The first selectboard meeting following the election took place on Tuesday. It was very civil, there was no name calling, and it was blissfully short. All good signs.
The pending state legislation on wind power siting came up again. (See my various postings on this subject in the past.) The board voted (Bruce Turner abstaining) to confirm its past position on the legislation and to convey that confirmation to our local representatives. So Egremont continues to take the "Kennedy-like" position, namely that wind power is great but not in my town. The board justifies its position by saying "we favor wind power, but our planning board should have a say in where it goes." Can you imagine our planning board ever approving a wind turbine in Egremont? Hypocrisy reigns again.
Speaking of which, the planning board withdrew its ill-advised proposal to take away its own discretion to waive provisions of the cell tower bylaw when it became obvious that townspeople were overwhelmingly opposed to that proposal. So the way is now reasonably clear for Mariner Tower to formally apply for a special permit to construct a tower on the Kelly property. We'll see if that application is made. Cell towers need to go up when the telecom companies indicate a need, and the "window of opportunity" is often short. Because of all the foot dragging, the opportunity may have gone away. If we are ever going to get cell phone service in town, the planning board has to become much more proactive, or we need to take the permitting power away from the planning board and put it in the selectboard where it belongs.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Town Meeting
I am very much a democrat (lower case "d"), and the conduct of the town meeting always upsets me because its anti-democratic.
First, a relatively small number of people - less than 10% of the town's voters - make legislative decisions that bind everyone. That often leads to decisions at the town meeting that the voters who weren't there would have opposed in large numbers. Not right.
Second, the voters who are in attendance often don't have a clue as to what particular items on the agenda are about. That's especially the case when the matter is complicated (and,worse, when the board proposing it makes it complicated) and no one adequately explains what its real impact is. Not right.
I am particularly upset at the way the budget was handled at the last meeting. In all the years I've been going to town meetings, a voter was allowed to put a "hold" on a line item and then that item would be separately discussed and voted on. But this year John Walther put holds on a number of items (and I recall that someone else put holds on a an item or two), but the budget was voted on as a whole, with no separate vote on the held items. So there was no point to having holds. Not fair.
We need to revamp the town meeting process. We need the warrant to in English, not legalese. We need to know how the members of the selectboard voted on each item, and why. We need simple explanations of items on the agenda. And where an item is controversial, we need statements for and against, just like the state does on statewide referendum items. And we need some way that the voters and the people on the stage can hear and understand each other, which often isn't the case.
First, a relatively small number of people - less than 10% of the town's voters - make legislative decisions that bind everyone. That often leads to decisions at the town meeting that the voters who weren't there would have opposed in large numbers. Not right.
Second, the voters who are in attendance often don't have a clue as to what particular items on the agenda are about. That's especially the case when the matter is complicated (and,worse, when the board proposing it makes it complicated) and no one adequately explains what its real impact is. Not right.
I am particularly upset at the way the budget was handled at the last meeting. In all the years I've been going to town meetings, a voter was allowed to put a "hold" on a line item and then that item would be separately discussed and voted on. But this year John Walther put holds on a number of items (and I recall that someone else put holds on a an item or two), but the budget was voted on as a whole, with no separate vote on the held items. So there was no point to having holds. Not fair.
We need to revamp the town meeting process. We need the warrant to in English, not legalese. We need to know how the members of the selectboard voted on each item, and why. We need simple explanations of items on the agenda. And where an item is controversial, we need statements for and against, just like the state does on statewide referendum items. And we need some way that the voters and the people on the stage can hear and understand each other, which often isn't the case.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
I'm Back!
Now that the election is over, I've been unmuzzled, and intend to speak out often and without restraint.
Let's start with the town meeting and the shameless political move made there by supporters of one candidate that resulted in a dumb financial decision.
At the end of every fiscal year, the town has an account called "free cash." It's the amount equal to the difference between what we brought in (taxes, fees, etc.) and what we spent. The town also has an account called "reserve fund." That's a sort of "rainy day" fund that can be used for unexpected - and usually big - items.
The state finance people wisely encourage towns to have a properly sized reserve fund to cover unexpected items to avoid a sudden bump-up in real estate taxes to pay for those items. And they say a town shouldn't spend its free cash account below a certain level because you may have an unexpected increase in some budgeted item - or an unexpected decline in some revenue source - that you'll need that cash to pay for. An example would be larger than expected outlays for major storm damage.
The town ended the fiscal year with more than the minimum necessary in free cash, so the selectboard, with the concurrence of the finance committee, recommended using some of it to pay for a few nonrecurring items and transferring $75,000 of it to the reserve fund.
