(BOSTON, January 13, 2015) – Ed Deveau, Chair of the Ward 1 Democratic Committee and former Chief of Staff to Senator Anthony Petruccelli, has handed in the required number of signatures to qualify for the ballot for State Representative in East Boston.
Deveau said, “For more than a decade, I have been working to strengthen our community and make East Boston a better place to live and raise a family. My experience at the State House and in the community will give me the unique ability to deliver for East Boston.”
Monday morning, Deveau became the first candidate for State Representative to submit the required number of signatures to the Boston Elections Department. The Democratic primary will take place on Tuesday, March 3, and includes all precincts in East Boston.
Deveau is a lifelong East Boston resident. For 13 years, he worked for Sen. Anthony Petruccelli as his aide and Chief of Staff. Deveau has been actively involved in the community, co-founding Eastie’s Elves and an annual East Boston Jimmy Fund event that has raised over $30,000 for cancer research.
Deveau is the former chair of the Constitution Beach Association, past Vice President of the Board of Directors for the Salesian Boys & Girls Club, and has been involved in the East Boston Athletic Board.
Showing posts with label Petruccelli. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Petruccelli. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Monday, November 10, 2014
Nov. 12: Elected officials to cut ribbon at new PortSide Development; Roseland's Big Day in Eastie
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12th AT 2 P.M.
PORTSIDE AT EAST PIER
MARGINAL & LEWIS STREETS, EAST BOSTON, M.A
WHAT: Ribbon-cutting event for the opening of Portside at East Pier Building 7, part of Roseland and Massport’s newly completed flagship luxury residential and retail complex. The property – which is East Boston’s first waterfront residential project in decades – is the first to open as part of Roseland’s larger, master-planned, mixed-use waterfront development in Jeffries Point.
WHO: State Senator Anthony Petruccelli; State Representative Carlo Basile;
Brian Golden, Acting Director, Boston Redevelopment Authority; Marshall Tycher, President, Roseland; Tom Glynn, CEO, Massport
WHERE: Portside at East Pier
Marginal & Lewis Streets, East Boston, MA
Guests encouraged to wear flat shoes
WHEN: 2 p.m., Wednesday, November 12, 2014
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Portside at East Pier Building 7 features five stories comprised of 176 apartments – including six extended-stay units – in addition to 3,600 square feet of ground floor retail space and 192 parking spaces. The waterfront property is the first of three building to open as part of Roseland’s larger, master-planned, mixed-use development, which will contain a total of 550 luxury apartments and more than 70,000 square feet of ground floor retail space.
PORTSIDE AT EAST PIER
MARGINAL & LEWIS STREETS, EAST BOSTON, M.A
WHAT: Ribbon-cutting event for the opening of Portside at East Pier Building 7, part of Roseland and Massport’s newly completed flagship luxury residential and retail complex. The property – which is East Boston’s first waterfront residential project in decades – is the first to open as part of Roseland’s larger, master-planned, mixed-use waterfront development in Jeffries Point.
WHO: State Senator Anthony Petruccelli; State Representative Carlo Basile;
Brian Golden, Acting Director, Boston Redevelopment Authority; Marshall Tycher, President, Roseland; Tom Glynn, CEO, Massport
WHERE: Portside at East Pier
Marginal & Lewis Streets, East Boston, MA
Guests encouraged to wear flat shoes
WHEN: 2 p.m., Wednesday, November 12, 2014
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Portside at East Pier Building 7 features five stories comprised of 176 apartments – including six extended-stay units – in addition to 3,600 square feet of ground floor retail space and 192 parking spaces. The waterfront property is the first of three building to open as part of Roseland’s larger, master-planned, mixed-use development, which will contain a total of 550 luxury apartments and more than 70,000 square feet of ground floor retail space.
Monday, May 26, 2014
Long awaited Logan Study based on 6,000 individual interviews to be released in Winthrop on Wed., May 28
ADVISORY OF PUBLIC MEETING
The Department of Public Health will hold a public meeting to release the findings of the Logan Airport Health Study (also known as the Logan Study). The Logan Study involved interviews with more than 6,000 adults living within a 5-mile radius of the airport evaluating potential health impacts of air pollution and noise on residents in 17 communities within the study area.
