It’s amazing how the narrative in a recent T&G editorial is so biased with regard to Our Lady Of Mount Carmel. Readers know it was the intention of the Diocese to knock the church down from the beginning until the petition for Historic District study came to light. The demolition permit scheduled for May was never formally revoked and while no promise was made to actually ensure the church would be reopened at anytime, everyone knew the time limitation a Historic District study imposed therefor the consensus to move forward was the only real hope for preservation. Even with a study in progress the Bishop knew we were still opened for discussion toward finding an assured solution to save the church. And we still are. So now what is the new narrative from the Editor of the T&G? A group of parishioners tried to save and reopen our church and for doing so now they are getting punished for their passion and assertiveness via a wrecking ball.
We feel like it was rigged. ?????
I look to see my editorial posted I present the real reason the petition didn’t move forward, in my opinion. Sent btw, on January 23, 2017 and as of this post it has not been published.
To the Editor
Mount Carmel an iconic historical resource
The Historic Commission’s vote (on 1/19/17) not to move forward with the Historic
District study for a Mount Carmel Historic District has placed one of Massachusetts’
top seven most endanger historic resources at greater risk to the wrecking ball.
The issues and concerns raised by one commission member (Ms Conroy) were irrelevant to the matter at hand, and that matter was to address a motion to accept a request for a feasibility study for a possible Historic District. Issues such as “precedent”
or “impact” were not part of the petition. The petition was essentially a request to
have a proper study conducted to determine the feasibility of a Historical District,
along with any consequential impact. The actions of that single member, along with
two others to join in voting in opposition, essentially denied our request for a
study, which citizens have a right to request, in recognition of the Commissions
role to undertake such a legitimate request. In this case there was also plenty of
assistance offered to alleviate the amount of work a study would entail.
Furthermore, the study would have been the appropriate venue to address any of her
concerns with due diligence. It can be argued the reasons of her opposition to the
petition, with no discussion to include suggestions of recourse given during that
meeting, appears, in my opinion, an obstruction to process, a conflict, and negligence
to the role and duty of the Historic Commission.
Mauro DePasquale, Parishioner of Our Lady Mount Carmel/St. Ann Parish