Below are pictures of the beauty salon that was given $75,000.00 from OECD resulting from the sale of the CRF loans. The issue before us is this: Was the $75,000.00 intended to make a beauty salon, or for the total rehab of this residential home? Ironically, one block down on W. Market St. there are several vacant business fronts that could have accomodated a beauty salon. At any rate, as you can see, the structure took on a complete renovation plan. I'm sure it will enhance the area when it is done, and that's to the commendation of the proprietor. It's always good to spruce up the neighborhood, that alone can be infectious and cause others to follow suit.

However, can everyone else who wants to spruce up a residential property get a $75,000.00 loan from OECD to do so based upon putting a small business in on the first floor? Was new siding on the entire building necessary? Was the new fence needed? The beauty parlor is on the first floor, and it's a good looking establishment, a job well done. But, did the $75,000.00 loan fix up the second floor, too. Why would the second floor need new windows in order for the beauty shop to function? Why would the second floor need to be renovated for the beauty shop to function? They wouldn't, would they? But, it appears that work was done.

The owner of the property is Pete Bonacuse, a very staunch supporter of Mayor Doherty who recently appeared before council and offered his opinion that increasing our taxes once again was a good idea because the 44 million dollar loan was "good" debt. Thank God Mr. Bonacuse is not on council, although his mentality is already represented quite well in crony puppet Sherry Nealon Fanucci, or is it more appropriately stated as Sherry 'Kneelin' Fanucci?

Are the taxpayers footing the bill for renovating an apartment or two? I can appreciate and understand Pete wanting the building to look good top to bottom, I would, too. But, what are the rules for spending this gift from the taxpayers? I mean, if you can renovate your entire home because you put a small business on the first floor, I'll put any kind of business in mine tomorrow. Let the new roof and siding job begin. I personally don't think that's the intent or purpose of the money. The idea proposed by the mayor in giving this money is to create economic advancement and jobs, and not enhance the property to the benefit of the property's equity.

Right to know letters have been sent to OECD Sara Hailstone regarding the application for the money, the purpose of the money and the limitations on use of the money. I will know the answers to those questions as soon as Ms. Hailstone provides them for me in about five days. If she doesn't, I'll take her to court and have a judge order her to comply with the Right to Know Law.

Furthermore, $250,000.00 was also handed to longtime crony Robert Sheridan. I'd like to see that application. I think we'll need to know exactly how that money is being spent, too, so an additional letter addresses that grant. If anyone has any further information of any interior work done on that building not associated with the beauty salon, please post it on the message board, we'd all appreciate knowing the truth. Perhaps Mr. Bonacuse is complying fully. Perhaps not. I will find out, either way. When I find you, you will know. Same goes for Sheridan's grant.

Click on any picture to enlarge it.