Cell Phone Service and "Right" to Speak
Yesterday the selectboard held a Saturday morning meeting so that second homeowners could vent. They did.
Most of the discussion revolved around the "right" to speak at town meetings. I understand it was passionate at times, but that not much substance was added to the debate. The issue should be resolved at the May town meeting, but if certain people don't get their way they may again decide to use that unneighborly device, the lawsuit. Sigh!
There was also a lot of disussion about cell phone service and our restrictive (that is, prohibitive) 17 page single spaced bylaw on cell towers and equipment. Most of the discussion was about the town hall site. Since the selectboard didn't make it clear, let me do so: THERE IS NO CHANCE IN HELL OF A TOWER BEING CONSTRUCTED ON THAT SITE. It's time (actually it's been time for quite a while) to stop talking about something that isn't going to happen and that just distracts us from meaningful discussion.
Let's see if we can break this down into simple components: (1) Townspeople overwhelmingly support cell phone service in town. (2) You can't have service without cell tower equipment. (3) A tower company has a deal with a property owner in the south half of town (which is where a tower has to be located) to put up a tower NOW. (4) At least one telecom company has indicated it would put an antenna on that tower. (5) Our zoning bylaw doesn't permit that tower for a whole bunch of reasons. (6) At the May town meeting we will vote on a zoning bylaw change that would permit that tower if it got a special permit from the selectboard. (7) Special permits require specific findings including compatibility with the neighborhood. (8) Special permits from the selectboard require that all three selectmen agree.
Am I missing something or is this a no brainer? The only reason not to vote for the zoning bylaw change is if you just don't want a cell tower in town and you don't care that you're keeping other people from living in the 21st century because you don't want to.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Common Driveway Bylaw
Article 26 on the agenda for the town meeting seeks to add a zoning bylaw allowing and regulating common driveways. When we adopt changes to town bylaws, the changes should be compatible with the bylaw being changed. When we don’t do that, we end up with inconsistencies and confusion that people unhappy with the change (and their lawyers) can then exploit for unintended consequences. In order to make the new common driveway bylaw compatible with the zoning bylaw, and to cure some mistakes and ambiguities in the proposed bylaw, I'm suggesting a number of changes. The first, and most obvious, one is to designate where the new bylaw goes; I'm suggesting making it section 4.3.6. The other changes are set forth below (the capital letters refer to the sections of the proposed bylaw). Stop reading now if you'll be bored by this wordsmithing. But just because it's boring doesn't mean it's not important.
A: Strike “abutting”; it’s meaningless. Strike “(s)”; singular is all that’s needed. Change “way” to “street”; that’s the correct defined term in the ZBL. Strike “that serves no more than four (4) dwelling units”; the bylaw is intended to govern ALL common driveways, and then prohibiting ones for more than 4 units in paragraph B. Add “so” before “only”; it’s an omission. Strike “the provisions of”; the permit will speak for itself, whether or not it contains “provisions”.
B: Change “units” to “dwellings”; that’s the term used in the ZBL. Change “dwelling units” to “dwellings”; same reason.
C. Strike “zoning”; this bylaw is right in the ZBL, and the ZBL doesn’t use that word in describing frontage. Strike the second sentence; it’s wrong; the “way” is most likely a public way, and there is no requirement nor procedure for a public way (or any other way, unless in a subdivision) to be acceptable to the Planning Board.
D. Change “requirements for” to “of”; it’s the design that must be adequate, not the design requirements. Delete the comma, or add one after “shall”; there should either be 2 or no commas.
E. Change “approved frontage” to “a street”; same reason as under A above.
F. Change “way” to “portion of the common driveway”; use of the term-of-art “way” is confusing in this context.
G. Add “permit for a” after “for a”; You don’t apply for a driveway, you apply for a permit. Change “driveways” at the end to “driveway”; it’s a mistake.
H. Add “on the lots served by the common driveway” after “buildings”; not all buildings are prohibited. Strike “approval plan”; it’s the permit that governs, not some approved plan. Strike “until”; or add “such time as” after it to maintain parallel structure. Change “have” to “has received”; grammar and a mistake.
Article 26 on the agenda for the town meeting seeks to add a zoning bylaw allowing and regulating common driveways. When we adopt changes to town bylaws, the changes should be compatible with the bylaw being changed. When we don’t do that, we end up with inconsistencies and confusion that people unhappy with the change (and their lawyers) can then exploit for unintended consequences. In order to make the new common driveway bylaw compatible with the zoning bylaw, and to cure some mistakes and ambiguities in the proposed bylaw, I'm suggesting a number of changes. The first, and most obvious, one is to designate where the new bylaw goes; I'm suggesting making it section 4.3.6. The other changes are set forth below (the capital letters refer to the sections of the proposed bylaw). Stop reading now if you'll be bored by this wordsmithing. But just because it's boring doesn't mean it's not important.