Associate Commissioner Suzanne K. Condon and staff will review methodology used in the study and findings. The study will be available on the Department’s website following the meeting.
WHEN: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 6:30pm
WHERE: Winthrop Senior Center, 35 Harvard Street, Winthrop, MA
For more information contact: Anne Roach (617) 624-5006
The Department of Public Health will hold a public meeting to release the findings of the Logan Airport Health Study (also known as the Logan Study). The Logan Study involved interviews with more than 6,000 adults living within a 5-mile radius of the airport evaluating potential health impacts of air pollution and noise on residents in 17 communities within the study area.
Associate Commissioner Suzanne K. Condon and staff will review methodology used in the study and findings. The study will be available on the Department’s website following the meeting.
WHEN: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 6:30pm
WHERE: Winthrop Senior Center, 35 Harvard Street, Winthrop, MA
For more information contact: Anne Roach (617) 624-5006
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Sen. Petruccelli's letter to gaming commission on the "Revere" plan
Just in to eastboston.com.
The two-page letter from state Senator Anthony Petruccelli to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission on Suffolk Downs' Revere-only proposal. Related story can be found here.
November 20, 2013
Stephen Crosby, Chairman
Massachusetts Gaming Commission
84 State Street, Suite 720
Boston, MA 02109
Dear Chairman Crosby and Commissioners:
On behalf of my constituents of the First Suffolk and Middlesex District, I write today to express my increasing concern over recent efforts by Sterling Suffolk Racecourse, LLC (“Sterling Suffolk”) to proceed with the resort casino development originally proposed for the 161-acre land parcel at Suffolk Downs in East Boston (the “Project”). In a letter to the Commission, dated November 13, 2013, Sterling Suffolk expressed their intentions to move forward with the Project despite the unsuccessful ballot question in East Boston. Indeed, Sterling Suffolk has proposed to modify the Project’s development plan so that it fits entirely within the 52-acre Revere parcel at Suffolk Downs. To do so, in my opinion, undermines the spirit and intent of the Commonwealth’s Expanded Gaming Act of 2011 (the “Gaming Act”).
When the State Legislature crafted and passed the Gaming Act, my colleagues and I carefully drafted provisions pertaining to host community agreements and the conduct of an election. M.G.L. c.23K, §15 specifically requires an applicant, as a prerequisite to filing an RFA-2 application (“Phase 2”), to receive a certified and binding vote on a ballot question at an election in the host community. (See also 205 CMR 124.00.) Also, where a proposed gaming establishment is situated in more than one community, as is the case with the Project:
The applicant shall execute an agreement with each host community, or a joint agreement with both communities, and receive a certified and binding vote on a ballot question at an election held in each host community in favor of such a license. M.G.L. c.23K, § 15(13).
Taken together, the intent of these provisions is clear. Only favorable referendum results in both host communities allow the applicant to proceed to Phase 2. That did not happen with Sterling Suffolk’s Project. Because one host community voted in the negative, the Project proposed for Suffolk Downs is dead. If Sterling Suffolk wishes to proceed with an alternative development plan on the Revere parcel, then under the terms of the Gaming Act:
[They] shall not submit a new request to the governing body within 180 days of the last election; and provided further, that a new request shall be accompanied by an agreement between the applicant and host community signed after the previous election. M.G.L. c.23K, § 15(13).
However, in their November 13th letter to the Commission, Sterling Suffolk asserted that, regardless of the November 5th election results, Revere’s host community agreement remains in effect and need only be modified to reflect a shift to Suffolk Down’s Revere parcel. Sterling Suffolk does not interpret the referendums to have been votes about the Project (and host community agreements) itself; rather they view the referendums as votes on whether Suffolk Down could be developed for a casino at all.
While it is true that Revere and East Boston voted on land use, it is also unquestionable that the host community agreements were essential to the voting process. All ballots required, and did in fact contain, “a fair, concise summary of the host community agreement.” 205 CMR 124.05. My colleagues and I in the Legislature recognized that it was imperative to ensure that Massachusetts residents in an impacted community have adequate notice of, and be well-informed about, any casino proposal prior to voting. Accordingly, the Gaming Act specifically requires a host community agreement to be made public, and that host and surrounding communities have ample opportunity to weigh the potential impacts on local businesses, traffic, jobs, as well as public safety.
