Lowell Politics: February 2, 2025

The Lowell City Council met on Tuesday but as has been the case recently, nothing major stood out. There were several motions that I found deserving of comment which I’ll get to them shortly, but first some news about Mill No. 5.

The long-awaited transfer of ownership of the upper floors of Mill No. 5 on Jackson Street occurred late yesterday afternoon when James T. Lichoulas Jr., as trustee of Appleton Mill No. 5 Realty Trust, executed a deed transferring ownership of the space housing a variety of retail establishments and Luna Theatre to Learn to Lead Foundation of Lowell, Inc., which was formerly known as the Lowell Community Charter School Friends, Inc. This is the nonprofit corporation affiliated with Lowell Community Charter Public School and the legal owner of the real estate used by the school.

I wrote about this transfer and previous real estate transactions between Lichoulas and the school in my newsletters of December 1, 2025; December 8, 2025; and December 22, 2025, so check them out if you want a detailed explanation of the ownership structure and past transactions. However, here is a quick review of the property transferred yesterday:

The Lichoulas family through the use of various real estate trusts has for nearly 50 years owned or controlled many of the former mill buildings and other structures in and around the Jackson Street to Middlesex Street block between the Edward Early parking garage to the east and the new Lupoli garage to the west.

Back in 2015, Lichoulas “condominiumized” the five-story former Appleton Mill building known as Mill No. 5. However, instead of creating a hundred or more residential condominium units, he divided the building into just two units. The lower floors were called the school unit, and the upper floors the commercial unit. Lichoulas then sold the school unit to the charter school for $3.8 million (the charter school already owned and occupied part of the adjacent Mill No. 6 building). Lichoulas retained Mill No. 5’s commercial unit and launched the much beloved retail space known as Mill No. 5 which was wildly successful until the Covid-19 pandemic struck, something from which it never recovered.

Yesterday, Lichoulas transferred the commercial unit to the charter school’s affiliated nonprofit. The deed listed the consideration paid by the charter school as $1,680,000. Some early reporting from last November suggested this transfer would be a gift, which seems partly correct since the city assesses the space at $1,879,800 and it likely has a present fair market value higher than that. The transfer could therefore be characterized as part sale and part gift.

Two related deeds were also recorded at the same time yesterday, both from Lichoulas-operated trusts to the charter school’s real estate entity. One deed was for 225 Middlesex Street, a 32,480 square foot parcel directly behind the Mill No. 5 building. This parcel, which is assessed by the city for $219,700, contains two small “out buildings” but is mostly a parking lot. The sales price on this deed was $150,000, making it another part sale, part gift.

The third deed transferred ownership of 259 Middlesex Street, a 3900 square foot vacant parcel at the corner of Middlesex and Canal Streets. The city assessed this parcel for $141,700 and the deed listed the price paid as $210,000.

****

Getting back to Tuesday’s Lowell City Council meeting, here are the issues discussed by the council that I found noteworthy with some context and my comments on each:

Lord Overpass – Councilor Corey Belanger had a motion to “update the council on the Lord Overpass as to busses and public safety vehicles using emergency lane as well as light synchronization.” From the time the new Lord Overpass opened until my retirement as register of deeds at the end of December, I navigated the Lord Overpass each day going to and from the office. Encompassing Thorndike, Middlesex, Fletcher, Jackson, Appleton, and Chelmsford Streets along with the Gallagher Transportation Terminal, the new Lord Overpass is an extremely complex interchange filled with turn lanes that all need synchronized traffic lights. Consequently, if you don’t make it through one light cycle, you must wait several minutes for another chance to proceed.

In the middle of the Thorndike Street inbound and outbound lanes is a dedicated bus lane running in both directions. Conceptually, this would allow buses and emergency vehicles to bypass backed up traffic to get through the intersection. Removing big vehicles like buses from the regular travel lanes should expedite passage for others. Unfortunately, the bus lanes are rarely used although I’m not sure why.

The city’s traffic engineer spoke briefly on the motion, saying she would look at modifying light cycles and for other ways to accelerate passage through the interchange, so we can look forward to her response at a future meeting.

I don’t expect that there are any tweaks that the city can make at this point that will significantly reduce the wait times, particularly during the afternoon rush hour. A better approach would be to help people find alternate routes. For example, at the end of my workday at the Lowell Justice Center, the most direct route to my home in the Highlands neighborhood was to head west on Middlesex Street. But crossing Thorndike Street at the end of the day took at least two light cycles causing what seemed like an interminable wait. To bypass that, I found an alternate route, driving through the Hamilton Canal District to Broadway and remaining on that street all the way to the Highlands. Although slightly longer in distance, it saved several minutes of commute time.

Perhaps the city could identify other alternative routes for commuters as a way of decreasing the overall volume of vehicles transiting the Lord Overpass which might be the most effective way to attack the current difficulties.