A: Strike “abutting”; it’s meaningless. Strike “(s)”; singular is all that’s needed. Change “way” to “street”; that’s the correct defined term in the ZBL. Strike “that serves no more than four (4) dwelling units”; the bylaw is intended to govern ALL common driveways, and then prohibiting ones for more than 4 units in paragraph B. Add “so” before “only”; it’s an omission. Strike “the provisions of”; the permit will speak for itself, whether or not it contains “provisions”.
B: Change “units” to “dwellings”; that’s the term used in the ZBL. Change “dwelling units” to “dwellings”; same reason.
C. Strike “zoning”; this bylaw is right in the ZBL, and the ZBL doesn’t use that word in describing frontage. Strike the second sentence; it’s wrong; the “way” is most likely a public way, and there is no requirement nor procedure for a public way (or any other way, unless in a subdivision) to be acceptable to the Planning Board.
D. Change “requirements for” to “of”; it’s the design that must be adequate, not the design requirements. Delete the comma, or add one after “shall”; there should either be 2 or no commas.
E. Change “approved frontage” to “a street”; same reason as under A above.
F. Change “way” to “portion of the common driveway”; use of the term-of-art “way” is confusing in this context.
G. Add “permit for a” after “for a”; You don’t apply for a driveway, you apply for a permit. Change “driveways” at the end to “driveway”; it’s a mistake.
H. Add “on the lots served by the common driveway” after “buildings”; not all buildings are prohibited. Strike “approval plan”; it’s the permit that governs, not some approved plan. Strike “until”; or add “such time as” after it to maintain parallel structure. Change “have” to “has received”; grammar and a mistake.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Planning Board Hearings; and NIMBYism
The Planning Board last night held hearings on two citizens' petitions that are on the agenda for the town meeting: a new bylaw covering common driveways; and revised bylaws covering cell phone service.
The driveway bylaw was mostly supported by those in attendance. They included several local real estate people and Mike Parsons (the surveyor) . Bill Turner, Tom Race and Jim Noe all seemed to be supporters as well, at least if the bylaw met their standards. I suspect the PB will come out in support, perhaps with some alterations.
The cell phone service bylaw also had lots of support, as well as some opposition. There was lots of discussion on the proposal's shifting of jurisdiction from the PB to the selectboard. Those in favor of that shift spoke about the PB's having spent many years on the problem without producing a workable framework for getting cell phone service in town. Whether you believe the PB has been intentionally dragging its feet or not, the simple fact is that our bylaw structure hasn't resulted in a single tower or telecom company coming into Egremont, and there is little evidence that that will change if the PB retains jurisdiction.
It will be interesting to see what the PB recommends. In the meantime, a serious proposal for a tower is being made, but it won't fly unless the bylaw is changed. If you want more history on this issue, look at some of the past postings on this blog.
After the hearing, a small discussion took place in which a town official intimated that even I wouldn't be an advocate of this bylaw change if the tower was proposed to be located on property adjacent to mine. That's the classic argument for giving credence to NIMBYism. I said, quite honestly, that if what my neighbor was doing didn't adversely affect my health or safety, I had no right to object. Of course, that attitude isn't widely shared in Massachusetts or New England (even though it still is in my native midwest). How far we have come from the attitudes of our forebears! Selfishness (whether individual or collective) seems to be the order of the day.
The Planning Board last night held hearings on two citizens' petitions that are on the agenda for the town meeting: a new bylaw covering common driveways; and revised bylaws covering cell phone service.
The driveway bylaw was mostly supported by those in attendance. They included several local real estate people and Mike Parsons (the surveyor) . Bill Turner, Tom Race and Jim Noe all seemed to be supporters as well, at least if the bylaw met their standards. I suspect the PB will come out in support, perhaps with some alterations.
The cell phone service bylaw also had lots of support, as well as some opposition. There was lots of discussion on the proposal's shifting of jurisdiction from the PB to the selectboard. Those in favor of that shift spoke about the PB's having spent many years on the problem without producing a workable framework for getting cell phone service in town. Whether you believe the PB has been intentionally dragging its feet or not, the simple fact is that our bylaw structure hasn't resulted in a single tower or telecom company coming into Egremont, and there is little evidence that that will change if the PB retains jurisdiction.
It will be interesting to see what the PB recommends. In the meantime, a serious proposal for a tower is being made, but it won't fly unless the bylaw is changed. If you want more history on this issue, look at some of the past postings on this blog.
After the hearing, a small discussion took place in which a town official intimated that even I wouldn't be an advocate of this bylaw change if the tower was proposed to be located on property adjacent to mine. That's the classic argument for giving credence to NIMBYism. I said, quite honestly, that if what my neighbor was doing didn't adversely affect my health or safety, I had no right to object. Of course, that attitude isn't widely shared in Massachusetts or New England (even though it still is in my native midwest). How far we have come from the attitudes of our forebears! Selfishness (whether individual or collective) seems to be the order of the day.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Quorum Requirement for Town Meeting
One item on the agenda for the upcoming town meeting is a proposal to change the quorum requirement from 60 to 100. It was on the warrant last year but didn't get voted on for technical reasons.
We've all seen too many instances of meetings being "stacked" by a small group of people - often people who otherwise don't attend town meetings regularly - who have a particular interest in some matter and who pass (or defeat) that matter even though a more representative group of voters would have voted the other way. Would you want the US Senate to have a quorum requirement of 7 (out of 100) so that 4 senators could pass legislation even if the other 96 senators would have voted the other way? That's essentially the situation in Egremont.
On a number of occasions in recent years, we've had to rally voters to come to special town meetings because otherwise a small group of dedicated people would have pushed through some action that would have helped them but hurt the rest of us. That just isn't democratic and it just isn't right. And it should be changed.
The problem is even worse when it comes to special town meetings. They're often far more unrepresentative than annual town meetings, because the voters who are affected by the issue under consideration come out in droves but the voters who aren't directly affected by it tend to stay home. That has happened twice in recent memory at special meetings deciding whether to buy another fire truck. (I'm not saying we did or didn't need a new fire truck, only that the decision wasn't democratic.) And the problem is made worse by the tendency of our current selectmen to call special town meetings to decide important issues, a practice that I strongly disagree with.
The opposition to this change will come from the town hall denizens. They'll say it's too hard to get people to come to town meeting. It seems to me the solution to that is to streamline town meeting, not to have decisions made by too small a group. (And remember the old adage: "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." Some recent town meetings have made decisions so bad that we'd have been better off if the meeting hadn't happened.)
So come to the town meeting and vote yes on this change!
Comments welcome, especially from the town hall denizens.
One item on the agenda for the upcoming town meeting is a proposal to change the quorum requirement from 60 to 100. It was on the warrant last year but didn't get voted on for technical reasons.
We've all seen too many instances of meetings being "stacked" by a small group of people - often people who otherwise don't attend town meetings regularly - who have a particular interest in some matter and who pass (or defeat) that matter even though a more representative group of voters would have voted the other way. Would you want the US Senate to have a quorum requirement of 7 (out of 100) so that 4 senators could pass legislation even if the other 96 senators would have voted the other way? That's essentially the situation in Egremont.
On a number of occasions in recent years, we've had to rally voters to come to special town meetings because otherwise a small group of dedicated people would have pushed through some action that would have helped them but hurt the rest of us. That just isn't democratic and it just isn't right. And it should be changed.
The problem is even worse when it comes to special town meetings. They're often far more unrepresentative than annual town meetings, because the voters who are affected by the issue under consideration come out in droves but the voters who aren't directly affected by it tend to stay home. That has happened twice in recent memory at special meetings deciding whether to buy another fire truck. (I'm not saying we did or didn't need a new fire truck, only that the decision wasn't democratic.) And the problem is made worse by the tendency of our current selectmen to call special town meetings to decide important issues, a practice that I strongly disagree with.
The opposition to this change will come from the town hall denizens. They'll say it's too hard to get people to come to town meeting. It seems to me the solution to that is to streamline town meeting, not to have decisions made by too small a group. (And remember the old adage: "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." Some recent town meetings have made decisions so bad that we'd have been better off if the meeting hadn't happened.)
So come to the town meeting and vote yes on this change!
Comments welcome, especially from the town hall denizens.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Town Meeting: Nicholson Road, Driveways and Cell Towers
The agenda for the May town meeting is pretty full. There are hearings scheduled BEFORE the meeting as follows: (1) On Apr1l 14 at 7:00 the selectboard will hold a hearing on the citizens' petition to abandon part of Nicholson Road. That road runs from the top of Molasses Hill, past the Catamount parking lot and into the driveway of the Swiss Hutte. If the abandonment occurred, the portion from the east edge of the Hakim property to the state line would go. (2) The planning board will hold a hearing at 7:00 on April 22 on the citizens' petition to add a bylaw governing common driveways. (3) And at 7:30 on April 22, the planning board will hold a hearing on the citizens' petition to change the zoning bylaw regarding cell towers to, in essence, eliminate many pages of verbiage by replacing them with a short provision (thus making cell towers subject to the same special permit procedures and requirements as other uses) and making the selectboard, not the planning board, the permit issuing authority (like is the case now with internet service and wired telecommunications services).
If any of these matters are of interest to you, you ought to attend the hearing on it, as well as the town meeting. As I understand it, the Nicholson Road matter was put forward by Mr. Hakim. Neighbors (including Catamount) may not be happy with this proposal. The common driveway matter was put forward by people interested in the development off Oxbow Road on the Hillsdale side and off Millard Road in Egremont. It will likely be controversial. The cell tower zoning change was put forward by me and others who have been pushing for cell phone service in town for some time. It's particularly timely because a cell tower company is actively pursuing the possibility of a tower on a site not permitted under our existing bylaw. So we'll have to change the bylaw if we want that tower.
More on all these matters later.
The agenda for the May town meeting is pretty full. There are hearings scheduled BEFORE the meeting as follows: (1) On Apr1l 14 at 7:00 the selectboard will hold a hearing on the citizens' petition to abandon part of Nicholson Road. That road runs from the top of Molasses Hill, past the Catamount parking lot and into the driveway of the Swiss Hutte. If the abandonment occurred, the portion from the east edge of the Hakim property to the state line would go. (2) The planning board will hold a hearing at 7:00 on April 22 on the citizens' petition to add a bylaw governing common driveways. (3) And at 7:30 on April 22, the planning board will hold a hearing on the citizens' petition to change the zoning bylaw regarding cell towers to, in essence, eliminate many pages of verbiage by replacing them with a short provision (thus making cell towers subject to the same special permit procedures and requirements as other uses) and making the selectboard, not the planning board, the permit issuing authority (like is the case now with internet service and wired telecommunications services).
If any of these matters are of interest to you, you ought to attend the hearing on it, as well as the town meeting. As I understand it, the Nicholson Road matter was put forward by Mr. Hakim. Neighbors (including Catamount) may not be happy with this proposal. The common driveway matter was put forward by people interested in the development off Oxbow Road on the Hillsdale side and off Millard Road in Egremont. It will likely be controversial. The cell tower zoning change was put forward by me and others who have been pushing for cell phone service in town for some time. It's particularly timely because a cell tower company is actively pursuing the possibility of a tower on a site not permitted under our existing bylaw. So we'll have to change the bylaw if we want that tower.
More on all these matters later.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Ducking Responsibility
When I go to the polls to vote, I like to know the positions of the candidates on issues important to me. And when I go to town meeting, I like to know the positions of the selectmen on the matters on the warrant. Sounds reasonable, right?
But our selectmen too often don't want to take positions. They frequently put items on the warrant not because they support them but because they want the voters to decide. In many cases that's appropriate, but aren't we at least entitled to know their positions on those items? We elect them to become familiar with and study the issues, and we need to know the results of that process because we may choose to go along with their recommendations. And when they explain their positions and the reasons for them, we can evaluate their performance to see if we want to re-elect them.
Alas, the selectmen seem to want to keep their positions to themselves. They refuse even to set forth their vote on the items they themselves put on the warrant! So if you want to know how a selectman feels about an issue, I guess you have to ask at the meeting when the issue arises. And don't be surprised if you get a wishy-washy answer or no answer.
When I go to the polls to vote, I like to know the positions of the candidates on issues important to me. And when I go to town meeting, I like to know the positions of the selectmen on the matters on the warrant. Sounds reasonable, right?
But our selectmen too often don't want to take positions. They frequently put items on the warrant not because they support them but because they want the voters to decide. In many cases that's appropriate, but aren't we at least entitled to know their positions on those items? We elect them to become familiar with and study the issues, and we need to know the results of that process because we may choose to go along with their recommendations. And when they explain their positions and the reasons for them, we can evaluate their performance to see if we want to re-elect them.
Alas, the selectmen seem to want to keep their positions to themselves. They refuse even to set forth their vote on the items they themselves put on the warrant! So if you want to know how a selectman feels about an issue, I guess you have to ask at the meeting when the issue arises. And don't be surprised if you get a wishy-washy answer or no answer.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
