This is FU

REQUEST 1:
July 19-October 11
84 Days – 59 Business Days

On July 19th we filed our first request for records, seeking all plans received by the city on apartment and mixed use buildings over 50 residential units, as well as marijuana businesses.

On the 10th day allowed to come up with a response – in traditional Framingham fashion, they pulled a number out of a hat of 58 requests filed as a reason for delaying our request another 15 business days.

This 58 number is pure bullshit. They took all the requests that were filed from the beginning of the year, ones that were not from this particular requester, and ones that they lied about in their response requiring further requests, or by extending all our requests out to the maximum days so that the number of open requests are held open longer and so they can come up with an inflated number, even when many of the requests are for the city to just post a meeting video publicly, or for meeting minutes, things that can be responded to in mere hours… and not the full month. When we go through these requests notice the responses on the 10th day or the 25th day. Only responding on the due date and not sooner, when available – and we can prove this as well.

Our appeal was fruitless:

The overburdening the city with 58 requests – trick, worked and the state granted the full 25 days, or a 15 business day extension.

The overburdening the city with 58 requests – trick, worked and the state granted the full 25 days, or a 15 business day extension. The new due date was August 23, and on August 23, the city responded.   

In this responsive list, the plan we were seeking, 208 Waverly Street was not listed. On September 21, filed another appeal to the state claiming that there is no note in the text of any documents withheld under exemptions, and that documents were missing from the response. This time we were specific, telling the city the shape of the building.

The appeal as the city received it. As part of the appeal, the city also saw the email above. At this point any further denials – would not be by mistake, they would be willful.

A few days later, on September 26th the state ruled with the following message, that after talking with the city, the state was given no indication whether records existed or not, and therefore was ordered to respond within another 10 days.

On October 11, the Super Records Access Officer, responded that once again there were no other responsive records

During the time for this one request to go from beginning to end (84 days), there were two other requests filed seeking the same thing, just asking in different ways.

REQUEST 2:
August 3-September 8
36 Days – 25 Business Days

In a second request filed concurrently by one of our investigators we combined two current investigations, the city owned cars assigned to employees as well as seeking plans for any buildings received by the city when over 100 apartment units were involved. Essentially the same request, asked by a different person, in a slightly different way, targeted to get that one document we were seeking.

After the full 10 days, the city asked for an extension to the full 25 days, and on the 25th day – the city responded with plans for buildings already publicly known. 36 days elapsed between the date of request and the date of response.

You’ll want to note the date of response on this one, and the lack of any responsive documents on 208 Waverly St, and the way the question was asked in comparison to the next request.

REQUEST 2:
August 10 -August 24
14 Days – 10 Business Days

This request we came right out and told them what we wanted. We stated that we wanted all plans for specific named addresses, we didn’t mention numbers of apartments.

On the 10th business day, which was a few days after the planning board was given documents on an upcoming subdivision, in relation to this site. The city responded.

Lets talk about subdivisions first. When a change in affordable housing requirements is expected in the future, when the change would mean less profitability, people who are trying to develop housing, will often file a subdivision plan, which locks in the old zoning. The planned subdivisions are bullshit and are never used as designed, but is a zoning placeholder for a future development.

All responsive records were relevant to the site, but were historical documents on the plans for the site for decades past. The last item was the Preliminary Subdivision application as it was sent to the planning board to lock in the zoning. You can see that the plan we had received from a city employee months earlier, looks nothing like the plan for the subdivision beyond the shape of the lot.

But don’t worry, if you have been watching the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings as of late – you will know that apartments are still the plan, and as stated above, the subdivision plan was merely legal wrangling to freeze zoning.

Still, the copy of the plan that we got from a city employee months earlier – was not revealed in the responsive documents.

REQUEST 4:
October 4 – November 9
36 Days – 25 Business Days

We knew that this particular attorney Katherine Garrahan of Bowdich & Dewey was behind a whole slew of projects in the city, and she was the point person on the subdivision application during the August Planning Board meeting. We decided to ask technology services to perform a search of several city directors, for emails sent to or from this attorney.

10 business days after our request, the city asked for more tome, and because they stated that they needed to through 150 or so emails, we were okay with the delay.

The city had an additional 15 business days, and as expected, exactly on the 25th business day – a response came through.

Because so many items were released, if you are seeking to read all the documents: CLICK HERE.

Far down in the list of responsive documents we found proof in the email below.

This email had the multiple attached plans and renderings attached to it, including the draft site plan which we has been given by a city employee many months earlier and shown below.

By the very definition of this being a plan for an apartment building over 50 and over 100 units, and a plan in the possession of the city for the site of 208 Waverly Street – this plan should have been responded to us three times over, on all three previous attempts.

What is so secret about a plan that would upset all the residents in the area, who are getting apartment after apartment, more and more traffic, and vagrancy and crime issues that aren’t getting fixed.

This document proves that the city had in it’s possession through Sarki Sarkisian, the Director of Economic Development a copy of this plan.

THE EMAIL WAS DATED JUNE 29, 2022. Therefore all the public record responses that did not include this plan – and did not claim withheld document, our record requests #1-3 above, all were dishonestly responded to. Especially in #1 where we spelt out exactly the shape of the building proposed – and the Super Records Access Officer wrote back, “I took a second look into this request as a result of the appeal and the additional information provided. The City was not in possession of any additional records on the date of the initial request (July 19^th, 2022) other than what was provided to you on August 23^rd, 2022.”