I sent the following letter to Smitty Pignatelli (our MA state representative) and Ben Downing (our MA state senator):
Dear Mr. [Pignatelli][Downing]:
Changing the law on electing a U.S. senator would constitute politics stripped of even a modicum of principle, and the most egregious example of hypocrisy I have seen in my lifetime.
Elected representatives must sometimes take principled positions regardless of politics or political gain. Now is one of those times. Come election time, citizens will not forget or forgive those who demonstrate that they have no regard for principles.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Allen
Monday, September 07, 2009
Friday, September 04, 2009
Wind Energy
An article in today's WSJ highlighted the problems with wind energy caused by NIMBYism. All kinds of folks around the U.S. who call themselves "environmentalists" espouse full support for wind energy but suddenly find themselves objecting when an installation threatens their environs. Hypocrisy reigns.
Massachusetts is considering a law establishing statewide standards for siting wind energy installations but the NIMBYs are crying "local control." The proposed law doesn't say installations can go anywhere with no standards. It establishes stringent standards and applies them statewide. I haven't heard anyone saying the standards are no good. Rather the NIMBYs just want to be able to say "not here."
It is just pure hypocrisy to say you're in favor of wind power but opposed to this law.
Massachusetts is considering a law establishing statewide standards for siting wind energy installations but the NIMBYs are crying "local control." The proposed law doesn't say installations can go anywhere with no standards. It establishes stringent standards and applies them statewide. I haven't heard anyone saying the standards are no good. Rather the NIMBYs just want to be able to say "not here."
It is just pure hypocrisy to say you're in favor of wind power but opposed to this law.
French Park Dog Show
The French Park Fund is sponsoring a fun "doggie day" at French Park on October 10. There will be all kinds of events, and lots of dog contests like "best dressed dog" and "best kisser." Bring your dog and enter as many contests as you like for just $5. For more information, contact Karen Cumsky or Richard Goodkind or Carolyn Wilson.
Library
Congratulations to the library committee! They completely co-opted Michael Kelly, a reporter for the Berkshire Record, who wrote a front page article in this week's Record entitled "Egremont plans major replacement of library." Mr. Kelly, a bit of spadework would have revealed that the library committee may be planning for a new library, but the people of Egremont are not. Opposition is well over 90%.
Why? Well, for example the article didn't mention cost. The committee is playing that one close to the breast, but the realistic numbers are north of $4 million. That's more than $3,000 for each inhabitant of Egremont. No thanks, library committee, but Egremonters prefer to spend their money on things a bit more modern than a 20th century small town library.
The article says the large size was chosen to qualify for state grants. Come again? First, state grants are not free, they just amount to paying for something through state taxation rather than through local taxation. Second, let me get this straight: if the correct size of a project doesn't make economic sense, make it much bigger and then it does?
Why? Well, for example the article didn't mention cost. The committee is playing that one close to the breast, but the realistic numbers are north of $4 million. That's more than $3,000 for each inhabitant of Egremont. No thanks, library committee, but Egremonters prefer to spend their money on things a bit more modern than a 20th century small town library.
The article says the large size was chosen to qualify for state grants. Come again? First, state grants are not free, they just amount to paying for something through state taxation rather than through local taxation. Second, let me get this straight: if the correct size of a project doesn't make economic sense, make it much bigger and then it does?
Cell Tower
Mariner Tower has started the permit process for a possible tower on the Kelly property, south of Route 23 and west of Route 41. There was a hearing before the conservation commission on August 27. It may be a precursor for the eventual hearing (or rather hearings - they'll go on forever) before the planning board. Specifically, a number of opponents showed up at the concom hearing, and they'll be out in force when the planning board starts its proceedings. The objections are the usual ones, all reflecting various forms of NIMBYism: traffic, construction noise and dust, effect on animal life, etc. There were also veiled threats of a lawsuit to stop the tower.
If you think Egremont should have cell phone service, you need to make your voice heard: call (or better write) the selectboard and the planning board and tell them you support the Mariner application. It's not too early.
If you think Egremont should have cell phone service, you need to make your voice heard: call (or better write) the selectboard and the planning board and tell them you support the Mariner application. It's not too early.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Olver
What is our illustrious congressman afraid of? I called his office to find out the dates of his "town meetings." The imperious Mr. Olver is having none, apparently not caring what his constituents think about the important issues facing our country. After all, he's been annointed as our lifetime representative (or at least that's what he thinks).
I can't think of a single important congressional action that our congressman has accomplished during the many many years he's been in Washington. But he has certainly become part of the beltway crowd. It's time for him to go, gracefully or otherwise.
I can't think of a single important congressional action that our congressman has accomplished during the many many years he's been in Washington. But he has certainly become part of the beltway crowd. It's time for him to go, gracefully or otherwise.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Egremont on Parade
The now annual "Egremont on Parade" was held at French Park last Sunday. Despite threatening weather, it was a great success. Congrats to Bonnie and all the others who organized and ran it as smoothly as silk. If you missed it, make certain to watch for it next year.
The next big event at the park will be a dog show in early October being organized by the French Park Fund. Watch for publicity. This is going to be one of the "funnest" events ever.
The next big event at the park will be a dog show in early October being organized by the French Park Fund. Watch for publicity. This is going to be one of the "funnest" events ever.
Wind Energy Siting
I have sent the following letter to our selectboard. The report referred to can be found at http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Energy%2C+Utilities+%26+Clean+Technologies&L2=Renewable+Energy&L3=Wind&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=doer_renewables_wind_siting-reform&csid=Eoeea
July 28, 2009
Egremont Board of Selectmen
Dear Sirs:
Massachusetts is trying to encourage production of wind energy, an admirable goal. Because of undue delays caused by those who use local permitting requirements as tools to prevent projects they dislike, legislation entitled the “Wind Energy Siting Reform Act of 2009” has been introduced in the legislature. The legislation would make it more difficult for opponents to delay or kill wind projects. An objective report on the background and need for the legislation prepared by the state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs is attached.
Eleanor Tillinghast and a few others in our area have been stirring up opposition to the legislation, and several selectboards have been asked to take positions opposing the legislation. For the reasons well stated in the report of Energy and Environmental Affairs, I urge the Egremont selectboard to resist those entreaties and to instead take appropriate actions in support of the legislation.
Restricting local jurisdiction is necessary wherever “not in my backyard” syndrome inhibits implementation of socially important goals. There are at least two similar situations affecting Egremont: Federal legislation (the Telecommunications Act of 1996) restricts the ability of towns to prevent cell towers; and state legislation (commonly known as an “anti-snob law”) restricts the ability of towns to prevent affordable housing. By cleverly finding ways around those laws, and goaded by people like Ms. Tillinghast, a few Egremonters have successfully resisted efforts to bringing cell phone service to townspeople, and successfully discouraged production of any affordable housing in town. It is precisely because of situations like these that the new wind siting legislation is so important. Egremont should support it.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Allen
July 28, 2009
Egremont Board of Selectmen
Dear Sirs:
Massachusetts is trying to encourage production of wind energy, an admirable goal. Because of undue delays caused by those who use local permitting requirements as tools to prevent projects they dislike, legislation entitled the “Wind Energy Siting Reform Act of 2009” has been introduced in the legislature. The legislation would make it more difficult for opponents to delay or kill wind projects. An objective report on the background and need for the legislation prepared by the state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs is attached.
Eleanor Tillinghast and a few others in our area have been stirring up opposition to the legislation, and several selectboards have been asked to take positions opposing the legislation. For the reasons well stated in the report of Energy and Environmental Affairs, I urge the Egremont selectboard to resist those entreaties and to instead take appropriate actions in support of the legislation.
Restricting local jurisdiction is necessary wherever “not in my backyard” syndrome inhibits implementation of socially important goals. There are at least two similar situations affecting Egremont: Federal legislation (the Telecommunications Act of 1996) restricts the ability of towns to prevent cell towers; and state legislation (commonly known as an “anti-snob law”) restricts the ability of towns to prevent affordable housing. By cleverly finding ways around those laws, and goaded by people like Ms. Tillinghast, a few Egremonters have successfully resisted efforts to bringing cell phone service to townspeople, and successfully discouraged production of any affordable housing in town. It is precisely because of situations like these that the new wind siting legislation is so important. Egremont should support it.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Allen
Monday, July 06, 2009
Wind Energy
I'm always disgusted at people who claim to be acting on principle but show no consistency in their principles other than selfishness. Think of those rich people on Martha's Vineyard (or was it Nantucket?). They're really, really in favor of alternative energy sources -- until someone proposes them in their back yards. They strongly favor federal control of matters when they think the states will not do the "right" thing. But they decry the loss of "local control" when their own interests may be affected.
