More on Cell Phone Service

Lawyers have a Latin phrase - res ipsa loquitur - that means "the thing speaks for itself." After you read my earlier posting below on cell phone service, read these excerpts from the minutes of the selectboard meeting of January 13:

"[Eileen Vining] asked for a status report on the cell towers. The RFP is being reviewed by legal counsel who has promised it soon. . . . Conversations with providers have been that preliminary information rules out the town hall property and that the old landfill site on Phillips Road and the Kelly property on route 23 may be good sites. The planning board has agreed to make changes to the bylaw [editor's note: I thought it was the voters who made changes to our bylaws] that will be required to get service in Egremont, but will not do so without definitive information. If it is assumed that the current bylaw won't work it would take 6 to 7 weeks to follow the process for getting an amendment before the voters. The planning board wants clear parameters from providers first. The planning board plans to have nothing substantial for annual town meeting . . . ."

Res ipsa loquitur!!

Cell Phone Service

Let's briefly review the ongoing sorry saga on cell phone service in town. (1) Several years ago, we adopted a bylaw that effectively prevents cell towers (and therefore service) in town. Not surprisingly, no company has expressed any interest in dealing with that bylaw. (2) Last summer, a cell tower salesman suggested the possibility of a tower at town hall, the only possible site (as a practical matter) permitted under our bylaw (which bylaw would have to be signicantly changed even if the site were otherwise acceptable). He later concluded (surprise, surprise!) that the site wasn't possible because of proximity to the airport. (3) Rather than just concluding and openly espousing that we needed to scrap our bylaw and start over, our timid selectboard called a special town meeting last fall to approve leasing part of the town hall site to a tower or cell company, knowing (albeit sticking their heads in the sand) that there was no realistic chance of that process succeeding. Many of us pointed out at that time that it was a useless exercise that would only slow down the inevitable, i.e., adopting a new bylaw, and therefore slow down getting cell phone service in town. (4) After the town meeting approved leasing town hall property, the selectboard caused to be prepared the documentation for seeking bids for a cell tower at the town hall site.

So how is the process proceeding? It's not.

The idea, as I understand it, was, during 2008, to solicit bids, get no responses and therefore conclude that the process was hopeless, providing enough time to craft a new bylaw in 2009 in time for the May town meeting. But not even the first step has occurred. Goodbye, timing.

Many of us believe that our town needs cell phone service, that we must be proactive to get it, and that it is unacceptable for the selectboard to dither on this subject. It is time to act. Ask your selectmen to explain their inaction on this matter. And be prepared to vote on a new bylaw at the May meeting, hopefully one supported by the selectboard and the planning board, but that will be presented whether those boards act or not.

Police and the Police Station

I started thinking about how a business would go about dealing with the police/police station issue. First, it would analyze the need. Then it would analyze the choices. Then it would pick the choice that produced the desired result at the most economical cost.

Here's how that process would go.

Need: (a) Egremont spends much more on police, on a per capita basis, than most other towns our size. Are we getting value for our money? (b) Do we need that level of police presence? What does the chief think in that regard? (c) What would happen if we didn't have a police department? (d) What are the realistic space needs (not desires) of the department?

Choices: (a) There are serious discussions going on about consolidation of our two local school districts. How about police consolidation? (For that matter, how about fire department consolidation?) (b) How do Alford, Hillsdale, etc., provide police protection? Is the way they do it appropriate for Egremont? (c) If we cut the budget to a level in line with other towns our size, what would we lose in protection? (d) Taking into account the realistric needs of the police department, could we consolidate some of the second floor offices to provide more space for the department?

Costs: (a) Should we be spending more money on a department that already costs far more than other towns? If so, how much more? (Does anyone do cost/benefit analyses in Egremont?) (b) We're looking at a possibly protacted period of hard economic times. Other costs of government will likely increase. Can we afford increased police department spending under those circumstances? (c) What's the difference in cost between putting an addition onto town hall and building a new structure? What do we get/lose for that difference?

