Pittsfield Council OKs Berkshire Carousel Committee

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The City Council has voted to create a committee that handles the Berkshire Carousel offer — but not without debate on procedural details.

Last month, a conveyance and donation of the $267,000 property owned by James Shulman came to the council.  A 2025 operational model and budget put forward by the donors costs about $61,000 annually and brings in the same amount of money, with a $25,000 income from rides alone if they cost one dollar.

Ward 1 Councilor Kenneth Warren wanted more intel before the committee's first meeting in January, specifically the condition of any state grants received for the project, a reasonable list of operations, and an informal quote for the cost of removal.

"Everybody wants to do this. There's no doubt about it," Warren said. "The issue is whether it's feasible and whether we have a financial wherewithal to do that."

Ultimately, his motion to amend the referral with these conditions did not pass. Councilors agreed that there are a lot of red flags in the contract but trust that they will be addressed in the process.

"I thought I was clear of setting up a committee to figure out how to save the carousel, not who was going to own it, what the contract was," Mayor Peter Marchetti said.

"Because, quite frankly, I'll be blunt, the members of the Finance Committee punted it back to me without saying, 'Here are the conditions that we don't like.'"

Warren thought the committee would assist in negotiations with Shulman, who does not live in the area. He explained, "I don't want to ask the committee. I want us to know and these are things we can find out."

Last week, the finance subcommittee concluded that the offer needs more community input and recommended that a committee be formed to study it. While the Berkshire Carousel opened to enthusiastic fans in 2016, it has not operated since 2018 after leadership and funding fell apart.

The amendment failed with Warren, Councilor at Large Alisa Costa, Ward 5 Councilor Patrick Kavey, and Ward 6 Councilor Dina Lampiasi voting in favor.

Kavey argued that the council needs to make an informed decision and the material provided is not enough to do so.

"At this point, there are many non-starters in what is being proposed that a committee is the one way for us to possibly salvage it," Lampiasi said.

Ward 7 Councilor Rhona Serre said these are important questions that she would love to see the committee get answers for but "I don't think sending the mayor in one direction and the committee in the other direction is a good use of our time."

She reminded councilors that when the discussion came to the subcommittee, they were directed to discuss only what was on the agreement: acceptance and operation of the carousel.

"We were not to look at the feasibility study of relocating or building any other buildings or site placement or anything else," she said, explaining that is what she based her decision on.

"I'm hoping the community can rally behind this. I'm hoping this process brings out some solutions from members of the community to have a quasi-public solution come forward where everything is done."

"I think these are important questions," Councilor at Large Kathy Amuso said. "And I think if any of us have questions or concerns when the mayor forms this committee we should contact them and be engaged and involved."



She finds most of Shulman's terms are not advantageous for the city and would like to see almost all stipulations taken out if the city were to take it over. The demands also don't sit well with Serre and other councilors who see many red flags.

According to the agreement, the city is expected to use its best reasonable efforts to operate a carousel on the site for at least 25 years, with times and dates of operation left to its discretion.

The donation agreement entails that the city should "fully insure the carousel, maintain it in good and warrantable cosmetic, structural, and operational condition; comply with all legal and licensure requirements for ownership and operation of the carousel and facility; except as provided herein never break up, transfer or sell any figures or parts, including without limitation spare figures, or sell the carousel as a whole; and use its best reasonable efforts to preserve the carousel artwork on the figures, rounding boards, and panels in accordance with the wishes of the sponsors for these items."

Shulman wants the property maintained as a permanent, small park named "Shulman Family Park," even if the carousel is relocated, and in recognition of the volunteers and sponsors who helped create the carousel, its building would be named "The Berkshire Carousel Pavilion."

Councilor at Large Earl Persip III pointed out that constituents say they don't want to spend tax dollars on the carousel, not that it shouldn't exist.

"There's a lot of non-starters and there's a ton of red flags but let's have all the information all at once, all in one place so we can actually make a decision that we think the community wants," he said.

"Let's hear community input."

He added that Shulman's terms as they stand today are an "automatic no" but could change.

Warren also has concerns about the ride's location, asserting "It cannot work there, and we're wasting people's time but like I said, it's not my time so if you guys want to, go ahead but I just don't see that working."

Marchetti said he was "very clear" that there are entities that may be interested in the carousel "and how can we facilitate that so it's not a City of Pittsfield entity."

"Maybe we run it for two years and then we transfer the property with that opportunity and the current agreements there," he said.

"So it was both from the negotiation standpoint but it was also from coming up with a solution so that we, as a collective group, save the carousel without impacting city taxpayer dollars."

