| | Advanced Search


Central MA Up + Comer: Vision Advertising CEO Laura Briere—Meet Central MA's rising stars...

FlyORH: Vote for Worcester in JetBlue Contest—Supporting ORH and JetBlue....

Catch the Moscow Festival Ballet With Your WOO Card—Where will you be WOOing this weekend?

Acclaimed Author Leah Hager Cohen to Give Reading at Holy Cross—Will read from new novel 'No Book but…

NEW: Michael Graham Taking Conservative Talk Show to Atlanta—Headed for a warmer climate

NEW: Worcester’s Wormtown Brewery Wins Denver Int’l Beer Award—A major honor bestowed to a local brewery

Paul Giorgio: Elizabeth Warren is Right on Student Loans—MINDSETTER Paul Giorgio examines the student debt crisis

Central MA College Standout: Smith College’s Megan Baker—Spotlight on a bright student...

Organize + Energize: 7 Reasons to Hire a Professional Organizer—With a little help from your friends...

Rob Horowitz: The Civil Rights Act, 50 Years Later—Celebrating a milestone...


NY Times Co Only Commits to 10% of Cleanup Cost

Tuesday, July 10, 2012


The NY Times Company is only committed to paying 10% of costs to cleanup the hazardous materials at the T&G building, leaving taxpayers footing most of the $1.1 million bill to clean up asbestos, lead, and other contaminants.

“When budgets are being cut left and right, the expectation is that the tax receipts aren't going to be used to help a private company clean up its mess,” Jeff Raymond, a member of the local Republican Town Committee in Millbury, said. Many are concerned that taxpayers are being forced to pay for the costly contamination. He says that the cost should have been built into the sale of the building, keeping taxpayers and government agencies out of it.

After announcing an agreement to pay for cleanup costs associated with contamination left at the former location at 18-20 Franklin Street, NY Times Company is now saying it will only pay $137,500, less than any of the government grants allotted for the cleanup.

Two $200,000 brownfields grants have been awarded to the site from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for hazardous substances, and one from the city’s Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund, which is also funded by the EPA.

The NY Times Company sold the property for $300,000 to New Garden Park Inc., a non-profit subsidiary of the Worcester Business Development Corporation responsible for cleaning up brownfields.

Mixed Messages

Before the sale, Telegram and Gazette publisher Bruce Gaultney publicly promised that the building was “not a brownfield.”

According to the EPA’s description of the area, “The site was used for newspaper operations from the early 1900s until 2008, when the company downsized, leaving much of the site vacant. The site is contaminated with heavy metals and inorganic contaminants.”

A survey conducted as part of the grant application process identified approximately 140 asbestos containing materials. Heavy metals and lead were also found.

The New Owners

New Garden Park Inc. was established in part with the purpose of  “lessening the burdens of government” according to its Articles of Organization, written when the organization became a corporation, although much of the funding involved with their new ownership of the property has come from the government-run EPA.

GoLocal reached out to New Garden Park, but Project Manager, Jonathan Weaver was unavailable for comment.

EPA Involvement

While the issue has many local taxpayers and the Citizens for Limited Taxation upset for the costs of the cleanup, some have also voiced concern that EPA funding for the site might be even more problematic for taxpayers. Raymond says that because of the EPA's distance from the issue, taxpayers fitting the bill for national projects and cleanups will never be connected with their tax money and the benefits.

“The EPA's involvement means that taxpayers out West end up helping prop up a local newspaper they've never heard of and would otherwise have no relationship with,” said Raymond. “Worse, those taxpayers are unlikely to ever know it happened. Just hundreds of thousands of dollars to some local company they've never heard of.”

Changing the Story

The Telegram originally posted the story “T&G to help fund cleanup of its longtime home” on June 26th but the original story headline is no longer visible on their website. The headline of the story launched that day now reads, “Buyer lining up financing for cleanup of longtime T&G property” and makes no mention of the company’s initial agreement to pay for the cleanup.

Fitting the Bill

The remaining portion of the cost will be funded through federal and local taxpayer money, unless another agreement is reached or more grant funding is allocated.

“Assuming the local money is going to help cleanup, it's more that people expect that the money go to help the general local interest – roads for people to use, schools for people to learn, to help pay public servants for their work,” Raymond said.

Raymond added that the issue could have easily been dealt with without taxpayer finance or EPA funding: “This is absolutely a type of project that could be baked into the cost of the sale of the building,” he said. “That tax dollars are being allocated for private cleanup projects makes no sense, especially in the context of the current economic and budgetary situation locally as well as nationally.”

When GoLocal last spoke with Mayor Joe Petty, he was noncommittal on whether the Times Company should shoulder the cost of cleaning up the contaminated Worcester Telegram & Gazette site, which currently rests squarely on taxpayers' shoulders.

"You've got to get a real cost figure," Petty said, noting the sale price of $300,000 reflected the contamination of the building. "Once more information comes up, I'd look at it."

Other Alternatives

In the Worcester Business Development Corporation’s EPA cleanup grant application, Timothy J. Clinton and David JP Foss of Fuss and O’Neill discussed three plans for the site with Dorrie Paar of the EPA.

Two additional alternatives listed in the letter included doing nothing and abatement and encapsulation of the hazardous materials – something deemed bad for a long term solution and future building use.

The current project of removing and disposing of the asbestos containing materials relies heavily on proper handling.

“The extent of interior demolition and renovation activities necessary to facilitate this goal will result in disturbance of (asbestos containing materials) and hazardous materials throughout the building,” the letter reads. “Without appropriate prior action, uncontrolled release of asbestos and hazardous materials during interior demolition and renovation will pose unacceptable health risk to renovation workers, building visitors, and residents and visitors of nearby properties.” 


Related Articles


Enjoy this post? Share it with others.


Stephen Quist

How can the t$g editorial board ever again pontificate about being the "watchdogs" of OUR taxpayers dollars?
Apparently the t$g tapayer watchdogs hava selective vison issues....

Harvey Beehive

Typical liberals. Do as we say, not as we do. When it comes to liberals having to spend their own money, they suddenly become conservatives!

Edward Saucier

I remember back in the day when the EPA went after the corporations who operated on the contaminated land and got the money from them, not the taxpayers of whatever state, city or town was involved. The corporations didn't get to tell the EPA how much they were willing to pay. BUT, when republicans get in control they do away will regulations and it never hits the MSM. Isn't that great? Still want republicans to run things? If you do you'll eventually go broke or die first. So be careful which wolf you feed, if you feed the wrong one it will turn on you and eat you. Any questions?

Harvey Beehive

Yes, one. This is Mass. When was the last time Republicans ran anything in this state? Oh, one more. By saying be careful which wolf you feed, may I presume you are admitting that Democrats are themselves wolves?

Edward Saucier

The US EPA has ten Regional offices, each of which is responsible for several states and territories. It's federal Harvey.

The republicans I speak of change things when they take over the POTUS and/or the US congress. Those changes do not help the working stiff. Can you dig it Harvey?

The part about the wolf is from: The Tale Of Two Wolves

An old Cherokee (possibly a distant relative of Elizabeth Warren) is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.

"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

End of class Harvey Beehive, study more.

Harvey Beehive

Eddie me lad....no, I can't "dig" it. I think your brain has gone soft. Check your facts before you start writing.

Edward Saucier

Harvey, your problem is you just make foolish remarks that are not based on fact but conjecture. You have no substance in your remarks. Such as: "Check your facts before writing." Where are your facts that dispute my facts? You have none. As a result I am not going to reply to any of your future comments unless they have substance.

Harvey Beehive

Eddie...That's fine with me because your comments offer nothing. I'm not obligated to show you my facts. Get off your fat behind and do your own due diligence. Better yet, just disappear. School is over. Over and out...

Write your comment...

You must be logged in to post comments.