll see if they're still laughing and smiling then. You reap what you sow.
Karl Ian Sagal
5:59 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
This article states that the selectmen are discussing taking O'Reilly's land by eminent domain. Since his land is not part of this project, and that is pretty well documented, then any land taking would be for punitive reasons only.
I am not sure the laws for land taking thru eminent domain include taking a man's home as a punishment for exercising his legal rights.
If this article is correct, and the primary issue is the quality of his well water, then the town should have run city water to his property as part of a deal, and we would have moved on by now. It seems that would have been a cheaper solution, if available, and of course, the cost of doing this could be rolled into the cost of the project and just about disappear, if all parties agree. I can only imagine there is more to it that this.
I have been pretty well published that I was not in favor of a complete replacement of the High School, but since it is the way the town voted, I have been and am in favor of proceeding quickly. Conditions should be met to safeguard the environment, and potentially the well water in that area, and then build the project already!
jozkid
6:54 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Um, not for nothing, Karl, but I suggested that very solution (providing town water) on a different thread here just a few days ago, in a very civilized tone with no name-calling, etc. Actually, it was the first time I've posted after swearing I wasn't going to do so anymore. But I thought at the time it was, perhaps, something that needed to be presented as a way of helping heal all these bitter feelings in town. I was promptly swatted by one Mr Kevin MacDonald. My fear is that perhaps Mr O'Reilly has been listening a little too much to those who are using the quality of his water as a convenient veil to hide behind while they press their own agenda. Hooking O'Reilly up to the town water supply, I think, could be a reasonable way of solving this problem and getting this project underway at last. Good heavens? Did I just agree with you, Karl? Or did you agree with me? :)
Wayne Sullivan
8:04 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Some things to consider here...if Mr. O'Reilly and his attorney state that fear of contamination has been in play with his well for over 30 years why would he continue to put his health and that of his family's in jeopardy all these years. Dig a deeper well, look at the possibility of town water, etc. How can you say you have allowed yourself to endure well issues that have been detrimental to your health and safety and now that a school is being built you suddenly take issue with your well. Sounds convenient and a calculated way to delay a project and/or hope for some financial payoff. I am not for taking a man's house without exploring all means of compromise, but let's not make this guy out to be an angel with a halo who is simply a victim. You don't allow water issues to linger for 30 plus years, but now have all the money it takes to hire legal counsel instead of fixing your water. Spend the money on yourself first for your own sake and your families, but then again if he did the problem would go away and then he would need to come up with some other reason to support why he doesn't want a school in his backyard. I also find this quite interesting as there already is a school and a ball field in his backyard which has been there for over 50 years.
Karl Ian Sagal
9:00 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Wayne,
I am having trouble following your post. First off, O'Reilly has been active in environmental issues in the town for many, many years. All those in town government know him, and have known him to be an honorable fellow. He has also had issues in his family (that it is not my place to put on this forum) that are very important to him and may help fuel his motivation here.
I will not speak for him. My post a short while ago was to point out that it is illegal to steal his house and claim eminent domain. You cannot do that for punitive reasons.
I did mention bringing city water to those few houses in that part of Wildwood Ave that do not have it, and while Jozkid says she started it a few days ago, it actually has been posted my myself and others more than once over the past year or so. It is not a new idea, and was offered to point out that I suspect there are more things going on than were in that article.
Yes, he has had that school behind his back yard for a long time, but the new plans will significantly change his neighborhood, as it will no longer be behind his back yard, but all around him and his few neighbors. (as well as the traffic on Wildwood.)
Steven McGinley
5:37 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Even talking about taking his property by an imminent domain, shows how classless our board of selectmen is. If Mr. O'Reilly is concerned with the quality of his water getting it from the MWRA may not be a suitable option for him. I personally would never drink it
Steven McGinley
5:42 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
If you want to blame someone, blame the board of selectmen and the other town officials thatchoose to shoehorn this project in between an oil spill in the Ipswich River basin. And when they tell you they look at other options, well personally I don't believe it for a second. They've known they were going to put that school there for over 10 years when they took the Murphy/O'Reilly property by eminent domain. And why are they starting construction while the case is still in limbo? If nobody's noticed they started site work off Wildwood Street on Wednesday the 23rd
Steven McGinley
5:42 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Even talking about taking his property by an imminent domain, shows how classless our board of selectmen is. If Mr. O'Reilly is concerned with the quality of his water getting it from the MWRA may not be a suitable option for him. I personally would never drink it.
Christine
10:23 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Let's think about this- If I believed my FAMILY was at risk of being contaminated for YEARS- (and as I've said before, Mrs. O'Reilly's passing was a terrible loss for his family)...then, I would continue to bathe, eat and maybe drink out of my contaminated well anyway-- then WAIT until the town proposes building a new structure, then stop that project I REALLY SUPPORT (really!), then sue the town and take that project to the Supreme Court project just so I can now (finally) get clean water hooked up from the town.
It feels disingenuous, because it's NOT logical- the timing isn't logical, because his head's been filled with bs from the rest of the illogicals...
Regardless of how you feel about the officials, call Mr. O'Reilly's what it is- leverage.
Karl Ian Sagal
2:31 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
I am glad you are familiar with what Mr. O'Reilly bathes, eats and drinks, but I am not. I do not live in that area of town, but I have a reverse osmosis water filter for all the water that we ingest, (other than what we buy from Market Basket) but we do bathe in town water. That does not mean that I would not fight for clean water as I see fit.
If he has been fighting for clean water for years, and this project has given him leverage that he has been lacking for many years, how is that a problem? So, if he is right, the town could have fixed these problems years ago, but decided he had no leverage, and ignored him. Now, he had chosen to not be ignored any longer, and that is his right as a citizen.
I do not know all the details. I do not make believe to know what goes on in his house, or in his head. If the courts find he has grounds will all his detractors then apologize? I suspect not.
I have been very vocal that I would not take the path he is taking, and I personally want the town to get on with the project that I did vote against, and lost. But I will not diminish the rights of others. Many of us fought and some gave our lives so that people have those rights. I do not take it lightly.
Christine
3:20 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
His rights? What about our rights? What about our rights as voters and our money? What about other means and methods he could have pursued to "go after" the town a long time prior to THIS if his case is so rock solid and within his rights? What about respect for the safeguards already in place for the environment and the protections reviewed throughout this process?
Apologies??
He's the one who owes every taxpayer footing the million dollar+ delay an apology..and if/when he loses, will you concede that this was just an obstruction? I suspect not.