This fire is a tragedy for the entire Town of Northbridge — it really is not about you, Starr, nor your collective of what appear to be indigent "artists" with no visible means of support. The entire Town suffers an irreplaceable loss of here, and I for one find your essay to be one of "thou doth protest too much" — and quite too indignantly, and reasonable questions from reasonable citizens — most of whom have a history themselves going back many generations in the town. Your indignation at frankly, questions that should be anticipated, and then the manipulation of trying to turn that around and accuse the townspeople of not "volunteering" nor donating to your "cause" over the past couple of years is disingenuous at best, and the stuff of a someone with a personality disorder at worst. It's dishonest and repulsive for you to attack the townspeople over YOUR mismanagement of an historic property.
You bought, as private property, (not a charity case!) an historic mansion of epic proportions without the means to support it —obviously. You possessed neither the means to restore and maintain it, nor the means to simply insure it! That is a dereliction of civic duty, in my opinion. The 501C "cover" for your enterprise which appears to be run like a homeless shelter for anyone who can come up with a claim to be an artist and "volunteers" some household duty whilst taking donations is leaving a bad taste in the town's mouth, understandably.
Of course questions arise as to the origin of the fire when it occurs just 3 weeks after you publish a hysterical plea for donations to "save" the mansion — or else! You threaten to engage the "exit strategies" and then wonder why people question the origin of the fire? The fire also occurs on the heels of the fire destruction of the Allen Estate last year (The Victorian). People rightly wonder if these are of suspicious origin.
Adding to the suspicion is your detailed, extensive, well planned "next steps" published just days after the fire. All ready to go in record time! It makes it sound like you planned this . . . while you attack anyone for questioning you.
Your plan to sell off a few acres of forested land also raises alarm bells for the town's historic sensibility. And you just listed the Manor on Zillow (with caveats acknowledged). All very suspect when immediately after listing for sale and threatening "exit strategies" it just happens to burn down! Hmmm . . . would be ANYONE's reaction.
Now you beg for free labor, donations, and more, after utterly irresponsibly mismanaging the property into destruction! What really appears to be the plan, in plain sight, is parceling off the land for sale, making you pretty wealthy while you claim to care so much about your ragtag band of indigent "artists", none of whom seem capable of actually supporting themselves either with said "art" or an actual day job. What can the people of Northbridge look forward to as you "exit"? Parceled off sales that result in Condos or "dense housing" like townhouses or some other atrocity on the prime land? It's unlikely the whole property will sell and one house will be rebuilt
And fix and repair? The house is condemned according to the Worcester T&G! You can't fix and repair this! You couldn't take care of it when it was fully standing as it had over 134 years!
How about a resounding NO! From an indignant town right back at 'ya! You don't deserve free labor for mismanaging an historic property. You don't deserve donations you can pocket. You don't deserve to profit from your mismanagement while begging for freebies.
The lack of insurance is virtually criminal malfeasance. But it sure looks like your "exit strategy". (Readers, please see his post of February 19th.)
Honestly, how dare you attack the townspeople of Whitinsville/Northbridge. You're the newcomer, and you failed miserably to be a steward of a grand, historic property that survived everything but you and your band of indigents.
You're a bit of Fagin with your socialist collective there, begging and scamming the townspeople!
Several of your extensive plans for exiting also include staying on the property in the outlying buildings, as if any new owner would want you and your squatters on there that they could never rid themselves of! Perhaps it really is time for you and your socialist collective to move on. The sooner you sell and the town sees the backside of your irresponsible tenure, the better. Waving your rainbow flags and patting yourself on the back for imaginary SJW acts is ludicrous. You make the Diocese of Worcester look like good stewards by comparison, while you act like saviors of the place you had no business owning. No business, because you lacked the means to support it.
It's an irreplaceable tragedy for the town. We are glad no one was hurt, but devastated by the mismanagement the allowed neglect or worse to result in this outcome. Your "exit strategy" indeed.
Go about your business and stop attacking and threatening to sue townspeople for free speech.
As to us failing to protect the building... We did a better job than anyone else was willing to. When we found it, it was rotting from neglect. There was algae growing inside, and layers of animal droppings multiple inches deep. Who else but us was willing to keep mice and bats and woodpeckers and termites from slowly destroying it? To stop the slow decay of wood and spread of mold from roof leaks? To bring the electrical systems up to code and greatly lower the odds of a catastrophic fire? To occupy the building so we could report a fire much more quickly? To spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to protect and restore the building?
Who are you to say we didn't do enough, when you and almost everyone else did nothing? Where were you for the years it was sitting empty, or the decades it went unmaintained?
Why would you think that? If the fire had started with the building vacant, the results would have been much worse, as demonstrated by other recent fires. If the cause was electrical, and I hadn't spent a hundred thousand dollars eliminating dangerous old electrical wiring, it probably would have burned sooner. The total fire damage was probably less because of our efforts, and the longer term water and animal damage was certainly MUCH less.
Thank you so much! I thought we were being remiss with taking days to draft our statements after the event, and my plan coming almost a week later. It is heartening to hear you describe this as a fast pace instead.
I find it extremely offensive that you would, without any evidence, insinuate that neighbors or members of the Catholic Church would have potentially started this tragic blaze. In the same post you chastise those who have cast suspicion on you for causing the fire (which I agree is unfair) while casting suspicion on others with absolutely zero proof. I would ask you to reconsider keeping that section of your post. It is unnecessary speculation that will only cause issues.
We definitely do not believe that neighbors, members of the church, or anyone, deliberately started this fire, and we did not intend to insinuate this. Thank you for letting us know that this was your takeaway so that we have an opportunity to address it.
The section of the article you are referring to is a section in which we are addressing the many troubling and unfounded rumors we have heard of ways the fire may have started, and we sought to clarify that there is no supporting evidence.
Many people have indeed reached out to us with disturbing assumptions that it was arson, and those same people have suggested that it may have been committed by members of these groups. Community members on the receiving end of regular harassment and hate mail for their involvement in this project, and their extended friend groups and sympathizers, have been frightened by these words, and some are now speculating if this was a deliberate act.
While people may speculate, this does not reflect the belief of our organization. We do not think the same people motivated to send hate mail would be motivated enough to cause deliberate harm to a treasured historic property, and furthermore we have found no evidence of this. That’s what the intention of this part of the article is for - to address and contradict unfounded rumors.
I believe that we are of the same belief that these insinuations we have heard are unfair. If the phrasing of the article makes that unclear, I welcome suggestions for alternative ways to phrase this to make it more clear that we do not think it was arson, while still addressing the circulating rumors.
The text presently reads, that although we have made some enemies, “We don’t know who might have been motivated to destroy our property.” And that “We have no evidence of anyone entering the property uninvited that evening, and no evidence of residents or guests being present where the fire began.”
Thank you for the reply! My sincere hope is that the investigation by the Fire Marshall will get to the bottom of this devastating fire. I am sorry to read that your organization has received hate mail and I wish everybody affected by this tragedy all the best.
I suppose I just want to be fair to the investigation and in light of fairness to all, it rubbed me the wrong way that ‘neighbors’ and ‘members of the Catholic Church’ were specifically mentioned under the section of your post headlined ‘Was it Arson?’ That seems to imply some level of suspect that is highly unfair at this point.
I suppose if I were to re-write it, I would leave the first bullet point that mentions you have ‘made enemies’ and remove the two sub bullet points that list ‘neighbors’ and ‘Catholics’.
Again, just my two cents and I wish you all the best moving forward.
What a tragic loss. I own several old buildings. I have a 10,000 home and 6000 square foot office in worcester as well as a farm house from 1890. I have seen poor wiring in all the locations. That said it just doesn't start a fire. Usually it is device that pulls more amps than the wire can handle. If there is no draw then there is not heat. For any poor wiring to ignite you need an arc. Sometimes animals can chew through wiring and ignite it but this is infrequent. Again more often it is a draw that does it. IE a microwave in a bedroom. Old wiring was not designed to handle microwaves and hair driers which can pull much more than 15amps. that is why the modern electrical code has a 20 amp outlet in the bath and likewise for the microwave. Something caught the place on fire. It is much more likely it was electrical if arson has been ruled out. It looks like you were running a modern day hippie commune in a gilded mansion. Which I guess is fine I'm not judging. But whop was watching what people did in their rooms? Obviously it was not started from a gas leak in the kitchen. The bedrooms burned! It's a shame but the most likely was wiring........
One thing I do not understand. There is no way the bank would allow the property to go uninsured. There had to be a policy since you borrowed 1.48Million. It is also ludicrous that you borrowed that 1.48mil wrecked the house and you are trying to sell it for 2 million.
This fire is a tragedy for the entire Town of Northbridge — it really is not about you, Starr, nor your collective of what appear to be indigent "artists" with no visible means of support. The entire Town suffers an irreplaceable loss of here, and I for one find your essay to be one of "thou doth protest too much" — and quite too indignantly, and reasonable questions from reasonable citizens — most of whom have a history themselves going back many generations in the town. Your indignation at frankly, questions that should be anticipated, and then the manipulation of trying to turn that around and accuse the townspeople of not "volunteering" nor donating to your "cause" over the past couple of years is disingenuous at best, and the stuff of a someone with a personality disorder at worst. It's dishonest and repulsive for you to attack the townspeople over YOUR mismanagement of an historic property.
You bought, as private property, (not a charity case!) an historic mansion of epic proportions without the means to support it —obviously. You possessed neither the means to restore and maintain it, nor the means to simply insure it! That is a dereliction of civic duty, in my opinion. The 501C "cover" for your enterprise which appears to be run like a homeless shelter for anyone who can come up with a claim to be an artist and "volunteers" some household duty whilst taking donations is leaving a bad taste in the town's mouth, understandably.
Of course questions arise as to the origin of the fire when it occurs just 3 weeks after you publish a hysterical plea for donations to "save" the mansion — or else! You threaten to engage the "exit strategies" and then wonder why people question the origin of the fire? The fire also occurs on the heels of the fire destruction of the Allen Estate last year (The Victorian). People rightly wonder if these are of suspicious origin.
Adding to the suspicion is your detailed, extensive, well planned "next steps" published just days after the fire. All ready to go in record time! It makes it sound like you planned this . . . while you attack anyone for questioning you.
Your plan to sell off a few acres of forested land also raises alarm bells for the town's historic sensibility. And you just listed the Manor on Zillow (with caveats acknowledged). All very suspect when immediately after listing for sale and threatening "exit strategies" it just happens to burn down! Hmmm . . . would be ANYONE's reaction.
Now you beg for free labor, donations, and more, after utterly irresponsibly mismanaging the property into destruction! What really appears to be the plan, in plain sight, is parceling off the land for sale, making you pretty wealthy while you claim to care so much about your ragtag band of indigent "artists", none of whom seem capable of actually supporting themselves either with said "art" or an actual day job. What can the people of Northbridge look forward to as you "exit"? Parceled off sales that result in Condos or "dense housing" like townhouses or some other atrocity on the prime land? It's unlikely the whole property will sell and one house will be rebuilt
And fix and repair? The house is condemned according to the Worcester T&G! You can't fix and repair this! You couldn't take care of it when it was fully standing as it had over 134 years!
How about a resounding NO! From an indignant town right back at 'ya! You don't deserve free labor for mismanaging an historic property. You don't deserve donations you can pocket. You don't deserve to profit from your mismanagement while begging for freebies.
The lack of insurance is virtually criminal malfeasance. But it sure looks like your "exit strategy". (Readers, please see his post of February 19th.)
Honestly, how dare you attack the townspeople of Whitinsville/Northbridge. You're the newcomer, and you failed miserably to be a steward of a grand, historic property that survived everything but you and your band of indigents.
You're a bit of Fagin with your socialist collective there, begging and scamming the townspeople!
Several of your extensive plans for exiting also include staying on the property in the outlying buildings, as if any new owner would want you and your squatters on there that they could never rid themselves of! Perhaps it really is time for you and your socialist collective to move on. The sooner you sell and the town sees the backside of your irresponsible tenure, the better. Waving your rainbow flags and patting yourself on the back for imaginary SJW acts is ludicrous. You make the Diocese of Worcester look like good stewards by comparison, while you act like saviors of the place you had no business owning. No business, because you lacked the means to support it.
It's an irreplaceable tragedy for the town. We are glad no one was hurt, but devastated by the mismanagement the allowed neglect or worse to result in this outcome. Your "exit strategy" indeed.
Go about your business and stop attacking and threatening to sue townspeople for free speech.
As to us failing to protect the building... We did a better job than anyone else was willing to. When we found it, it was rotting from neglect. There was algae growing inside, and layers of animal droppings multiple inches deep. Who else but us was willing to keep mice and bats and woodpeckers and termites from slowly destroying it? To stop the slow decay of wood and spread of mold from roof leaks? To bring the electrical systems up to code and greatly lower the odds of a catastrophic fire? To occupy the building so we could report a fire much more quickly? To spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to protect and restore the building?
Who are you to say we didn't do enough, when you and almost everyone else did nothing? Where were you for the years it was sitting empty, or the decades it went unmaintained?