Furthermore, it is false to argue that an alternative development plan on the Revere parcel is anything but a new proposal, which would require a new host community agreement and referendum under the provisions of M.G.L. c.23K, § 15(13). Any proposed project development on the Revere parcel would undoubtedly look very different from that which voters reviewed prior to November 5th. Buildings and parking lots would need to be relocated, not to mention the racetrack and stables. Such changes materially alter the Project as it was initially proposed. In effect, this undermine the Gaming Act’s requirements for transparency and notice that ensure members of the impacted communities, including myself, have adequate time to weigh the merits of a proposal.
I understand why Sterling Suffolk wishes to pursue an alternative development plan on the Revere parcel. As an organization, they’ve invested a great deal of time, effort, and money to see the Suffolk Downs Project to fruition. I, too, was disappointed that the Project failed to receive the two affirmative referendum results needed to proceed to Phase 2. I believed, and still believe, that a casino has great potential to rejuvenate communities within my District. Nevertheless, the Commission cannot allow a gaming applicant to circumvent the process required by the Gaming Act merely because the results were disappointing.
I appreciate the opportunity to state my position to the Commission, and request the Commission’s clarification on the status of Sterling Suffolk’s application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at my office.
Sincerely,
ANTHONY PETRUCCELLI
State Senator
First Suffolk and Middlesex District
The two-page letter from state Senator Anthony Petruccelli to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission on Suffolk Downs' Revere-only proposal. Related story can be found here.
November 20, 2013
Stephen Crosby, Chairman
Massachusetts Gaming Commission
84 State Street, Suite 720
Boston, MA 02109
Dear Chairman Crosby and Commissioners:
On behalf of my constituents of the First Suffolk and Middlesex District, I write today to express my increasing concern over recent efforts by Sterling Suffolk Racecourse, LLC (“Sterling Suffolk”) to proceed with the resort casino development originally proposed for the 161-acre land parcel at Suffolk Downs in East Boston (the “Project”). In a letter to the Commission, dated November 13, 2013, Sterling Suffolk expressed their intentions to move forward with the Project despite the unsuccessful ballot question in East Boston. Indeed, Sterling Suffolk has proposed to modify the Project’s development plan so that it fits entirely within the 52-acre Revere parcel at Suffolk Downs. To do so, in my opinion, undermines the spirit and intent of the Commonwealth’s Expanded Gaming Act of 2011 (the “Gaming Act”).
When the State Legislature crafted and passed the Gaming Act, my colleagues and I carefully drafted provisions pertaining to host community agreements and the conduct of an election. M.G.L. c.23K, §15 specifically requires an applicant, as a prerequisite to filing an RFA-2 application (“Phase 2”), to receive a certified and binding vote on a ballot question at an election in the host community. (See also 205 CMR 124.00.) Also, where a proposed gaming establishment is situated in more than one community, as is the case with the Project:
The applicant shall execute an agreement with each host community, or a joint agreement with both communities, and receive a certified and binding vote on a ballot question at an election held in each host community in favor of such a license. M.G.L. c.23K, § 15(13).
Taken together, the intent of these provisions is clear. Only favorable referendum results in both host communities allow the applicant to proceed to Phase 2. That did not happen with Sterling Suffolk’s Project. Because one host community voted in the negative, the Project proposed for Suffolk Downs is dead. If Sterling Suffolk wishes to proceed with an alternative development plan on the Revere parcel, then under the terms of the Gaming Act:
[They] shall not submit a new request to the governing body within 180 days of the last election; and provided further, that a new request shall be accompanied by an agreement between the applicant and host community signed after the previous election. M.G.L. c.23K, § 15(13).
However, in their November 13th letter to the Commission, Sterling Suffolk asserted that, regardless of the November 5th election results, Revere’s host community agreement remains in effect and need only be modified to reflect a shift to Suffolk Down’s Revere parcel. Sterling Suffolk does not interpret the referendums to have been votes about the Project (and host community agreements) itself; rather they view the referendums as votes on whether Suffolk Down could be developed for a casino at all.
While it is true that Revere and East Boston voted on land use, it is also unquestionable that the host community agreements were essential to the voting process. All ballots required, and did in fact contain, “a fair, concise summary of the host community agreement.” 205 CMR 124.05. My colleagues and I in the Legislature recognized that it was imperative to ensure that Massachusetts residents in an impacted community have adequate notice of, and be well-informed about, any casino proposal prior to voting. Accordingly, the Gaming Act specifically requires a host community agreement to be made public, and that host and surrounding communities have ample opportunity to weigh the potential impacts on local businesses, traffic, jobs, as well as public safety.
Furthermore, it is false to argue that an alternative development plan on the Revere parcel is anything but a new proposal, which would require a new host community agreement and referendum under the provisions of M.G.L. c.23K, § 15(13). Any proposed project development on the Revere parcel would undoubtedly look very different from that which voters reviewed prior to November 5th. Buildings and parking lots would need to be relocated, not to mention the racetrack and stables. Such changes materially alter the Project as it was initially proposed. In effect, this undermine the Gaming Act’s requirements for transparency and notice that ensure members of the impacted communities, including myself, have adequate time to weigh the merits of a proposal.
I understand why Sterling Suffolk wishes to pursue an alternative development plan on the Revere parcel. As an organization, they’ve invested a great deal of time, effort, and money to see the Suffolk Downs Project to fruition. I, too, was disappointed that the Project failed to receive the two affirmative referendum results needed to proceed to Phase 2. I believed, and still believe, that a casino has great potential to rejuvenate communities within my District. Nevertheless, the Commission cannot allow a gaming applicant to circumvent the process required by the Gaming Act merely because the results were disappointing.
I appreciate the opportunity to state my position to the Commission, and request the Commission’s clarification on the status of Sterling Suffolk’s application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at my office.
Sincerely,
ANTHONY PETRUCCELLI
State Senator
First Suffolk and Middlesex District
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Grateful for all those who helped residents displaced by 45 Chelsea Street collapse
The following letter was sent to eastboston.com from the office of State Representative Carlo Basile early today.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Dear East Boston Community:
On behalf of Mayor Thomas M. Menino, Senator Anthony Petruccelli, Representative Carlo Basile, and City Councilor Sal LaMattina, we express our gratitude for the support shown to the victims of the Chelsea Street building collapse. In total, 70 individuals were displaced and the residents of 45 Chelsea Street were left with only the clothing they wore while being evacuated.
Thanks to the financial support of our community, the families at 45 Chelsea Street each received over $4,000 to help replace their clothes, furniture, beds, and other belongings. The remaining money collected is being distributed to the families of 53, 43, and 41-39 Chelsea in the form of gift cards. This extraordinary outpouring of financial support—nearly $17,000 in cash or gift cards—is a testament to the strength of our East Boston community.
We especially want to thank the individuals and businesses that dug deep into their pockets to help these families, including: Richard Goldberg of Logan Communications; Richard Gavegnano of East Boston Savings Bank; John Zirpolo of Cora Electric; the Fields Family Foundation of Suffolk Downs; the East Boston Neighborhood Health Center; and McGladrey Inc.
We also want to thank all the businesses that stepped up to feed the displaced families including: Kelley’s Square Pub; Great Chef Chinese Food; Goody’s Catering; Italian Express Pizzeria; Meridian Food Market; and La Hacienda. Additionally, we want to thank DJ Chris Fiore and Balloon City for generously providing music and balloons at the fundraiser for the displaced residents. Finally, we want to thank the owner of 43 and 41-39 Chelsea Street, Jim Zarella, for going beyond his responsibilities as a landlord to house his tenants at a hotel for one week and for helping each of them to find new apartments.
It is said that in times of crisis, you can see the true character of a community. We are proud that East Boston has shown itself generous and resilient during this challenging time.
Thank you all.
Mayor Thomas M. Menino
Senator Anthony Petruccelli
Representative Carlo Basile
City Councilor Sal LaMattina
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)