Councillor Josh Turiel

04/23/2024

For the sake of Tommy's latest group of jackals, let me make two things clear. One, I am a FORMER elected official. This page has the name of my former position, but I am not serving in office now, have not in two and a half years, and likely never will run for office again. Which means I can delete, block, or be as snarky to you as I want. There are no consequences other than that your blood pressure may go up.

The other is that my actual words at the Planning Board meeting were NOT that I don't want to hear from the public. I value input from the public in our deliberations. What I do not value is stunts, name-calling, accusations, and nonsense not intended to help us with our task, but are mainly aimed at generating outrage and/or social media clout.

For what little it's worth, pasted below are the actual remarks I made at the meeting. I look forward to engaging with actual Salem residents on matters that come before the board. I'll be ignoring the out-of-state trolls and the people just looking for outrage. There also will be no comments allowed on this post, and if the settings on this page allow any of you to comment elsewhere, I'll delete them when I notice them. I'm not an active politician anymore so I don't have to monitor this page nor care about nasty stuff on it.

"This is something I wanted to say fairly carefully in the context of how we interact with the public. Public input is a very valuable part of this board’s job, and of the work that most boards do in this and other communities. And we’re being told that under current guidelines, we aren’t allowed to cut people off for the content or tone of their statements. That’s fine.

I want to add something important to that context, though, and I think that everyone who chooses to participate in the public process should consider it deeply. Members of the public have the fundamental right to speak up about a project. It’s part of the defined permitting process and it’s valuable. But the board does not have to do what the members who speak want them to. Our responsibility is to look at the project and determine if it meets the necessary criteria for issuing a permit, and if we dislike it, whether there is a legal basis to deny it. It’s not necessarily to agree or disagree with what a member of the public feels we should do.

At the same time, members of the public who wish to participate should consider their audience carefully. If you’re speaking about a project to the board to try and encourage them to agree with your viewpoint, give the board facts and opinions to go by in that determination. Many people do that now, and this board has done a very good job in listening and taking them into account.

If you’d rather give an angry screed about your perceived slights – well, that might impress your Facebook followers, or whip up people to put signs in their yards. But that, simply put, does not make your case to this or any other board. So if you want to be a part of the process, I respect and encourage that, and I look forward to the discussions on every project. If you want social media clout, good luck with that. I don’t speak for this or any other board, only for myself – but I can tell you that I’m not going to be taking you very seriously. I’ll take every project that comes before us seriously, I’ll take the expert opinions of the reviewers seriously, and I’ll take the comments and analysis from the public seriously. So I recommend considering that."

02/20/2024

Happy 2024, everyone! Retired elected official here, with a relatively quick explainer on process and property use. I'm writing this because of some recent issues that have come up along with one current issue - the proposal to have a facility serving alcohol at the Willows.

First, a reminder about zoning. Zoning, like it or not, determines what uses are permitted on a particular parcel of land. If what you propose to do fits in as a legal activity in that zone with all requirements met, all you need to do is get your building permit and/or any licenses needed. That's it. if you buy a plot of land in an R-1 and you want to build a house, make sure it meets setback and height/dimensional requirements and then go get your building permit. If you buy a factory building in an industrial zone and want to renovate the interior and then start doing your industrial activity around the clock, go for it.

Where permitting comes in is with changes of use, new construction above a certain size, combining multiple lots into a single development (including when the lots are covered by different zoning rules), and in certain activity cases where the zoning states that a special permit is required for that use.

And in the course of negotiating for that permit with the appropriate board, conditions can be put on the developer as long as they're reasonable. For instance, with a project like the wind port, we could (and did) restrict the hours trucks could access the property even though they're entitled to 24-hour operation by law. Banning truck access wouldn't have been a "reasonable" restriction but limiting hours was.

Then we get to issues like the proposal to have alcohol served at the Willows as part of a food court operation. With that, all of Restaurant Row (except for Hobbs) is in a B-2 zone. Hobbs is in a R-1 zone, but it has been a restaurant since before that zoning existed - so it remains legal.

Anyhow, every business from Salem Lowe's building all the way to Bay View Avenue is in the B-2 zone. And in B-2, restaurants are a permitted use, as are restaurants with sale and service of alcoholic beverages. There are uses in B-2 that require board approval, but food and beverage uses are not among them. This may not be necessarily popular to some, but that's the law. The mayor doesn't get to say "no" and the City Council doesn't, either.

The only board that has a say on it is the Licensing Board. And in their case they have a pretty high bar to refuse a license request, but they can (and should) exercise their discretion in any license they issue. They can restrict operating hours to reflect the realities of the neighborhood. They can restrict capacity beyond what the building can have crammed into it (and frankly, I found the initial application for the proposal to be pretty ridiculous). They can limit entertainment, not permit live entertainment if they choose, and other limitations. But an out-and-out refusal is pretty difficult to defend legally.

I wrote this because of the vitriol in Salem I saw over the last week in my life as a private citizen - and I figured I'd address it here because this page still gets pretty good reach (and because I make zero of my posts on my personal page public nowadays). The usual Facebook groups and letters to the editor-writers can say what they want and rant whichever way they choose about the Willows (and any other city issue). The reality is pretty different, even if we may not particularly like it.

One other note: even if the city were to change the rules for a zone (or start the process of changing zoning for parcels), the zoning rules in place at the time an application is made are the rules for the duration of that would-be project. So the rules at the Willows, or at the power plant, or down by Bertini's - those are the rules for those projects, period - even if we were to re-zone them all tomorrow.

12/08/2023

The first term of City Council since my departure has come to a close (there will likely be a special meeting in a couple of weeks but it'll be perfunctory and just to finalize a couple of votes). A new group takes the floor at the beginning of the year and I hope they do great. I'm a little jealous that I didn't get to sit with this group - not enough to try to unretire, though.

The real reason I wrote this is to recognize the members who are departing, and the leadership. I think Councillor Stott did a wonderful job of handling the Presidency this year, while modernizing most of the Council's rules. I believe she's represented Ward 6 well and been a leader for the rest of the City Council.

Councillor Dominguez ran for office many times before winning election in 2017, and he worked hard to represent his constituents and increase participation in our minority community. Yes, we disagreed on many issues but he sought to do the job the way he believed it should be done and I appreciate that. And when he was unable to win a fourth term this fall, he handled it with dignity and grace.

Councillor McClain was a person I'd long hoped would try his hand at city government. I've known him for years, and I've always deeply appreciated his intellect, curiosity, and ability to be thorough in looking deeply at issues before making decisions. He's also a kind, articulate, and wickedly funny person. In only two years of service he made a real mark on city government.

And there isn't much about Councillor McCarthy I haven't said about him already. He's a true leader who believes passionately that government can do good for people and quietly tried to prove it for sixteen years. He was the first person to reach out to me and take me under his wing when I started, and he's been that person for so many of the Councillors who came before and after me that I can't even count them. Bob was the choice of the body to be President three times in his tenure, chair of either OLLA or Finance many times, and when the city needed someone to step up and run things this year he was the obvious choice.

I'm sure he'll get sucked back in to serving the city (he's already on the advisory board for developing the new high school) soon in some fashion, but until then I hope he enjoys the free time and I look forward to hanging out with him more often and enjoying some adult beverages.

I wish fair winds and following seas to all three of our departing Councillors, and the best of wishes to our incoming group next year.

11/17/2023

This page of mine has been dormant for most of this year (reminder – I’m no longer an elected official, which is why it’s been dormant), but now as a volunteer member of the Planning Board I’ve got a seat at the table for some of the major possible projects going on here in Salem. So far it’s been pretty positive in my year spent on the board – a number of projects have been approved that should improve the city over time and provide much-needed housing supply.

But right now we have a big project in front of us that’s been taking up a lot of bandwidth – Crowley’s redevelopment of the unused Footprint site to become a marshaling and service site for offshore wind turbines. Right now the only project that has any possible impact is the Vineyard Wind project that’s being built now. But over the next decade it’s likely that we’ll see a number more offshore wind developments go online in the waters south and east of Massachusetts. A number of them are being re-bid as the costs have escalated dramatically, but ultimately most if not all of these will happen. We need electricity. And we need it from non-carbon emitting sources. I’m very pro-nuclear but we’re not going to build enough nuclear plants to replace all our coal, oil, and gas plants. So we have the trifecta of solar, wind, and hydro to generate power in addition to traditional sources. Wind turbines offshore have become a big part of Europe’s capacity over the last 15 years or so as turbines have become more practical and efficient – currently putting about 35GW of total power into the European grid and expanding at a rate of about 2-4GW per year.

Back when Salem was dealing with the closing of the old Dominion power plant (coal and oil-fed) it was bought by a company that gave us a vision of a much smaller gas-fired plant with 40+ acres used in the future for a wind servicing port. Well, it took over a year longer than it was supposed to for the plant to be finished and put online, but several years after commissioning it’s quieter than the old plant, less obtrusive, and hosts a fraction of the personnel onsite that the old plant did (far less daily traffic), while contributing as a large taxpayer to our base.

Was the construction a mess with thousands of people onsite at the peak? Yes. And as I said it went on too long. Did we get the benefits promised? Well, we got most of them. We got full control and ownership of Blaney Street. We got the dock itself, we got the tax money, and we got a nicely landscaped walking area and path that got cut off near where it was supposed to go to. We also got money to re-pave Webb Street and that has yet to be done, and we got money to rebuild Derby Street (National Grid also contributed to that from their cable project) which has resulted in a lot of sidewalk improvements that are great but not the roads so far.

As for the additional acres – Well, when Footprint still owned it the political climate in DC was very pro-fossil fuel and anti-renewable. Areas weren’t being made available for wind use, and the demand for a yard wasn’t around. In 2020 Footprint was looking at a Plan B that would have given up on the idea and instead removed the port area designation and allowed a redevelopment into a full-fledged neighborhood of housing and commercial uses. Had that happened, we would have added as many as a couple of thousand new residents (most with cars), more business by the water, and poured a lot more people into a neighborhood that realistically has only two roads that can access it – Derby Street and Webb Street.

It wasn’t a great plan, but it was an attempt to find a use that could make all that waterfront property pay for itself.

Then we had a national election. 2021 saw a shift back to renewable development as part of our energy policies. And Salem was back on the map. So now we have over 40 acres of waterfront property that’s zoned for industrial use (allowing things like 24/7 operation by right) and subject to the restrictions on activity covered in the state’s DPA (Designated Port Area) zones with a federally managed deep water channel to access it.

So what’s possible here? Well, first of all what’s possible is basically any water-dependent industrial use. That’s possible by right. Because of the size and location, there are permitting steps that have to be taken – but frankly to try and refuse any proposal is a pretty tough lift legally. In fact it’s all but certainly not likely to happen, because it is such a large burden to disallow in a legal manner. Plus it’s not city-owned land. It’s privately owned. And changing the zoning is not something we can do after the fact – were the city to change the zoning for the parcel it’d only apply to whatever goes on this site next, after a wind facility closes down and is sold (assuming that happened someday).

Given that, what can we actually do? Well, realistically here’s the bad news for some of you. It’s been hoped for over a decade that a wind servicing facility would be put there. Go back and read the coverage from when Footprint bought the site – that was always the next step. Footprint is gone now, but the goal remains. The state wants it to happen, city government wants to see it happen, the school system (with an investment in vocational training) wants to see it happen, and the private company that bought it wants to see it happen. Not to mention that a pretty large portion of Salem (including some of the abutters) want to see it happen. It’s all but certain that this will happen.

There are things we can do, though, to minimize impacts as best as anyone can. First of all, this will require far less time and far fewer people to build out. Which is good – the most disruptive part of construction is the traffic with workers and material coming in to build the project. This is not a power plant in scale. Thankfully. I won’t pretend that construction will be a party – not even the smallest project is impact-free. But there is no way it will take what the plant took, or even a fraction of it.

The other thing we can do (and this gets into our abilities as a board to steer things) is to force design changes to be made that minimize impacts as well. For starters, requiring the activities with the most visual impact to happen at the water’s edge rather than at the Derby Street edge is a given. Forcing the lighting design to focus light on the facility without significant spillage, and also making sure that there’s lower-powered lights that are used when there’s not work going on instead of the stadium lighting being always in use is a pretty obvious thing. Requiring cranes to be stowed in the lowest or folded position when not in active use is something that should happen as part of the permit. There’s plenty more things that can, should, and likely will be done as part of any permitting that’s granted.

Also, realistically speaking this facility won’t be in use 24x7 year-round. There will be times where it’s really busy. There will be times when tides mean that equipment is loaded or unloaded at night. But it’s also going to have a lot of time when there’s minimal activity happening, and times where there’s virtually no equipment being stored on site. That’s the nature of construction.

I know I didn’t really change any opinions by writing this. My goal wasn’t to change people’s minds – everyone’s minds are probably made up. If you think it’ll ruin the neighborhood and want to sell your home, that’s a personal decision. If you think this is the best thing since sliced bread, that’s also personal. I think it’s more complicated than either of these extremes. And given what is legally permitted there to begin with and the economic stakes, the city is not likely to even try to say “no” – that was never really on the table. The city (and all the permitting authorities involved, including the one I sit on) has a responsibility to do everything we can do by law to minimize the impacts of this (and any project) as best as possible while also not being arbitrary in any decisions made.