City Funds in Local Banks – Councilor Belanger had another motion, this one to “outline the process in which city funds are deposited into local financial institutions and current balances.” I think the short answer to this is that state law requires the city to put banking services out to bid and award the contract to the lowest bidder (or the one that provides the “best value” which is a well-defined term under the law). In his comments in support of the motion, Council Belanger said something like, some local banks are so generous with their charitable donations to city causes that city government should award their generosity by giving them city banking business. That comment falls into the “saying the quiet part out loud” category because, not only would it be illegal in that it violated state bidding law, but it also unmasks an embrace of “crony capitalism” which has long had a seat at the table of Lowell city government.

There are many reasons for a business to make donations to local charities. At least two are valid and well-intended: The business owner may truly believe in the cause and act out of generosity; or they may wish to generate good will among community members. But in other cases, donations are treated as a cost of doing business with the city. Countless times when developers appear before the council or a city board seeking approval of a project that has incurred vehement opposition from neighbors, the developer will highlight their generosity to local charitable causes and councilors and board members will embrace that “generosity” as a reason for approving the project notwithstanding opposition from neighbors. However, if you look at the list of things to be considered in the law of zoning changes and regulatory approvals, nowhere will you find the applicant’s record of charitable donations as a factor to be considered.

These kinds of quid-pro-quo considerations are an inevitable part of politics at all levels, but don’t say it out loud and seek to have it adopted as formal government policy. Keep it to yourself and let us at least fantasize that decisions are on the level.

Smith Baker Center – Councilor Paul Ratha Yem had two motions related to the Smith Baker Center: The first asked that the council be provided with the costs and timeline for the “containment, remediation, and demolition” of the building; the second motion would provide the council with “any plan to save historical artifacts or retaining walls” of the building. Regarding the first, I assume that all must be put out to bid so the exact cost won’t be known until the bids are finalized, however, the city should be able to provide an estimate of the cost, for whatever that’s worth at this point. Perhaps those who wish to save the building will make an argument that the cost of stabilizing the building (estimated to be $4 million) would not greatly exceed the cost of demolition.

In the second motion, the mention of a “retaining wall” I think is aimed at saving the façade of the building and incorporating it into whatever is built on the site. That would be wonderful but would presumably add significantly to the cost of reconstruction. Still, there is no harm in making it known that preserving the façade is desirable if feasible. The second part of the motion, to preserve artifacts from inside the building, seems self-evident although where they would go is a big question. I don’t believe any local entities are accepting artifacts these days. When St. Peter’s Church was demolished in 1997, the peak of one of the building’s steeples and some of the granite blocks from the exterior walls were used to fabricate a small memorial structure that still stands on the site along Gorham Street. Perhaps something like that could be done for Smith Baker.

During this discussion, Councilor Erik Gitschier once again brought up the propriety of a councilor who is involved in a nonprofit corporation that is seeking to buy the Smith Baker Center from the city participating in council discussions about the Smith Baker Center.

According to the Secretary of State’s Corporations website, the nonprofit Smith Baker Preservation Corporation was organized under Massachusetts law on March 15, 2024. The purpose of the corporation was for “historic preservation, and later for the management of a performing arts venue.” The original articles of organization listed Christine Ann McCarron of Tyngsborough as the sole officer, holding the positions of president, treasurer, clerk and director.

Articles of Amendment were filed on May 1, 2024, in which the purpose of the corporation was changed to “educational and historical preservation purposes.”

A week later, on May 7, 2024, a Certificate of Change of Directors or Officers was filed. It kept McCarron as president, clerk and director; named Dennis McCarthy as treasurer; Brad MacGowan as Secretary; Gregory Fitzsimmons as “other officer”; and City Councilor Paul Ratha Yem as vice president.

Just one week ago, on January 23, 2025, another Certificate of Change of Directors or Officers was filed which deleted Paul Ratha Yem as vice president without a replacement; and keeping all the other officers and directors the same.

With Councilor Yem serving as Vice President of the Smith Baker Preservation Corporation, his participation in any council discussion or vote that concerned the future of the Smith Baker Center would likely place him in violation of the state’s conflict of interest law. To avoid such a violation, the councilor would have to avoid participating in any debate or vote related to the building. That would not mean just sitting there silently but would require physically leaving the room during that portion of the meeting.

The question now is that with Councilor Yem no longer an officer of that corporation, has the conflict been eliminated? I don’t know the answer to that but to avoid it being a distraction going forward, it would likely be in everyone’s best interest for Councilor Yem to seek an advisory opinion from the State Ethics Commission.

Winter Parking Bans – Councilor Corey Robinson had three motions that were of interest. The first asked for a report on “the current winter operations plan including the citywide parking ban component.” There will be a report forthcoming, but City Manager Tom Golden made some interesting comments. He said having grown up and continuing to live in the densely packed Centralville neighborhood, he is fully aware of and sympathetic to the challenges of finding off street parking, especially in the wintertime. He said that when a parking ban goes into effect, the police department’s first course of action is to locate the owners of cars parked in violation and get them to move. It is only if that action fails that the police will tow a car. He did say that the biggest problem, one that is not just limited to snow emergencies, is caused by people parking too close to the corner of an intersection. Larger vehicles like snowplows and fire trucks are sometimes unable to complete a turn from one narrow street onto another narrow street if vehicles are parked too close to the corner.