During open microphone, one of the carousel's carvers Philip O'Rourke said the volunteers are confident they can fund operating expenses and pointed out that the ride could also draw birthday parties, wedding photos, and corporate sponsorships.

"The carousel was built at no cost to the city. It was a $3 million project, not counting the thousands of hours of volunteer time over 10 years of building the carousel," he said.

Another resident said the carousel is more than just a bunch of horses going around, as a grant was submitted for a community project that included an art program for children and carving lessons for adults and children.

 


Tags: ad hoc committee,   berkshire carousel,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Op-Ed: If Trump Really Wants to Help Working People He Won't Kill This Federal Agency

By U.S. Sen. Elizabeth WarrenGuest Column

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created to protect regular people from abusive banks and other businesses. Isn't that what Trump said he wants to do?

When a bunch of billionaires tell you they know what's best for you, hang onto your wallet. Over the past few weeks, Republican politicians and billionaires have come out swinging with lies about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, hoping they can pave the way to "delete" the agency. But if you have a checking account, credit card, mortgage, or student loan, you might want to know what it could mean for you if the CFPB disappears. That's the dangerous promise of Project 2025.

Suppose you take out a car loan with Wells Fargo. Month after month you make your payments, but the bank messes up. Maybe they piled on fees you didn't owe or charged you the wrong interest rate. On their end, it looks like you've fallen behind on your payments, so they repossess your car. Now you can't get to work or take your kids to school. What are your options? You can't afford to sue. The police won't help. Before the CFPB, about all you could do was reach out to the bank's customer service and beg them to solve the problem, get left on hold, transferred from department to department, and end up nowhere. That was it — until the CFPB.

That's not a hypothetical. The CFPB received thousands of complaints that Wells Fargo had unlawfully repossessed cars and wrongfully foreclosed on homes. Wells Fargo illegally injured the owners of more than 16 million accounts — you may have been one of them. That's where the CFPB comes in. The agency took on the giant bank, stopped the repos, and ordered the bank to pay back more than $2 billion to those customers who had been wronged. No need to file a lawsuit. No need to spend hours on the phone. That's the power of having a cop on the beat.

While CEOs and right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation try to get rid of the CFPB, it's worth remembering that the agency didn't appear out of thin air. The CFPB was created in 2010 in the aftermath of a huge cheating scandal that led to the 2008 housing crash. Shady lenders were tricking and trapping people with complicated mortgages that eventually crashed our economy and cost millions of people their homes. In "never again" mode, Congress created the CFPB as an independent agency with the power to stand up to giant corporations intent on cheating American consumers. Congress even funded the CFPB through the Federal Reserve to insulate it from everyday partisan politics. And it worked: The agency set standards so that people didn't get fooled, and those rules drove the seedy, fly-by-night companies out of our markets.

In the years since the mortgage crash, the CFPB has taken on aggressive junk fees that make price comparisons impossible. When servicemembers and veterans were being tricked into paying interest rates that surged up to 200 percent on pawn loans, the CFPB beat back the predators. And when it became clear that some medical debt collector companies were double billing patients or even charging patients for services they never received, the agency stepped up to try to right those wrongs.

Navient, one of the companies that doles out student loans, exploited students, lied to borrowers, overcharged service members, and conspired with fraudulent for-profit schools to trick students into taking on more loans they couldn't repay. In September, the CFPB delivered over $100 million in relief to Americans and permanently blocked Navient from the federal student loan system. Without the CFPB, Navient would probably still be cheating students.

The election made clear that working people want the government to unrig the economy. The CFPB is doing that work — and that's exactly why these billionaire CEOs don't want the agency around. When the CFPB stops a big bank from cheating you, that's one less chunk of change that goes into its pockets. These CEOs have made big political donations hoping to buy a Congress and a president who will "delete" the agency.

For years, when big banks would say "jump," too many politicians would ask, "How high?" Trump promised change. He pledged to cap credit card interest rates at 10 percent — it will take a strong CFPB to make that happen. He promised to rein in the influence of big tech — the CFPB is tackling that right now. He promised to make government work better for working people — the mission the CFPB delivers on every day.

Trump's first big decision on the CFPB will be to settle on a director — someone who will help the CEOs try to destroy the agency or someone who will keep the CFPB true to its mission to unrig the system. Will Trump decide to stand up to giant corporations to help the workers who voted for him or will he cower to the corporate billionaires? We should know soon.

This op-ed also ran in The Boston Globe on Dec.11, 2024. Warren helped create the CFPB before she was elected to Congress.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories