17

THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – FRiDAy, MAy 9, 2025 Page 17 BEACON | FROM PAGE 16 amendment sponsor Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “I filed this as a flexible local option for cities and towns to generate additional revenues by giving residents an incentive to pay their overdue property and excise taxes. This amnesty program would not only help communities but also would benefit individuals who have outstanding tax liabilities so they can wipe the slate clean by settling their original debt.” Rep. Adrian Madaro (D-East Boston) opposed the amendment and said there is uncertainty in the budget writing process that we’re dealing with given the recent events in Washington, D.C. He said that the House drafted a budget taking into account current municipal collections in order to develop local aid and apportionments. He noted that adopting this measure right now may undermine those efforts and require the House to reassess how much local aid will be needed to ensure cities and towns have the resources they need again, at a time when we don’t know what holes will need to be plugged at the federal level. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle No ALLOW DETAINMENT BY IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (H 4000) House 25-131, rejected an amendment that would provide a mechanism for law enforcement and the courts to detain individuals for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if the person poses a direct threat to public safety. It would specifically allow for the detainment of individuals for possible immigration violations for up to 12 hours upon receipt of a written request and warrant from ICE. “This amendment is an attempt to respond to the 2017 Commonwealth v. Lunn decision, in which the Supreme Judicial Court determined the authority to honor ICE detainer requests is not expressly permitted under current statutes,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “The amendment is a relatively modest proposal because the authorization is limited to ICE detainer requests for individuals who pose a serious threat to public safety for engaging in, or being suspected of engaging in, specific crimes such as terrorism or espionage, criminal street gang activity, sexual abuse or exploitation, human trafficking, unlawful firearm possession and drug distribution or trafficking.” Rep. Daniel Cahill (D-Lynn) opposed the amendment and said there are criminal detainers issued by ICE and there are civil detainers. He noted that as a former prosecutor, he understands that when there’s a criminal warrant for an ICE detainer from a defendant and they are in the custody of Massachusetts, there is a cooperation with ICE to ensure that upon release of that defendant, or sometimes while a case is pending, ICE is notified and they’re allowed to come pick up that defendant. What we’re talking about here would be for Massachusetts to cooperate with the federal government in civil detainers. The law says here in Massachusetts, we are not to detain someone a moment -- not 12 hours, not 12 seconds. When your case is concluded, you leave. What the federal government wants us to do is expend resources to hold people beyond that time. That’s a constitutional problem. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle No RIGHT TO SHELTER (H 4000) House 27-129, rejected an amendment that would place further restrictions on the state’s right to shelter law by limiting participation in the commonwealth’s emergency housing assistance program to U.S. citizens who have resided in Massachusetts for at least six months. “Over the last two years, the state’s emergency shelter system has been plagued by cost overruns, fueled by the migrant crisis, which has led to waiting lists for services,” said Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “This amendment would help restore the original intent of the right to shelter law by ensuring that Massachusetts residents in need have access to emergency shelter.” Rep. Alice Peisch (D-Wellesley) opposed the amendment and said it would unfairly restrict eligibility for the emergency shelter program to citizens of the United States and make legal residents ineligible. She argued that it also raises constitutional questions around defined length of residency. She said that the state has put in a number of controls on this program and the number of people using it and seeking to use the program, is now down to 4,804 families. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle No PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT FUNDING (H 4000) House 28-128, rejected an amendment that would prohibit any city or town’s eligibility for public safety related grant funding from being contingent upon that municipality’s compliance with the MBTA Communities Act. The MBTA Communities Act, according to the state’s website, requires that an MBTA community “must have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria” including minimum gross density of 15 units per acre; and a location not more than 1/2 mile from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station. No age restrictions can be applied and the district must be suitable for families with children. “Earlier this year, the Healey Administration changed the rules for the Firefighter Safety Equipment Grant program by denying grants to communities that are not in compliance with the MBTA Communities zoning law,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “Although the huge public outcry that followed led the governor to reverse course and restore this grant funding, it is important that we add language to the zoning law to ensure that this does not happen again. Tying public safety grant funding to compliance with the MBTA Communities Act is simply unacceptable, as it not only jeopardizes the public, but also the police, firefighters and other first responders who work to keep our communities safe.” Rep. Richard Haggerty (D-Woburn) opposed the amendment and said it is not needed because the Healey Administration showed its flexibility and - LEGAL NOTICE - COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT Middlesex Probate and Family Court 10-U Commerce Way Woburn, MA 01801 (781) 865-4000 Docket No. MI25P2224EA Estate of: INES T. SIMONELLI Also known as: INES SIMONELLI Date of Death: 03/10/2025 CITATION ON PETITION FOR FORMAL ADJUDICATION To all interested persons: A Petition for Formal Probate of Will with Appointment of Personal Representative has been filed by: Joanne I. Simonelli of Durham, ME requesting that the Court enter a formal Decree and Order and for such other relief as requested in the Petition. The Petitioner requests that: Joanne I. Simonelli of Durham, ME be appointed as Personal Representative(s) of said estate to serve on the bond in unsupervised administration. IMPORTANT NOTICE You have the right to obtain a copy of the Petition from the Petitioner or at the Court. You have a right to object to this proceeding. To do so, you or your attorney must file a written appearance and objection at this Court before: 10:00 a.m. on the return day of 05/27/2025. This is NOT a hearing date, but a deadline by which you must file a written appearance and objection if you object to this proceeding. If you fail to file a timely written appearance and objection followed by an affidavit of objections within thirty (30) days of the return day, action may be taken without further notice to you. UNSUPERVISED ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS UNIFORM PROBATE CODE (MUPC) A Personal Representative appointed under the MUPC in an unsupervised administration is not required to file an inventory or annual accounts with the Court. Persons interested in the estate are entitled to notice regarding the administration directly from the Personal Representative and may petition the Court in any matter relating to the estate, including the distribution of assets and expenses of administration. WITNESS, Hon. Terri L. Klug Cafazzo, First Justice of this Court. Date: April 29, 2025 TARA E. DeCRISTOFARO REGISTER OF PROBATE May 9, 2025 announced that these grants are no longer at risk for noncompliant communities. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle No REQUIRE ID TO VOTE (H 4000) House 25-131, rejected an amendment that would require voters to present a valid form of identification, such as a driver’s license or passport, when voting. It also directs the Secretary of State’s office to develop a program to make a Massachusetts photo identification card available free of charge for voting purposes. “Establishing a voter ID requirement would help poll workers verify that an individual is properly registered to vote in Massachusetts,” said Rep. Brad BEACON | SEE PAGE 18

18 Publizr Home