Federal Aid in Jeopardy – Robinson had another motion that asked the city manager to contact Congresswoman Lori Trahan about “potential impacts on federally supported infrastructure projects due to current change in administration, e.g. Rourke Bridge.”

This past Monday, the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued an order that froze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans which, among other things, froze payments under Medicaid. On Tuesday, a U.S. District Court judge issued an injunction that banned the implementation of the order until further hearings could be held. On Wednesday, OMB issued a second memo “rescinding” the first, although later that same day White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt sent out a tweet that said, “This is NOT a recission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s [Executive Orders] on federal funding remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented.” In another court hearing later in the day, Justice Department lawyers argued that the injunction should be lifted because the memo had been “rescinded.” Citing Leavitt’s tweet, the judge disagreed and kept the injunction in place.

Given the Lowell City Council’s procedural rules, Robinson would have filed this motion on Friday, which was several days before the OMB memo came out, so he was likely referring to the earlier sense that in general the flow of federal funds to states and municipalities will be disrupted by Trump.

However, by the time the motion came before the council on Tuesday, the you-know-what had hit the fan, and everyone was aware of the larger risk to city funding. City Manager Golden, in fact, said that in an initial count, his administration estimated that $31 million in federal funding for Lowell was in jeopardy. Councilors expanded the motion to include all federal funds earmarked for the city and included Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey in their outreach.

The bigger national issue here involves the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. Under the Constitution, Congress controls spending by passing and funding a budget, but it is the President, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that actually spends the money.

Fifty years ago, President Richard Nixon refused to spent money appropriated by Congress for certain programs Nixon opposed. In response, Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which reasserted Congressional control over spending. The law required OMB to spend the money appropriated by Congress on the things for which it was appropriated. There was a mechanism that would legally allow some funds to not be spent (to be “impounded”) but that required a detailed request to Congress and Congressional assent. In a decision issued shortly after the Impoundment Control Act became law, the U.S. Supreme Court held that even without that law, what Nixon had done was illegal; that the President was required by law and the Constitution to spend money appropriated by Congress on the things for which it was appropriated.

Today, President Trump’s nominee to be head of OMB, Russell Vought, has promoted the opinion that the 1974 law is unconstitutional and that the President does have the authority to spend or not spend money regardless of how Congress has appropriated it. This memo is likely an attempt to trigger a court case that will ultimately find its way to the US Supreme Court. Given that body’s recent history, I understand why the Trump people would be optimistic that their position will be upheld. It is also why the rest of us should follow this closely.

Real estate fraud – The third motion by Councilor Robinson that I want to mention asked to have “the proper department explore offering the free property fraud watch alert system to the city of Lowell property owners in partnership with the Middlesex County Registry of Deeds similar to that offered in Salem, MA.”

I believe the service referred to in the motion is one offered by the Southern Essex Registry of Deeds called Property Watch. It allows homeowners to enter their name and address into the online application and then, anytime a document related to the person or name is recorded, an email to the homeowner is automatically sent. If the document happened to be a fraudulent one, the homeowner gets immediate notice of it.

The good news is that a similar system is already available to Lowell homeowners and to everyone else in Middlesex County. It is called the Consumer Notification Service (CNS) and it was developed and is operated by Secretary of State William Galvin’s office. CNS has been available for two or three years although it is not widely used. To enroll in the system, go to the Consumer Notification Service webpage, create an account, and then enter the relevant names and addresses. Then, anytime a document containing the names or address is recorded at the registry of deeds, the CNS customer gets an email alert.

To be clear, neither CNS nor the Salem system prevent fraud from happening; they only give the homeowner rapid notice that a fraudulent document has been recorded so the homeowner can get a head start in rectifying it.

Before you become unduly concerned about deed fraud, Massachusetts law clearly states that a fraudulent deed does not convey title. So even if you do fall victim of “title theft” you still own your property. The problem is that you bear the responsibility of initiating a lawsuit and proving that the deed is fraudulent. Since that is typically fairly easy to do, the court would issue an order declaring the fraudulent deed void, then you would record that order at the registry of deeds which would clear the ownership records. Still, it would be left to the homeowner to pay a lawyer a not insignificant amount of money to take care of this.

Like most other things related to real estate law, title theft is complicated but it is also something of broad interest these days so I will write about it in more detail in a future newsletter. In the meantime, it wouldn’t hurt to sign up for the Consumer Notification Service, just in case.

****

This week on richardhowe.com, Louise Peloquin shares 1924 reporting from the L’Etoile French language newspaper about the just opened addition to Lowell High School already being overcrowded; David Daniel has a review of the Aaron Rodgers: Enigma television documentary; Paul Marion has three poems for winter; and Stephen O’Connor has an amusing short story.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *