My telephone keeps ringing. I've been getting calls from people who are jealous that they were left off Mike Costello's "Most Obstructionist" list, as noted (Times editorial, Nov, 17) following his retirement dinner.

These people don't think I've been that obstructionist and they think they deserve it more than me. They're probably right.

The Times piled on last week by lambasting the "obstinate critics" of the Gloucester Crossing TIF, after a new, fairer deal was struck. They missed the biggest point of all: there wouldn't be this new "TIF with Teeth" deal without an opposition.

Please don't tell me that Mr. Park compromised out of good will to the city. No, he compromised because he knew the TIF Committee and the city were under just as much pressure from the other side. Jason Grow, the committee and the mayor should be thanking opponents of a "blue sky" TIF, based on a promise.

Outgoing Chamber President Mike Costello and the Times are wrong when they decry obstruction as the ruin of the plan. Newsflash: Opponents got a better deal for the city than by just trusting businessmen and lawyers to look out for the city's interests. But Costello and the Times editorials seem to have taken a page out of the old Republican Playbook. Trust us and don't question. Don't listen to those opponents, "those people're against everything." And daring to speak out against the sea of conformity and intimidation that was set up in the town to silence anyone opposed.

Imagine anyone actually questioning the might and wisdom of the forces of business to receive whatever they think they deserve by deigning to develop in this end-of-the-line 'burb?

The Times goes on to lament that the $2.3 million wouldn't cover the $7 million in infastructure "improvements." But what benefit does the city get from Schoolhouse Road and all the muddle that the cut-ins to 128 will bring if Park Place wasn't using them? What a specious argument.

And please, quit lumping all opponents into the same bag. Not all opponents are unhappy with this deal. Don't put me in with "No Free Lunch" just because we aren't in the Park rooting section. If this deal is really a TIF with Teeth, I'm all for it. If he gets the full TIF for just getting permits and the assisted living and the hotel don't ever get built, then this TIF is all Gums.

The Times seems to have been drinking the Costello Kool-Aid. This deal wouldn't have come about if we'd all just shut up and done what we were told. What would have been the alternative? The paper wrings its hands and cries: Housing!

Oh my. Houses! Imagine solving our Chapter 40B affordable housing problem in one fell swoop? I think the neighbors would take it now in hindsight, after the complete clear cutting of trees right up to their porches. And oh, how the Times fears the influx of students on the one hand from housing.

As far as opponents to development, the Times and the mayor crow about the Paint Factory. Remember, without opposition, it would have been condos, now it's been preserved by Ocean Alliance. Viva la Difference! But what is the difference?

The TIF deal and the Paint Factory salvation are the same, people, and offer essentially the same benefit to the city. But the Chamber and the Times aren't thinking city first, they're thinking business deals first. They are Republicans masquerading as Democrats. They even still have a version of the old Nixon "Enemies List" — and, gulp, I'm on it. One publicly said it, the other publicly printed it — Why'd My Community Newspaper Do That, anyway?

I can't help but think they are wrong about the "small, vocal minority" bit. My sense is that most residents didn't want a complete TIF giveaway anymore than condos at the Paint Factory and around the harbor.

See, just because you're against a giveaway doesn't mean you're against growth. For example, I am for a harbor hotel but without condos. Condos will spread like wildfire around the harbor — the beginning of the end.

I am a compromiser. The neighbors want no change. The developer wants a hotel, plus four floors of condos. I'd rather see a compromise: just the hotel. If the developer says he can't make money with just a hotel, then why do we need a hotel? Perhaps the neighbors and the developer won't get what they want, but rather get what they need, like Mr. Park and Mr. Costello and the TIF opponents might have to.

Now a whole bunch of opponents don't want to hear that opinion from me, just as they didn't want to hear that the mayoral recall effort was idiotic. We'll be out there side by side fighting the condos but we're clearly not in the same bag. So don't paint us all with the same brush.

Conflicts have arisen around developers vis-a-vis vernal ponds, clear cutting, moving power lines, excessively low sewer connect fees — contracted from the inside out — and, of course, the legendary traffic light on 128, lurking out of sight for now.

Any questions on any of these items could land you on the "Obstructionist Most Wanted" list with your picture posted at the Post Office alongside me, Valerie Nelson and Peter Anastas? These are three different people coming at these projects from three different angles, all trying to keep from giving away the store and our quality of life, that's all.

I know, to some people, everything has its price and can be sold off. But to others, some things are without a price ... they're priceless.

The trick is to try and meet in the middle, not just on Mr. Costello and Mr. Park's end.

Gordon Baird is a regular Times columnist. A Gloucester resident, he is founder of Billboard's Musician Magazine, the West End Theater and is producer of the "Gloucester Chicken Shack" TV Show.SFlb