I can’t say how I or other permitting board members will vote on this overall. I can’t say anything more than what I’ve said here, other than that I personally take the responsibility of evaluating this very seriously even if I don’t talk much about it online.

After issues earlier this year that most of you may recall, what few posts I've made here have had comments turned off. I'm not going to do that with this post, at least not initially. We'll see if we can have an actual discussion again here, because there used to be some good discussions held on this page even when I didn't agree with people. And maybe in another six months or so I'll post something again. But two years gone from being an elected official (and not missing it at all), this page will get used less and less - as is only proper.

06/07/2023

This is an interesting new program that's been in the works for a while. Simplified, some of Salem's federal ARPA funds have been put into this program. If you own a multifamily rental property of 3 or more units, you're eligible. Taking the $1000 payout doesn't obligate you to sell to the city, but if you do decide to sell your property the city has up to 4 months to decide whether to buy the property from you (through a housing nonprofit or other organization) at market price. If they do, you get your house sold. If they don't, you still get your house sold privately.

Salem isn't in the business of owning houses, but they are in the business of trying to keep rents to a realistic level, and this is another possible tool for doing so. And just to re-iterate - you are not required to participate in this program. It's 100% voluntary. If you're eligible and choose to, you get $1000 for doing so.

Details and any fine print are in the link and the paperwork - if you're interested I suggest you review it closely.

Mayor Dominick Pangallo today announced that the City has launched a new program to help preserve multi-family rental housing in . The “Right of First Refusal” (RFR) initiative utilizes funds from the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to offer the owners of residential rental properties a one-time payment of $1,000 in return for the City being provided a right of first refusal should the property ever be put up for sale.

Property owners who enter into an RFR agreement with the City consent to notify the City of the terms that they are willing to accept for their property, before listing the property for sale. The offered terms must be reasonable and comparable to the market. The City has 120 days to accept the terms, after which time the owner can then move forward with publicly listing the property for sale.

“Salem has many buildings that offer affordable rents when compared to newer homes,” explained Mayor Pangallo. “These naturally-occurring affordable rental units are vulnerable to increases in rent, tenant displacement, or conversion to higher price condo units when they are sold on the open market. The RFR program enables the City to attempt to acquire, at market rate, such properties should they ever be put up for sale by the property owner. The City would then work in collaboration with partner agencies to preserve the affordable rental units and attempt to minimize the displacement of existing residents.”

Around 48% of Salem residents are low to moderate income, and 42% of those residents spend more than half of their take-home income on housing costs, leaving little income for other necessities, such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical costs. This places a large number of Salem residents at high risk for housing instability, which results in an increased frequency of moves and evictions, as well as higher rates of homelessness.

The City of Salem is now accepting applications from eligible and interested property owners who would like to enter into an RFR Agreement. The RFR is not a requirement to the sell the property to the City or to anyone. It is only triggered if the property owner decides to sell the property. Applications for RFR Agreements, as well as more information about eligibility and program details, can be found at www.salemma.gov/mayors-office/pages/right-first-refusal-program

03/06/2023

Info for the March 28th special preliminary election. Vote by mail will be part of this, early voting will not be held.

12/28/2022

For those of you who are popping up on my page lately, please allow me to introduce myself. I'm a former elected official who left office a year ago, but I still maintain this page to occasionally pass along information or to talk about issues. Most folks actually in or around Salem know this. It's a verified checkmark page because that's how Facebook does business. I'm the only admin and the only person who writes for it.

On the other hand, we have a local "citizen journalist" with a smartphone and a screw or two loose who sees conspiracies in the shadows. And he decided a week or so ago that I was part of those because I went to a campaign kickoff for someone. When I realized it was him trying to shout me down as I left the event I responded with the verbal retorts appropriate to someone like him.

Well, if you're one of the people who came to this page because you follow him, feel free to comment but I'm gonna block and ban you as soon as I see it. Because I'm no longer in government, so I get to do that all I want now. It's pretty liberating to not have to put up with that crap.

And then after you're blocked, take a deep breath, go look in the mirror, and consider your life choices that led you to follow a nutty YouTube channel and try to troll a former elected official.

12/15/2022

Update on the mayoral transition for those who may not have seen it elsewhere yet:

Mayor Driscoll has officially submitted her letter of resignation. It takes effect at the conclusion of her final State of the City address, and that is at the City Council organizational meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 4th.

Before her address the City Council will reorganize and elect their President for 2023, and vote for the rules to follow. After about a century, Salem is finally joining almost all other organizational bodies and moving to Robert's Rules from Cushing's Manual. A big change!

After her address, City Council will then hold their vote to elect an Interim Mayor, who will serve until the election is completed a few months later. Upon the certification of the final vote and the swearing-in of the new Mayor, the member of the City Council who serves as Interim will return to their seat for the remainder of the year, and run for reelection if they so choose. The new Mayor will serve the remainder of the current term, until 2025.

11/16/2022

A (brief) controversy erupted this week over the anti-panhandling signs that have gone up in the downtown area. At this point, they’re coming down – but there’s an important message here that I want to talk about a bit.

First and foremost, panhandling is constitutionally protected. Private property owners can restrict panhandling on their property all they want – and they typically do. But in the public space (roads, sidewalks, parks, etc.) typically there’s very little you can do legally to prevent it and frankly I think we shouldn’t try any restrictions above and beyond safety-related ones. There’s a long history of restrictions being shot down by courts and why should we be yet another one?

With that said, I’ll also say that I am very much against giving money directly to panhandlers. I never do so and I won’t do so. Why? Well, a few people who used to post on here would say it’s because I clearly hate “the poors.” But that’s wrong. I do give money and donations to groups that fight homelessness and provide shelter and resources here in the community. Lifebridge, the Salem Pantry, the CDC, and many others over the years (but those in particular). That doesn’t solve all the problems for everyone, of course. And Lifebridge doesn’t help all people under all conditions, they’re a dry shelter and there’s people on the street that can’t use their services.

The problem to me that keeps me from handing out money directly is that it’s simply not something that can be targeted. If I hand a $5 bill to someone with a cardboard sign on a street corner, I may be helping them pay for shelter that night. I may be buying them a sandwich. Or I may be paying for their fatal overdose later that day, or for that matter I might be giving money to someone with no actual need for it. There’s no way to be sure. And the luck of the draw gets that person a spot to panhandle from. If I were going to give directly, I’d want to give to the neediest first. Not just the person lucky enough to set up shop at the intersection I happen to be stopped at.

So I give money, but I give it to the organizations that provide services and shelter to the people who are on the streets. And I personally believe that’s the best way to help. But it’s your choice. And I think that the city having a central way to encourage that giving in place of cash handouts is also good. It’s just the message of “Say NO to panhandling” that is wrong. We should all be willing to help the less fortunate among us, in the manner that our beliefs and consciences guide us. It should be done with a message of positivity, though. And I’m glad members of the City Council have chosen to highlight that.

11/11/2022

I’m very sad to see that they aren’t coming this year and now I’ll need to figure out a Plan B for our home. It’s not the same without a Ludwig’s tree.

Dear Salem friends,

Due to personal family reasons and rising inflation costs, we have made the tough decision for our family to not sell Christmas trees this year.

We just wanted to let you all know how much we love you and appreciate your kindness and support throughout the years. We hope to be back one day, but we just don’t know what the future will hold.

We trust you’ll have a wonderful holiday season with your loved ones and a beautiful new year in 2023!

Love, The Ludwig Family❤️🌲

*please feel free to share this to help spread the word* Thank you!

11/10/2022

A few points of order to make now that the election is over:

- No date has been given yet, but Mayor Driscoll will resign at some point before her inauguration as Lt. Governor. That will happen no later than noon on January 5th (Noon on Thursday following the 1st Wednesday in January). The Governor, Lt. Governor, and Governor's Councillors are all sworn in then. All other state offices are sworn in on the 1st Wednesday.

- The City Council's organizational meeting is slated for the first Monday of January by rule. That's the observed New Year's Day holiday, though, so the meeting may be on Tuesday instead. No longer being on the City Council I'm not sure of that one.

- Anyhow, at that meeting a President will be elected. At the moment Mayor Driscoll resigns, that President will initially be Acting Mayor, because someone has to do it! Within a couple of days at the longest, though, they'll have a special meeting to elect one of their members as the official Interim Mayor.

- Once that happens, the Interim Mayor (formerly a Councillor) will leave the Council and serve in the Mayor's office until such time as the special election (including a preliminary) has been held and the winner certified. That winner then goes on to be sworn in immediately and serves the remainder of the mayoral term, until the 2025 election.

Only a sitting City Councillor is eligible to be Interim Mayor. Anyone, however, can run in the special election. I won't be one of them.