Such is the case with an activist in our area, who rallies and organizes support for the state to declare a portion of the Housatonic as a protected ACEC, whether the affected towns want that or not, but then rallies and organizes opposition to the state deciding where and how wind energy equipment will be located, bemoaning the loss of local control. This is just pure NIMBYism, and the only justification for NIMBYism is selfishness (or worse, imperialism). And collective selfishness is still selfishness, no matter how you rationalize it.
Governments learned long ago that when local opposition is inevitable to some program deemed of great public interest, local control must be squelched. For example, at the federal level, the need for nationwide cell phone service led Congress to strip localities of jurisdiction to stop cell towers (not that the law has stopped south Berkshire Luddites from opposing them). At the state level, the need for affordable housing led the legislature to strip local boards of their jurisdiction to cobble up spurious reasons to keep poor people out of their neighborhoods (same comment). Now the legislature understandably is going to strip local boards of jurisdiction over wind energy equipment. Can anyone doubt why?
This could be a good test for our planning board. So far, the PB has simply "questioned" the wisdom of the legislation. Let's await a more definitive position to see where the PB's stripes really are.
Such is the case with an activist in our area, who rallies and organizes support for the state to declare a portion of the Housatonic as a protected ACEC, whether the affected towns want that or not, but then rallies and organizes opposition to the state deciding where and how wind energy equipment will be located, bemoaning the loss of local control. This is just pure NIMBYism, and the only justification for NIMBYism is selfishness (or worse, imperialism). And collective selfishness is still selfishness, no matter how you rationalize it.
Governments learned long ago that when local opposition is inevitable to some program deemed of great public interest, local control must be squelched. For example, at the federal level, the need for nationwide cell phone service led Congress to strip localities of jurisdiction to stop cell towers (not that the law has stopped south Berkshire Luddites from opposing them). At the state level, the need for affordable housing led the legislature to strip local boards of their jurisdiction to cobble up spurious reasons to keep poor people out of their neighborhoods (same comment). Now the legislature understandably is going to strip local boards of jurisdiction over wind energy equipment. Can anyone doubt why?
This could be a good test for our planning board. So far, the PB has simply "questioned" the wisdom of the legislation. Let's await a more definitive position to see where the PB's stripes really are.
Egremont Police
There were two letters to the editor in last week's Berkshire Record, one castigating the newspaper for implying that the Egremont police did little more than giving out speeding tickets, and one castigating the newspaper for calling Egremont a speed trap. The first letter seems to treat every call to the police department as a police event. If you look at the annual police report, you'll start to chuckle at that characterization. The second letter made me chuckle without looking at anything else. If the whole world thinks that Egremont is a speed trap (and the whole world does), then guess what folks, IT IS A SPEED TRAP!
There are serious issues about our police department and what its future should look like, issues that merit serious discussion and decisions. Defending the department by mischaracterizing the facts doesn't help further that process.
For years I've jokingly suggested that we should eliminate the police department for one year and see if there's any measurable impact on crime in the town. If there isn't, why do we need the department? If there's more of this romanticization of the police department and what it does, I may start to make my own suggestion seriously.
There are serious issues about our police department and what its future should look like, issues that merit serious discussion and decisions. Defending the department by mischaracterizing the facts doesn't help further that process.
For years I've jokingly suggested that we should eliminate the police department for one year and see if there's any measurable impact on crime in the town. If there isn't, why do we need the department? If there's more of this romanticization of the police department and what it does, I may start to make my own suggestion seriously.
French Park
Accolades to Jen Brown and the Egremont Fire Department. Jen traveled all the trails in French Park, mapped out (with Nick Ball) where the trails needed clearing and convinced the fire department to volunteer to do the clearing work. Way to go, JB and our intrepid fire fighters!!
Friday, June 05, 2009
Bloated Town Government
Two recent events have made me revisit an old and gnawing issue. First, I was chatting with a local contractor who, in dealing with one of our town boards, was getting a very slow and very dumb response. I have similar conversations about once a month. Second, some folks who recently moved here permanently and who describe themselves as advocates of "regulation" (i.e., left wingers) have found that "regulation" in Egremont means having to go before many boards and being subject to many conditions, some of them inconsistent, in order to be able to build something that every rational human being on earth would conclude was a good thing and ought to be allowed. And they're facing at least a six month delay - and lots of extra expense - as a result. So not surprisingly they're starting to question their political beliefs.
I went back to the 2008 Egremont annual report and counted the governmental positions in town. According to the report, we have 26 elected officials and 158 appointed officials. That's a total of 184 governmental positions for a town with a population of 1,036. That results in governmental positions equal to almost 18% of population.
Obviously, we have too many people with time on their hands, many of whom probably ought to get jobs or do something with their lives. Add to that the fact that many of these governmental officials have no or inadequate experience and training, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what busybodiness occurs from this situation. And we've all seen how valid that old saw is: power corrupts. Egremont isn't exempt.
I went back to the 2008 Egremont annual report and counted the governmental positions in town. According to the report, we have 26 elected officials and 158 appointed officials. That's a total of 184 governmental positions for a town with a population of 1,036. That results in governmental positions equal to almost 18% of population.
Obviously, we have too many people with time on their hands, many of whom probably ought to get jobs or do something with their lives. Add to that the fact that many of these governmental officials have no or inadequate experience and training, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what busybodiness occurs from this situation. And we've all seen how valid that old saw is: power corrupts. Egremont isn't exempt.
Police, French Park and More
The minutes of the May 26 selectmen's meeting raise several issues.
The Good: (1) Accolades to those organizing the Memorial Day parade. They deserve it. (2) Accolades to the selectmen for looking into solar operated street lights. Not as a politically correct "green" measure, but from a cost perspective. (3) Accolades to them for starting to be serious about fire hydrant maintenance. Few things are more important for the town to deal with. (4) Accolades to Friends of Prospect Lake and the selectmen for finally starting to fix public access to Prospect Lake, and making it safe. Prospect Lake is a town asset that should be usable by townspeople. (5) Accolades to the selectmen for saying (time will tell if they walk the walk) they will seek out people to fill positions on town boards and committees, rather than just picking from whoever volunteers. That latter approach has too often resulted in boards populated by people who don't have any expertise and, worse, do have an agenda.
The Bad: (1) The resignation of the office clerk provides an opportunity for streamlining the duties of the full time employees at town hall. But it looks like a little band-aiding will be done and then we'll just hire a replacement. Why not use temporary help while a full assessment is done on the best way to divvy up the day-to-day work? It's not a secret that some of our full time employees have bigger work loads than others. (2) At least one of the selectmen thinks that the Egremont on Parade committee can decide to whom the net proceeds of that event should go. But that decision, and the accountability that goes with it, rests with the selectmen. They can't delegate imporatnt decisions, and especially financial ones, to town boards under their control. That's just a way to duck responsibility.
The Ugly: Do we all have some genetic defect that causes us to be unable to deal with the police department and its problems? First, do we really need to spend $25,000 for what is now called the "police feasability study"? Based on my experience, there are plenty of folks in town who could do that study for free. But of course that wouldn't result in CYA. Second, why must we vote on new police space at a fall special town meeting? The minutes of the May town meeting require a report to the town by the fall, but not to a town meeting. Large potential expenditures shouldn't be considered at special town meetings, where attendance is often sparse and where those especially interested in the issue often "pack" the meeting. Third, it is "cart before the horse" to be making decisions on police space before deciding what to do about the police department. Issues such as department size and turnover still need to be dealt with, as does regionalization. Otherwise, we run the risk of having unused or even empty police space after spending lots of money to build it.
Despite the "bad" and the "ugly," I'm optimistic about the selectboard's direction and its willingness to deal rationally and intelligently with town government.
The Good: (1) Accolades to those organizing the Memorial Day parade. They deserve it. (2) Accolades to the selectmen for looking into solar operated street lights. Not as a politically correct "green" measure, but from a cost perspective. (3) Accolades to them for starting to be serious about fire hydrant maintenance. Few things are more important for the town to deal with. (4) Accolades to Friends of Prospect Lake and the selectmen for finally starting to fix public access to Prospect Lake, and making it safe. Prospect Lake is a town asset that should be usable by townspeople. (5) Accolades to the selectmen for saying (time will tell if they walk the walk) they will seek out people to fill positions on town boards and committees, rather than just picking from whoever volunteers. That latter approach has too often resulted in boards populated by people who don't have any expertise and, worse, do have an agenda.
The Bad: (1) The resignation of the office clerk provides an opportunity for streamlining the duties of the full time employees at town hall. But it looks like a little band-aiding will be done and then we'll just hire a replacement. Why not use temporary help while a full assessment is done on the best way to divvy up the day-to-day work? It's not a secret that some of our full time employees have bigger work loads than others. (2) At least one of the selectmen thinks that the Egremont on Parade committee can decide to whom the net proceeds of that event should go. But that decision, and the accountability that goes with it, rests with the selectmen. They can't delegate imporatnt decisions, and especially financial ones, to town boards under their control. That's just a way to duck responsibility.
The Ugly: Do we all have some genetic defect that causes us to be unable to deal with the police department and its problems? First, do we really need to spend $25,000 for what is now called the "police feasability study"? Based on my experience, there are plenty of folks in town who could do that study for free. But of course that wouldn't result in CYA. Second, why must we vote on new police space at a fall special town meeting? The minutes of the May town meeting require a report to the town by the fall, but not to a town meeting. Large potential expenditures shouldn't be considered at special town meetings, where attendance is often sparse and where those especially interested in the issue often "pack" the meeting. Third, it is "cart before the horse" to be making decisions on police space before deciding what to do about the police department. Issues such as department size and turnover still need to be dealt with, as does regionalization. Otherwise, we run the risk of having unused or even empty police space after spending lots of money to build it.
Despite the "bad" and the "ugly," I'm optimistic about the selectboard's direction and its willingness to deal rationally and intelligently with town government.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Town Election
Turnout: 491 voters. Wow!!
Selectman: Burdsall - 343, Turner - 145
Water Commissioner: Gossage - 274, Allen - 173
Tree Warden: Olmsred - 343, St. Pierre - 130.
There IS a silent majority in Egremont, as evidenced by the last two elections for selectman. Last year, Bruce Cumsky easily defeated Mary Brazie, and this year Richard Burdsall whomped Bruce Turner. Cumsky and Burdsall oppose town extravaganzas like the library, etc., while Brazie and Turner represent the "government as usual" crowd. During the last 5 years or so, when there has been a low voter turnout, whether at a town meeting or an election, the result has been more government or more employees or more expenditures or all three. But when the voter turnout has been large, the opposite occurs. Think the sewer system, the zoning bylaw power grabbing rewrite, the annex proposal, etc.
If we really believe in democracy, not oligarchy, we should increase the quorum requirement for town meetings, reduce or eliminate special town meetings and decide major issues by adding them as referendum matters on the ballots used for elections.
Selectman: Burdsall - 343, Turner - 145
Water Commissioner: Gossage - 274, Allen - 173
Tree Warden: Olmsred - 343, St. Pierre - 130.
There IS a silent majority in Egremont, as evidenced by the last two elections for selectman. Last year, Bruce Cumsky easily defeated Mary Brazie, and this year Richard Burdsall whomped Bruce Turner. Cumsky and Burdsall oppose town extravaganzas like the library, etc., while Brazie and Turner represent the "government as usual" crowd. During the last 5 years or so, when there has been a low voter turnout, whether at a town meeting or an election, the result has been more government or more employees or more expenditures or all three. But when the voter turnout has been large, the opposite occurs. Think the sewer system, the zoning bylaw power grabbing rewrite, the annex proposal, etc.
If we really believe in democracy, not oligarchy, we should increase the quorum requirement for town meetings, reduce or eliminate special town meetings and decide major issues by adding them as referendum matters on the ballots used for elections.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Common Driveways
Whatever else you think of town meetings, they certainly can be entertaining, sort of like the Marx Brothers or the Three Stooges can be entertaining.
After much debate, Egremont passed a common driveway bylaw last night. During the debate, a voter tried to amend the bylaw by raising the maximum grade requirement from 10% to 12%, pointing out that Egremont is a hilly town. Oh no, cried some of the advocates (including the planning board), that would present a safety problem. How would a fire engine, for example, handle a steep grade?
So let's see how this will work in practice. Each of two adjacent land owners is building a house. They decide it would be nice to have a common driveway. The new bylaw would require that the driveway meet certain standards that presumably make it better: a little wider, better drainage, etc. But, alas, they discover they can't meet the maximum grade requirement. So each of them builds a separate driveway that is less wide, more easily washed out and generally more dangerous, as well as less attractive, than the common driveway would have been. And this benefits the town exactly how?
After much debate, Egremont passed a common driveway bylaw last night. During the debate, a voter tried to amend the bylaw by raising the maximum grade requirement from 10% to 12%, pointing out that Egremont is a hilly town. Oh no, cried some of the advocates (including the planning board), that would present a safety problem. How would a fire engine, for example, handle a steep grade?
So let's see how this will work in practice. Each of two adjacent land owners is building a house. They decide it would be nice to have a common driveway. The new bylaw would require that the driveway meet certain standards that presumably make it better: a little wider, better drainage, etc. But, alas, they discover they can't meet the maximum grade requirement. So each of them builds a separate driveway that is less wide, more easily washed out and generally more dangerous, as well as less attractive, than the common driveway would have been. And this benefits the town exactly how?
Police Station
At last night's town meeting, the voters turned down Bruce Turner's proposal to borrow $500,000 to build a new police station, voting instead for yet another study of the town hall property at a cost not to exceed $25,000. The primary justification for spending $500,000 now, according to Turner, was that the town was just about to pay off significant other debt and therefore it was a good time to borrow more.
That argument was shot down by Charles Flynn of the school committee, who pointed out that significant capital expenditures would be required at the Sheffield school during the next few years, and Egremont's share of them would be considerable.
Both Selectman Bruce Cumsky and the Finance Committee said they felt a bit sandbagged by Turner's presentation at the meeting of written materials and a power point presentation that had not been disclosed to them before the meeting.
We are suffering through a capital markets meltdown caused in large part by people who thought it was smart, as they were paying off their mortgages, to go right out and borrow more. Are we going to learn anything from this crisis? With respect to some of our elected officials in Egremont, apparently the answer is no.
That argument was shot down by Charles Flynn of the school committee, who pointed out that significant capital expenditures would be required at the Sheffield school during the next few years, and Egremont's share of them would be considerable.
Both Selectman Bruce Cumsky and the Finance Committee said they felt a bit sandbagged by Turner's presentation at the meeting of written materials and a power point presentation that had not been disclosed to them before the meeting.
We are suffering through a capital markets meltdown caused in large part by people who thought it was smart, as they were paying off their mortgages, to go right out and borrow more. Are we going to learn anything from this crisis? With respect to some of our elected officials in Egremont, apparently the answer is no.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Campaign Signs and Dirty Tricks?
You know election time is near when lawn signs start showing up all over town. The first ones were Turner signs, and they were soon accompanied by Burdsall signs. But then some of the Burdsall signs disappeared. It wasn't Burdsall supporters who removed them. Dirty tricks, right here in Egremont?
You won't be seeing Allen for Water Commissioner signs. In fact you won't be seeing much in the way of campaign materials in that regard. My platform is pretty simple. When the town voted to take over the Water Company, voters were told the users would pay all the costs so the taxpayers would never have to subsidize it. That has't happened, and the subsidy grows larger every year. I think the Water Commissioners are honor bound to run the operation in a businesslike fashion designed to eliminate the taxpayer subsidy. That hasn't happened either. I'll see that it does.
You won't be seeing Allen for Water Commissioner signs. In fact you won't be seeing much in the way of campaign materials in that regard. My platform is pretty simple. When the town voted to take over the Water Company, voters were told the users would pay all the costs so the taxpayers would never have to subsidize it. That has't happened, and the subsidy grows larger every year. I think the Water Commissioners are honor bound to run the operation in a businesslike fashion designed to eliminate the taxpayer subsidy. That hasn't happened either. I'll see that it does.
Nicholson Road/Millard Road
The agenda for Tuesday's town meeting includes an item seeking to abandon a part of Nicholson Road from the NY state line to the Hakim property (that's the property on which a huge house is being built just off Route 23 at the state line). It has been reported to the selectmen that the sponsors of that item have decided not to move its adoption.
At last year's town meeting, a committee was appointed to make a recommendation on the proposal to abandon a part of Millard Road near the NY border. I'm told the committee concluded that there should not be an abandonment, so that item isn't on the agenda for the town meeting.
At last year's town meeting, a committee was appointed to make a recommendation on the proposal to abandon a part of Millard Road near the NY border. I'm told the committee concluded that there should not be an abandonment, so that item isn't on the agenda for the town meeting.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
