Caucus Results
The democratic and republican caucuses were held last Saturday. As I understand it, Richard Burdsall got the nominations of both parties for selectman, defeating incumbent Bruce Turner; and there will be a contest for water commissioner between Sam Gossage, who got the democratic nomination, and Richard Allen, who got the republican nomination.
I don't plan on doing a lot of campaigning. I'm running to try to bring some business sense to the operation. It needs it.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Blog Criticisms
From time to time, a few of the denizens down at town hall have criticized this blog site for being inaccurate, or something like that. The criticisms usually correspond to a posting that takes a position that's unpopular at town hall. To be absolutely clear: (1) Comments on the postings on this blog are always welcomed and encouraged. (2) Inaccuracies in postings will always be corrected if and when the evidence shows those inaccuracies.
But if anyone complaining just complains, rather than taking the time to participate, you can be the judge of how valid the complaint is.
From time to time, a few of the denizens down at town hall have criticized this blog site for being inaccurate, or something like that. The criticisms usually correspond to a posting that takes a position that's unpopular at town hall. To be absolutely clear: (1) Comments on the postings on this blog are always welcomed and encouraged. (2) Inaccuracies in postings will always be corrected if and when the evidence shows those inaccuracies.
But if anyone complaining just complains, rather than taking the time to participate, you can be the judge of how valid the complaint is.
Citizens' Petitions
There are at least four citizens' petition items on the warrant for the May town meeting, and one selectmen's item that stems from a citizens' petition.
1. Amending the zoning bylaw to eliminate all the long, long verbiage on cell tower equipment and to substitute for it a short provision empowering the selectboard - not the planning board - to grant special permits for cell tower equipment.
2. Amending the general bylaw to confirm the moderator's right to allow nonresidents to speak at town meetings in his discretion. The Curnins lawsuits - seeking a "right" to speak - have muddied the water on this issue, and this change would clear them up.
3. Urging the selectmen to pursue reimbursement of the town's legal costs from anyone who sues the town seeking a "right" to speak. The courts have thus far uniformly rejected that contention, and it's not fair for us taxpayers to bear the burden of defending against it. This article also urges the moderator not to let speak any nonresident who has sued the town and hasn't reimbursed it for its legal costs.
4. Seeking an appropriation for blankets, supplies, etc., to be available at one or more locations in town in an emergency.
The selectmens' item is an amendment to the general bylaw to increase the quorum requirement for a town meetuing from 60 to 100. Sixty is less than 7% of the town's voters. With that low a number, all too often a smallish group of townspeople pack a town meeting and push through something advantageous to them but that wouldn't pass if everyone were to vote on it.
More on all these, and other items on the agenda for the meeting, during the next month or so. Comments welcome, as always.
There are at least four citizens' petition items on the warrant for the May town meeting, and one selectmen's item that stems from a citizens' petition.
1. Amending the zoning bylaw to eliminate all the long, long verbiage on cell tower equipment and to substitute for it a short provision empowering the selectboard - not the planning board - to grant special permits for cell tower equipment.
2. Amending the general bylaw to confirm the moderator's right to allow nonresidents to speak at town meetings in his discretion. The Curnins lawsuits - seeking a "right" to speak - have muddied the water on this issue, and this change would clear them up.
3. Urging the selectmen to pursue reimbursement of the town's legal costs from anyone who sues the town seeking a "right" to speak. The courts have thus far uniformly rejected that contention, and it's not fair for us taxpayers to bear the burden of defending against it. This article also urges the moderator not to let speak any nonresident who has sued the town and hasn't reimbursed it for its legal costs.
4. Seeking an appropriation for blankets, supplies, etc., to be available at one or more locations in town in an emergency.
The selectmens' item is an amendment to the general bylaw to increase the quorum requirement for a town meetuing from 60 to 100. Sixty is less than 7% of the town's voters. With that low a number, all too often a smallish group of townspeople pack a town meeting and push through something advantageous to them but that wouldn't pass if everyone were to vote on it.
More on all these, and other items on the agenda for the meeting, during the next month or so. Comments welcome, as always.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Egremont Library
I hope townspeople diligently keep an eye on the "library locomotive" that keeps chugging down the track, despite the recession and the reality of coming cuts in town revenues and spending. The library committee met on February 5. I attended. It was a bit like watching one of those movies that takes place on another planet.
The committee members are well meaning folks, but they act as if they're not living in the real world. They're planning on submitting a grant application later this year that, if successful, would pay 60% (or is up to 60%?) of the first $1 million of something (cost?). That disclosure prompted several of the attendees to ask what the total cost estimate for a new library was. After some hemming and hawing, the answer was between $2 and $3 million.
The architect the committee hired (with the $20,000 the town voted to give them a year ago or so, which I voted against) has prepared a plan showing a pretty good sized building near the road at the town hall site. To mollify some of the objections to this project, the building includes a "meeting room" that could seat 100 people. Unfortunately that wouldn't allow town meetings to take place there because more than 100 people show up sometimes. That's only one of many design defects.
The committee says they're not planning on asking for any action at the May town meeting, but they may ask for a special town meeting in the fall to authorize applying for the grant. We all know what happens at special town meetings: The proponents turn out in force, most other townspeople don't bother to come, and the result is often not a democratic one. Also, asking for approval to apply for a grant without asking at the same time for the town's share of the money is just a tactic to get "a little bit pregnant."
It's time to get this locomotive off the track.
I hope townspeople diligently keep an eye on the "library locomotive" that keeps chugging down the track, despite the recession and the reality of coming cuts in town revenues and spending. The library committee met on February 5. I attended. It was a bit like watching one of those movies that takes place on another planet.
The committee members are well meaning folks, but they act as if they're not living in the real world. They're planning on submitting a grant application later this year that, if successful, would pay 60% (or is up to 60%?) of the first $1 million of something (cost?). That disclosure prompted several of the attendees to ask what the total cost estimate for a new library was. After some hemming and hawing, the answer was between $2 and $3 million.
The architect the committee hired (with the $20,000 the town voted to give them a year ago or so, which I voted against) has prepared a plan showing a pretty good sized building near the road at the town hall site. To mollify some of the objections to this project, the building includes a "meeting room" that could seat 100 people. Unfortunately that wouldn't allow town meetings to take place there because more than 100 people show up sometimes. That's only one of many design defects.
The committee says they're not planning on asking for any action at the May town meeting, but they may ask for a special town meeting in the fall to authorize applying for the grant. We all know what happens at special town meetings: The proponents turn out in force, most other townspeople don't bother to come, and the result is often not a democratic one. Also, asking for approval to apply for a grant without asking at the same time for the town's share of the money is just a tactic to get "a little bit pregnant."
It's time to get this locomotive off the track.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Town Budget
I went to the joint meeting of the selectboard and the finance committee last week. It was another eye opener. You just have to come to these meetings. They’re like Alice in Wonderland.
When the discussion got around to salaries, the discussion got a bit hot. The members of the finance committee, and Bruce Cumsky, seemed to generally be in favor of no salary increases. They spoke about the fact that many Egremonters are suffering financially, and that things may well get worse. They said at least two other towns in south county had decided on no increases.
But Bruce Turner said it was unfair not to give increases. And Tom Haas nodded his agreement. I think Turner volunteered to not increase his selectman’s salary, but he didn’t volunteer to reduce it.
Then Juliette Haas, a town employee, made a plea for raising salaries.
It’s important to point out some facts. Bruce Cumsky is a small businessman whose business is undoubtedly suffering. Several members of the finance committee are in similar positions. Bruce Turner is a municipal employee of a town in the eastern part of the state. He’s hoping for money from the feds to help bail out towns (and let them avoid tough financial decisions). Tom Haas is the husband of Juliette. He’s also a library trustee, and that board continues apace to plan a new town library. You decide how those facts affect people’s positions.
I strongly believe Tom Haas should recuse himself from all discussions and votes on salaries. That is especially true since the selectmen are considering across the board increases, not ones tailored to individual employees. If it were the latter, he could recuse himself from voting on Juliette’s salary, and his conflict of interest would not be as great, although it would still be a conflict.
There are a lot of Egremonters whose incomes have declined, in some cases by a lot. Members of the selectboard may think it unfair not to raise salaries. They ought to think about the unfairness of asking taxpayers whose incomes have gone down – sometimes way down - to pony up for town employees lucky enough to still be employed. And they ought to think about the inappropriateness of voting to increase compensation of their relatives.
I went to the joint meeting of the selectboard and the finance committee last week. It was another eye opener. You just have to come to these meetings. They’re like Alice in Wonderland.
When the discussion got around to salaries, the discussion got a bit hot. The members of the finance committee, and Bruce Cumsky, seemed to generally be in favor of no salary increases. They spoke about the fact that many Egremonters are suffering financially, and that things may well get worse. They said at least two other towns in south county had decided on no increases.
But Bruce Turner said it was unfair not to give increases. And Tom Haas nodded his agreement. I think Turner volunteered to not increase his selectman’s salary, but he didn’t volunteer to reduce it.
Then Juliette Haas, a town employee, made a plea for raising salaries.
It’s important to point out some facts. Bruce Cumsky is a small businessman whose business is undoubtedly suffering. Several members of the finance committee are in similar positions. Bruce Turner is a municipal employee of a town in the eastern part of the state. He’s hoping for money from the feds to help bail out towns (and let them avoid tough financial decisions). Tom Haas is the husband of Juliette. He’s also a library trustee, and that board continues apace to plan a new town library. You decide how those facts affect people’s positions.
I strongly believe Tom Haas should recuse himself from all discussions and votes on salaries. That is especially true since the selectmen are considering across the board increases, not ones tailored to individual employees. If it were the latter, he could recuse himself from voting on Juliette’s salary, and his conflict of interest would not be as great, although it would still be a conflict.
There are a lot of Egremonters whose incomes have declined, in some cases by a lot. Members of the selectboard may think it unfair not to raise salaries. They ought to think about the unfairness of asking taxpayers whose incomes have gone down – sometimes way down - to pony up for town employees lucky enough to still be employed. And they ought to think about the inappropriateness of voting to increase compensation of their relatives.
Monday, January 26, 2009
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!!
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!!
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
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.
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?
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?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, December 05, 2008
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"
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"
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
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."
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."
Friday, October 03, 2008
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?
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?
Saturday, September 20, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