But none of your efforts mattered as it burned down anyway. Probably be still standing if had not "saved" it.
Why would you think that? If the fire had started with the building vacant, the results would have been much worse, as demonstrated by other recent fires. If the cause was electrical, and I hadn't spent a hundred thousand dollars eliminating dangerous old electrical wiring, it probably would have burned sooner. The total fire damage was probably less because of our efforts, and the longer term water and animal damage was certainly MUCH less.
Thank you so much! I thought we were being remiss with taking days to draft our statements after the event, and my plan coming almost a week later. It is heartening to hear you describe this as a fast pace instead.
I find it extremely offensive that you would, without any evidence, insinuate that neighbors or members of the Catholic Church would have potentially started this tragic blaze. In the same post you chastise those who have cast suspicion on you for causing the fire (which I agree is unfair) while casting suspicion on others with absolutely zero proof. I would ask you to reconsider keeping that section of your post. It is unnecessary speculation that will only cause issues.
Dear John,
We definitely do not believe that neighbors, members of the church, or anyone, deliberately started this fire, and we did not intend to insinuate this. Thank you for letting us know that this was your takeaway so that we have an opportunity to address it.
The section of the article you are referring to is a section in which we are addressing the many troubling and unfounded rumors we have heard of ways the fire may have started, and we sought to clarify that there is no supporting evidence.
Many people have indeed reached out to us with disturbing assumptions that it was arson, and those same people have suggested that it may have been committed by members of these groups. Community members on the receiving end of regular harassment and hate mail for their involvement in this project, and their extended friend groups and sympathizers, have been frightened by these words, and some are now speculating if this was a deliberate act.
While people may speculate, this does not reflect the belief of our organization. We do not think the same people motivated to send hate mail would be motivated enough to cause deliberate harm to a treasured historic property, and furthermore we have found no evidence of this. That’s what the intention of this part of the article is for - to address and contradict unfounded rumors.
I believe that we are of the same belief that these insinuations we have heard are unfair. If the phrasing of the article makes that unclear, I welcome suggestions for alternative ways to phrase this to make it more clear that we do not think it was arson, while still addressing the circulating rumors.
The text presently reads, that although we have made some enemies, “We don’t know who might have been motivated to destroy our property.” And that “We have no evidence of anyone entering the property uninvited that evening, and no evidence of residents or guests being present where the fire began.”
Thank you again for alerting us of this concern.
-Victoria.
Thank you for the reply! My sincere hope is that the investigation by the Fire Marshall will get to the bottom of this devastating fire. I am sorry to read that your organization has received hate mail and I wish everybody affected by this tragedy all the best.
I suppose I just want to be fair to the investigation and in light of fairness to all, it rubbed me the wrong way that ‘neighbors’ and ‘members of the Catholic Church’ were specifically mentioned under the section of your post headlined ‘Was it Arson?’ That seems to imply some level of suspect that is highly unfair at this point.
I suppose if I were to re-write it, I would leave the first bullet point that mentions you have ‘made enemies’ and remove the two sub bullet points that list ‘neighbors’ and ‘Catholics’.
Again, just my two cents and I wish you all the best moving forward.
Thank you. I edited the article per your suggestions. I appreciate your assistance.
-Victoria.
What a tragic loss. I own several old buildings. I have a 10,000 home and 6000 square foot office in worcester as well as a farm house from 1890. I have seen poor wiring in all the locations. That said it just doesn't start a fire. Usually it is device that pulls more amps than the wire can handle. If there is no draw then there is not heat. For any poor wiring to ignite you need an arc. Sometimes animals can chew through wiring and ignite it but this is infrequent. Again more often it is a draw that does it. IE a microwave in a bedroom. Old wiring was not designed to handle microwaves and hair driers which can pull much more than 15amps. that is why the modern electrical code has a 20 amp outlet in the bath and likewise for the microwave. Something caught the place on fire. It is much more likely it was electrical if arson has been ruled out. It looks like you were running a modern day hippie commune in a gilded mansion. Which I guess is fine I'm not judging. But whop was watching what people did in their rooms? Obviously it was not started from a gas leak in the kitchen. The bedrooms burned! It's a shame but the most likely was wiring........
One thing I do not understand. There is no way the bank would allow the property to go uninsured. There had to be a policy since you borrowed 1.48Million. It is also ludicrous that you borrowed that 1.48mil wrecked the house and you are trying to sell it for 2 million.
This is well said. I am very sorry for the loss you all have suffered.