One other factor that people keep using to justify action is the noncompliance of town hall with handicapped access. I modestly suggest the possibility of doing nothing in that regard, at least for now. First, there are many ways we can provide practical access for the relatively small number of people in town who are affected, rather than spending huge amounts reconfiguring town hall. Second, I don't see much risk of zealous enforcement by government agencies in times when towns are strapped for funds. Whether I'm right or wrong, why not wait until they come after us?

French Park Fund
It's not too late to make a 2008 contribution to the French Park Fund. Write a check to "French Park Fund, Inc." and drop it off at town hall or at the North Egremont store or mail it to me at 223 Egremont Plain Rd, PMB 108, North egremont, MA 01252. Charity begins at home!!

Police Station

Minutes of a recent selectmen's meeting state that the estimated cost of a new police station looks to be about $500,000. Watch out, my friends! The "edifice complex" folks who hang out at town hall seem hell-bent on pushing through this project. They seem oblivious to what's going on in the economy, and to the real cuts that are inevitable in town government expenditures. Egremont needs some realistic budget assessments and decisions, and I'm not very confident that that's coming from our selectboard.

Housatonic River ACEC

A coalition of environmental groups has just proposed to the state that a 12 mile stretch of the Housatonic River between Pittsfield and Lee be designated an "area of critical environmental concern" (an "ACEC"), which would result in significantly increased restrictions on land use in the affected area, as well as further delays in the PCB cleanup of the river. I think this is a terrible and selfish idea and have filed the following comment on the proposal. You can file a comment by e-mail to elizabeth.sorenson@state.ma.us if you wish. If you agree with the comment I filed, you can just say you support the comment filed by Richard Allen. (If you disagree, file a contrary comment and/or enter a comment on this blog entry saying I'm wrong.)

"This is a formal comment to the proposed Housatonic River ACEC. Please include it in the record.

I have been an environmentalist for over 35 years, and am one of the founders of Environmental Advocates, the pre-eminent environmental lobbying group in New York. This comment reflects only my own views and not necessarlly those of EA or any other group.

I have read the proposal authored by the sponsoring coalition group carefully. It is one-sided, inaccurate in many respects, and insufficient to support an ACEC designation. While lip service is given to the 9 factors to be considered for ACEC designation, the proposal is deficient in providing actual evidence to support the proposal.

ACEC designation requires findings that the area is unique, or at least significantly different from comparable areas to merit special designation. Yet the proposal specifies only one stretch of the Housatonic for designation, and does not show that that stretch is significantly different from any other comparable portion of the river.

The reason for that presentation is obvious, and is evidenced often and overtly in the proposal itself. The real intent of the coalition is to interfere with the PCB cleanup of the river. Not satisfied with the results of years of detailed hearings and investigations into the PCB problems of the Housatonic, participated in by many of the coalition members, the coalition is obviously seeking a way to re-open the cleanup matter.

In our legal and regulatory system, there comes a time to close the record, make decisions and go forward. That time has occurred regarding the cleanup of the Housatonic. It is simply inappropriate to allow the coalition and its friends to overturn a result not to their liking. But much worse, it is unfair to the citizenry to delay once again cleaning up a problem that should be accomplished as soon as possible.

But apart from the environmental and health reasons that we should not engage in further delaying tactics, there are important economic reasons to deny this designation. Our state and our nation are facing difficult, and uncertain, and possibly prolonged economic times. With increasing numbers of Berkshire County residents likely to be unemployed or suffering reduced incomes, this is not the time to engage in the luxury of prolonged environmental battles. One of the factors that must be considered in proposing an ACEC is the economic impact. While cute arguments can be made to the contrary, there can be little doubt that designating the proposed area as an ACEC will result in less economic opportunity in the affected area. We cannot afford that result in these times. And with people in the construction trades facing fewer jobs and less work opportunities, we should be trying to create the jobs that the Housatonic cleanup will produce, not delaying them.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard M. Allen
45 Second Street
North Egremont, MA 01252
413-528-2108"

French Park

Tis the season to be charitable, and charity begins at home. Please make out as large a check as you can to "French Park Fund, Inc." and drop it off at town hall or at the North Egremont store or mail it to French Park Fund, 223 Egremont Plain Rd, PMB 108, North Egremont, MA 01252. Contributions are fully rax deductible and you'll get a receipt for tax purposes.

The Fund has two major projects in the works: replacing the children's playground and building a trail system. Volunteers are always welcome.

School Consolidation

It would be nice to know the position of our selectmen on this issue. Do you think one or more of them will let the rest of us know, by commenting on this posting or otherwise? Except maybe for Bruce Cumsky, don't hold your breath.

Governmental Positions

The town annual report just came out. I counted the number of governmental positions. Wow! We have about 900 registered voters. We have 25 elected officials and 155 appointed officials. So there is roughly one governmental position for every 5 voters. Do we really need that? No wonder there's so much governmental interference in our lives.

Unsung Heroes

There are many Egremonters who do good things for the town and its people but don't get (nor expect) credit for them. An example is the new hydrant, and its new source pond, on Blunt Road. That hydrant will be there if needed (God forbid) for a fire on Blunt Road, and, even if there never is a fire, will likely reduce the insurance premiums paid by those homeowners who are near it. Three people deserve accolades for getting that hydant and pond put in: Bill Weigle, for researching its location and shepherding it through all the approvals and other necessary actions; Bruce Bernstein, for allowing his land to be dedicated to that use; and Bill Warner, for digging the pond and doing the other heavy work at virtually no cost to the town.

These people are models for what it means to be a good neighbor. Unlike many Egremonters, they did the reverse of trying to stop what their neighbors were doing; they did what was right for everyone. There are far too many NIMBYs in Egremont who use the planning board, the conservation commission, the zoning board of appeals and the board of health to further their own selfish desires at the expense of their neighbors.

Thanks, Bill, Bruce and Bill, for your selfless attitude. Keep it up.

Selectmen Animosity

I went to the selectmen's meeting last night. It was a real eye opener. I urge all of you to go to a meeting to see how bad things have gotten. Animosity permeates the room and rudeness results.

Bruce Cumsky continues to raise issues and take positions that Bruce Turner and Tom Haas don't like. When Cumsky pushes the issue, Turner (and sometimes Haas) becomes rude, both to Cumsky and to whoever in the audience agrees with Cumsky. The atmosphere is pretty poisonous.

For example, last night Cumsky reiterated his request that all boards and departments prepare draft budgets for next year reflecting 5% expense reductions. That seems right to lots of us, since times are going to get very tough for towns and are already tough for many taxpayers. But Turner resists this openly, Haas more quietly. Turner says our taxes are relatively low, so we shouldn't be cutting expenses and the services they provide. That position might be defensible in ordinary times, but it's just irresponsible given what's going on in the world and in Massachusetts. Maybe things will get better, maybe they won't. But to not plan for bad times seems foolhardy.

Turner's position isn't surprising in light of his past positions. He has publicly stated more than once that since the town is in the process of paying off loans for some past capital items, we have the "opportunity" to rehabilitate the town hall, build a new library, etc. I call that the "edifice" complex. How about reducing taxes, Bruce? Tom?

As you might suspect, I am not well received at selectmen's meetings. But that won't stop me from publicizing the positions of our officials. The voters need to know who is watching out for them and who is watching out for themselves.

Don't believe me? Go to a meeting and see for yourselves. Disagree with me? Post your views; they're always encouraged.

Special Town Meeting

All the articles passed. One barely passed, the one about hiring an engineer (at up to $20,000) to analyze possible renovations at town hall. I'm told the opposition was based on getting experts in town to do the work, for free. But "cover your ass" mentality permeates town hall. Hmmmmm!

The cell tower charade also passed. Now the selectboard will put out an RFP for leasing town land to a tower company, with the expectation that no one will bid, and therefore we'll all rise up in opposition to the planning board and other cell opponents, and get a real cell tower bylaw passed, instead of the nonsensical (and probably illegal) one we have now. I've commented before about the oiliness of that approach, but we're stuck with it now.

I just hope the RFP doesn't screw things up, and there are several ways that could happen. First, there are cell tower companies out there, especially the smaller ones, that build up "inventories" of sites as a way to market themselves to the telecom companies. One or more of them might bid to increase their "inventory," even though they know there's no chance of actually erecting a tower on the town hall site. That can be handled by saying in the RFP that actual construction must start within, say, 6 months of awarding the contract, with penalties for not doing so. Second, the RFP should be completely consistent with the zoning bylaw. It should make it clear that a special permit is required from the planning board, not just approval by the selectboard, and should outline some of the provisions of the bylaw, such as no lights, minimum distances, etc. Otherwise, a bidder might argue that it reasonably believed the requirements set forth in the RFP were the only ones that had to be met. Third, the RFP should have tight time deadlines, but they should be realistic, or bidders could argue that it was impossible to comply. Same with other requirements: no impossibly difficult ones.

All of these problems, if the RFP isn't done right, could lead to having to start the process over and over, with delay after delay. That just plays into the hands of the "no cell towers ever" crowd.


I still don't understand why we have to go down this path at all. Why not just deal with the cell tower issue straight up? See my posting below under "Town Meeting: Cell Towers."

Cell Phones

The special town meeting is tomorrow. I spoke again today to the Mariner Tower rep who proposed the possibility of a tower at the town hall site earlier this year. He said he had not yet received a formal response from the FAA, but was confident the FAA would disapprove a tower at the town hall site. He also said he thought a tower at Proctor's farm could not get FAA approval. I suggested the Egremont Country Club, and he thought that site was too far east.

To cover the south half of town, the ideal site would be south of Route 23 and west of the south village. Any ideas?

Town Meeting: Water Company Cost Overruns

When will this nightmare end? Year after year, the water company takes in far less than it spends, and the taxpayers have to make up the difference. When the water company was established, townspeople were told it would be self-supporting. It's just not fair for most of us to have to bear the cost of our own wells, maintenance, water testing, etc, and then have to also subsidize the water company's customers. When are we going to say "enough" and elect water commissioners who will promise to set rates that will cover expenses? And if it turns out that can't be done, let's sell the water company to the users and let them control their own fate.

Town Meeting: Article 3

This article seeks $20,000 to hire someone to assess renovation of town hall. There is continuing concern about ADA compliance, and other renovations certainly could be considered. If this has to be done, I'd prefer using the expertise of townspeople (at no cost) rather than paying an outside consultant, but that attitude has always fallen on deaf ears down at town hall. Consultants often buttress the "edifice complex" of some of the town hall denizens, producing grandiose proposals like the ones I've starting hearing about for a library.

It's important to note this appropriation would be for town hall only, not a police station or a library or a senior center or any other pipe dream. Of course, one thing can lead to another, and I worry about the "getting a little bit pregnant" risk.

I need to be convinced that we really need to do this before I vote for it.

Town Meeting: Cell Towers

Article 1 on the warrant for the October 4 special town meeting seeks to empower the selectmen to lease a portion of the town hall property to a cell tower company. It is an exercise in futility.

Two years ago we adopted a cell tower zoning bylaw that was designed to prevent cell towers in town. Among its many defects: (1) Celltowers are permitted only at Catamount and the town hall property on Route 71. There has been a tower on Catamount for years and, despite some extensive marketing efforts by the company that owns it, no telecom company (i.e., cell phone company) is interested in putting an antenna on it. It's just in the wrong place; it doesn't provide coverage adequate for a telecom company to want to use it. The town hall property is in the runway path of the Great Barrington airport. It is likely the FAA would not permit any tower anywhere on the site, and it is virtually certain the FAA would not allow it if the airport owner and the pilots who use the airport are opposed. They are. (2) The bylaw doesn't permit any lighting on a tower. Can you imagine a tower in the runway path of an airport without lighting? (3) A tower must be at least 500 feet from any dwelling and at least one and one-half times its height from the property boundary. It's not clear those requirements could ever be met at the town hall site, especially given the need to erect a tower where it will provide the coverage the telecom companies want. (4) Even if all these (and a host of other) obstacles could be miraculously overcome, a tower would require a special permit from the planning board (which requires the positive vote of 4 of the 5 members of the PB), and their record on this issue doesn't inspire optimism.

I've spoken to the guy from Mariner Tower whose visit to town hall early this summer precipitated this article. He is pretty certain that no tower could be built at town hall. There is no reason to think any other tower company would feel otherwise. So what's the point of putting this empty exercise before the voters? There's a theory that once the voters approve it, get excited about the possibility of getting cell phone service in town and then find out it ain't gonna happen, they'll rise up in anger and demand that the zoning bylaw be changed. That's a tactic I might have come up with when I was a Wall Street lawyer. But it seems inappropriate in any open democratic process, and it doesn't pass my smell test.

I think we ought to face the cell phone service situation head-on. First, we should actively seek input from the tower companies and telecom companies. (Would you believe that when the PB formulated its bylaw 2 years ago, it didn't speak to a single tower company or telecom company?) I know from conversations with the companies that they need and want a tower in the south part of town, toward the east end. Second, we should amend the bylaw to permit towers where the companies want them. That doesn't risk having towers in inappropriate locations: the bylaw requires a host of "compatability" findings before a special permit will issue. Third, we should amend the bylaw to remove all its impediments that artificially prevent or seriously impede the companies from complying with it. (And if we don't do that, we risk a lawsuit from one of the companies seeking to hold our bylaw illegal under federal law, which it probably is.) Fourth, we should put the permitting authority in the selectboard. That's where the authority lies with respect to wired or wireless internet service (such as WiSpring), and the considerations for cell phone equipment are the same and should be before the same board.

So I'm planning to vote against article 1 on the ground that any amount we spend on this useless exercise is money wasted. And next May, if the selectboard won't do it, I'll put forth the changes suggested above by citizens' petition.

Saturday Special Town Meeting

Congratulations to the selectboard for holding the upcoming special town meeting on a Saturday. Neither I nor anyone else knows if more people will come to a Saturday meeting, but it's worth a try. We'll see.

Of course, more or fewer people come to town meetings depending on how controversial the agenda is. So counting heads at the upcoming meeting may not prove anything.

But we desparately need to increase attendance at town meetings, so it's important to determine whether Saturday mornings are better or worse than, say, Tuesday evenings. I think the selectboard intends to ask those who come to the upcoming meeting which they prefer. That will likely prove that the people who come to a Saturday meeting have a preference for Saturday. Duh! Why not poll the populace to see what they prefer? I can think of several ways to do that: (1) Use the town's e-mail list. (2) Have voters fill out a questionnaire at the next election opportunity. (3) Send something out with tax bills.

I can already imagine the objections down at town hall. Sometimes I think we have an aristocracy in this town, not a democracy.

Board of Health Dust-Up

This week's Berkshire Record reports on the BOH/Karen Waller dust-up at the Egremont Inn. From what I know, the article is fairly accurate. And it's more evidence of how a minor incident can be blown out of proportion by overly sensitive people. (I say minor incident, because no reasonable person could take Karen's alleged threat seriously.) I'll repeat my prior statement: If you work for the BOH and go around telling people they have to spend many tens of thousands of dollars to "fix" a problem with their septic systems that doesn't seem to be a problem at all, you better expect people to think you're just a little tyrannical and, now and then, to blow up at you. If you can't take that, quit. (Or better, lobby for a change in a law that is overkill.)

One thing I find interesting is that the complaint to the Board of Selectmen wasn't made by Sandra Martin, the alleged "victim," nor by the chairman of the Board of Health, but by the Board of Health clerk. Why? What's going on here?

Second Homeowners Selectmen's Meeting

I was out of town last Saturday, when a selectmen's meeting was held primarily to let second homeowners vent. I've heard there was a lot of venting. If you were there, why not post a comment with your viewpoint.