One of the most contentious issues facing the town in recent years has been the continually increasing losses incurred by the water company. The finance committee squarely raised the issue for consideration by the voters by suggesting an upfront appropriation of $75,000 for the water company, rather than following our past practice of pretending that the water company would charge enough to its users to cover its costs and then "discovering" at the end of the year that there was a shortfall. (The whole issue of the water company and what to do about it will be the subject of future postings. Many townspeople - including me -are outraged.) That $75,000 appropriation was to be included in what would be covered by real estate taxes. Why? Because there's no sign that the shortfall is going away. It looks like it will be around forever, and you don't use free cash to cover something that's ongoing. That's like borrowing on your credit card and saying "well, I don't want to pay for it now; next year I'll tighten by belt."
But because one of the candidates for selectboard wanted to project an image of being a cost cutter, his supporters moved to pay that $75,000 out of free cash rather than through real estate taxes. Those supporters didn't object to any of the other expenditures in the budget. It was just a political move, not a fiscally responsible one. And those supporters carried the day at the meeting (Another reason why we need a larger quorum requirement at town meeting.)
Result: We put off an issue that should have been dealt with forthrightly; and we had to reduce the amount of free cash we put into the reserve fund. Let's hope our new selectman brings a bit more fiscal responsibility to selectboard meetings.
Let's start with the town meeting and the shameless political move made there by supporters of one candidate that resulted in a dumb financial decision.
At the end of every fiscal year, the town has an account called "free cash." It's the amount equal to the difference between what we brought in (taxes, fees, etc.) and what we spent. The town also has an account called "reserve fund." That's a sort of "rainy day" fund that can be used for unexpected - and usually big - items.
The state finance people wisely encourage towns to have a properly sized reserve fund to cover unexpected items to avoid a sudden bump-up in real estate taxes to pay for those items. And they say a town shouldn't spend its free cash account below a certain level because you may have an unexpected increase in some budgeted item - or an unexpected decline in some revenue source - that you'll need that cash to pay for. An example would be larger than expected outlays for major storm damage.
The town ended the fiscal year with more than the minimum necessary in free cash, so the selectboard, with the concurrence of the finance committee, recommended using some of it to pay for a few nonrecurring items and transferring $75,000 of it to the reserve fund.
One of the most contentious issues facing the town in recent years has been the continually increasing losses incurred by the water company. The finance committee squarely raised the issue for consideration by the voters by suggesting an upfront appropriation of $75,000 for the water company, rather than following our past practice of pretending that the water company would charge enough to its users to cover its costs and then "discovering" at the end of the year that there was a shortfall. (The whole issue of the water company and what to do about it will be the subject of future postings. Many townspeople - including me -are outraged.) That $75,000 appropriation was to be included in what would be covered by real estate taxes. Why? Because there's no sign that the shortfall is going away. It looks like it will be around forever, and you don't use free cash to cover something that's ongoing. That's like borrowing on your credit card and saying "well, I don't want to pay for it now; next year I'll tighten by belt."
But because one of the candidates for selectboard wanted to project an image of being a cost cutter, his supporters moved to pay that $75,000 out of free cash rather than through real estate taxes. Those supporters didn't object to any of the other expenditures in the budget. It was just a political move, not a fiscally responsible one. And those supporters carried the day at the meeting (Another reason why we need a larger quorum requirement at town meeting.)
Result: We put off an issue that should have been dealt with forthrightly; and we had to reduce the amount of free cash we put into the reserve fund. Let's hope our new selectman brings a bit more fiscal responsibility to selectboard meetings.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Berkshire Bank
The Bank is making charitable donations to local organizations, determined (at least in part) by vote of citizens. I'm putting in a pitch for you to vote for French Park Fund, 223 Egremont Plain Rd, PMB 108, North Egremont, MA 01252. To vote, go to http://www.berkshirebank.com/about_us/in_the_community/berkshire-bank-foundation/help-us-give-away-20000/vote-here/jte-vote-here and follow the instructions.
French Park Fund is conducting a major fund raising drive to buy new, modern, child-friendly playground equipment. Please send a tax deductible contribution to the Fund at the address above, or drop it off at town hall or the North Egremont store. Thanks!!
French Park Fund is conducting a major fund raising drive to buy new, modern, child-friendly playground equipment. Please send a tax deductible contribution to the Fund at the address above, or drop it off at town hall or the North Egremont store. Thanks!!
Monday, November 09, 2009
Doggie Day at French Park
The first annual Doggie Day at French Park, sponsored by the French Park Fund, was a spectacular success. Thanks to all who participated, and special thanks to Karen Cumsky, who worked tirelessly as the chief organizer, and Mickey Fierman, who beat the bushes for contributions.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Planning Board
The PB has announced it is considering a "fence" bylaw. Let them know how you feel about that. My preliminary reaction: Why do we need one? If it ain't broke . . .
Friday, October 02, 2009
Massive Capital Expenditures
Keep your ears to the ground on the two proposed Egremont edifices: The library committee continues on their merry way planning Egremont's taj mahal; and the selectboard seems increasingly hell bent on a new police building. Do you think either of these projects will be analyzed and/or presented in an objective fashion? Yeah, right. Why not have the analyses and presentations done by disinterested Egremonters?
This reminds me of the vote at the May town meeting on employee salaries. You may remember that the selectboard recommended raises but the finance committee was opposed. The vote was pretty close, but the raises were approved. But if you didn't count the votes of the employees and their families, the result would have been the opposite. Is there a lesson in here somewhere?
11/4/09: I hear the estimates are in for new police quarters, and they're in the stratosphere. Since crime rates in nearby towns that have no police are not higher than ours, why do we need to spend so much on police?
This reminds me of the vote at the May town meeting on employee salaries. You may remember that the selectboard recommended raises but the finance committee was opposed. The vote was pretty close, but the raises were approved. But if you didn't count the votes of the employees and their families, the result would have been the opposite. Is there a lesson in here somewhere?
11/4/09: I hear the estimates are in for new police quarters, and they're in the stratosphere. Since crime rates in nearby towns that have no police are not higher than ours, why do we need to spend so much on police?
Doggie Day
If you have a dog, go to French Park next Saturday (October 10) for Doggie Day. I guarantee you'll have a good time. And you'll be helping raise money for replacing the outdated playground equipment at the park with stuff kids will love and will be a bit safer.
Wind Power
The selectmen are trying to contribute to wind in Massachusetts, although not to wind power. Here's their recent letter to our governor, our assemblyman and our senator on the pending wind power siting legislation before the state legislature. My comments are interspersed.
"The Selectboard of Egremont is writing to state its position regarding the developing legislation for the siting of wind turbines in Massachusetts. First, we want to be clear that we are in support of finding alternative energy sources for a secure and safe future of our great state and country. This is NOT a debate regarding wind power. We believe that there are many solutions that can be employed to gain our energy independence - wind, solar and hydro being just a few, and we support all well thought-out solutions." Whenever you see an introduction like this (especially in a politician's letter), you know what's going to follow. They don't really support it at all. This reminds me of what a very wise person told me years ago: Whenever someone stating a position uses the word "but" in a sentence, you can ignore everything in the sentence that precedes that word. Not surprisingly, here's what follows:
"The Selectboard of Egremont believes its local Planning Board has been duly elected by our citizens to act in their behalf and to review projects that fall under their jurisdiction. We believe that they have the greatest knowledge of our community and are in the appropriate position to recommend what is in the best interests of our community." Give me a break. Anyone who has spoken with our selectmen knows how they feel about the planning board. But I give them credit for their political astuteness. Whenever you don't want to take a position because it's going to cost you votes whichever way you go, figure out a way to duck.
"We disagree with any attempt to remove either Egremont’s Planning Board from the review and approval process regarding wind turbine siting locally or the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission from the review and approval process regionally. To be clear, this is not about wind power as an alternative energy source, but rather a matter of exercising local control of our community and having more say in its development than allowed by the recent legislative draft." Translated, we want the power to keep wind power installations out of our community. As the selectmen well know, the legislation doesn't just allow wind power anywhere the industry wants it. It sets out pretty thorough statewide standards that must be met for wind power installations. Local control will only put on additional limits (i.e., prohibitions); it certainly won't result in easing the statewide standards. If you lined up every expert in the world on this subject, with viewpoints across every spectrum imaginable, and they all agreed on the applicable standards, the NIMBYs in Egremont would still want to be able to veto an installation. So this IS about wind power, because it inevitably restricts it. So it's hypocritical for the selectboard to say, as they did, that they're in favor of wind power. What they should have said is that they're in favor of wind power only if it's somewhere else.
"Our citizens have placed their trust in our actions to protect their interests. While you are currently reviewing the wind turbine legislation we strongly request that you consider these comments as you move forward in preparing a fair, balanced and inclusive proposal." The legislation is already fair and balanced. And when it comes to something like wind power installations, I'd much rather put my trust in the experts, not people whose only interest is to keep it out regardless of its social value.
"The Selectboard of Egremont is writing to state its position regarding the developing legislation for the siting of wind turbines in Massachusetts. First, we want to be clear that we are in support of finding alternative energy sources for a secure and safe future of our great state and country. This is NOT a debate regarding wind power. We believe that there are many solutions that can be employed to gain our energy independence - wind, solar and hydro being just a few, and we support all well thought-out solutions." Whenever you see an introduction like this (especially in a politician's letter), you know what's going to follow. They don't really support it at all. This reminds me of what a very wise person told me years ago: Whenever someone stating a position uses the word "but" in a sentence, you can ignore everything in the sentence that precedes that word. Not surprisingly, here's what follows:
"The Selectboard of Egremont believes its local Planning Board has been duly elected by our citizens to act in their behalf and to review projects that fall under their jurisdiction. We believe that they have the greatest knowledge of our community and are in the appropriate position to recommend what is in the best interests of our community." Give me a break. Anyone who has spoken with our selectmen knows how they feel about the planning board. But I give them credit for their political astuteness. Whenever you don't want to take a position because it's going to cost you votes whichever way you go, figure out a way to duck.
"We disagree with any attempt to remove either Egremont’s Planning Board from the review and approval process regarding wind turbine siting locally or the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission from the review and approval process regionally. To be clear, this is not about wind power as an alternative energy source, but rather a matter of exercising local control of our community and having more say in its development than allowed by the recent legislative draft." Translated, we want the power to keep wind power installations out of our community. As the selectmen well know, the legislation doesn't just allow wind power anywhere the industry wants it. It sets out pretty thorough statewide standards that must be met for wind power installations. Local control will only put on additional limits (i.e., prohibitions); it certainly won't result in easing the statewide standards. If you lined up every expert in the world on this subject, with viewpoints across every spectrum imaginable, and they all agreed on the applicable standards, the NIMBYs in Egremont would still want to be able to veto an installation. So this IS about wind power, because it inevitably restricts it. So it's hypocritical for the selectboard to say, as they did, that they're in favor of wind power. What they should have said is that they're in favor of wind power only if it's somewhere else.
"Our citizens have placed their trust in our actions to protect their interests. While you are currently reviewing the wind turbine legislation we strongly request that you consider these comments as you move forward in preparing a fair, balanced and inclusive proposal." The legislation is already fair and balanced. And when it comes to something like wind power installations, I'd much rather put my trust in the experts, not people whose only interest is to keep it out regardless of its social value.
Monday, September 07, 2009
US Senate Election?!?!
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
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
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.
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.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Unsung Heroes
There are many Egremonters who do good things for the town and its people but don't get (nor expect) credit for them. An example is the new hydrant, and its new source pond, on Blunt Road. That hydrant will be there if needed (God forbid) for a fire on Blunt Road, and, even if there never is a fire, will likely reduce the insurance premiums paid by those homeowners who are near it. Three people deserve accolades for getting that hydant and pond put in: Bill Weigle, for researching its location and shepherding it through all the approvals and other necessary actions; Bruce Bernstein, for allowing his land to be dedicated to that use; and Bill Warner, for digging the pond and doing the other heavy work at virtually no cost to the town.
These people are models for what it means to be a good neighbor. Unlike many Egremonters, they did the reverse of trying to stop what their neighbors were doing; they did what was right for everyone. There are far too many NIMBYs in Egremont who use the planning board, the conservation commission, the zoning board of appeals and the board of health to further their own selfish desires at the expense of their neighbors.
Thanks, Bill, Bruce and Bill, for your selfless attitude. Keep it up.
There are many Egremonters who do good things for the town and its people but don't get (nor expect) credit for them. An example is the new hydrant, and its new source pond, on Blunt Road. That hydrant will be there if needed (God forbid) for a fire on Blunt Road, and, even if there never is a fire, will likely reduce the insurance premiums paid by those homeowners who are near it. Three people deserve accolades for getting that hydant and pond put in: Bill Weigle, for researching its location and shepherding it through all the approvals and other necessary actions; Bruce Bernstein, for allowing his land to be dedicated to that use; and Bill Warner, for digging the pond and doing the other heavy work at virtually no cost to the town.
These people are models for what it means to be a good neighbor. Unlike many Egremonters, they did the reverse of trying to stop what their neighbors were doing; they did what was right for everyone. There are far too many NIMBYs in Egremont who use the planning board, the conservation commission, the zoning board of appeals and the board of health to further their own selfish desires at the expense of their neighbors.
Thanks, Bill, Bruce and Bill, for your selfless attitude. Keep it up.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Selectmen Animosity
I went to the selectmen's meeting last night. It was a real eye opener. I urge all of you to go to a meeting to see how bad things have gotten. Animosity permeates the room and rudeness results.
Bruce Cumsky continues to raise issues and take positions that Bruce Turner and Tom Haas don't like. When Cumsky pushes the issue, Turner (and sometimes Haas) becomes rude, both to Cumsky and to whoever in the audience agrees with Cumsky. The atmosphere is pretty poisonous.
For example, last night Cumsky reiterated his request that all boards and departments prepare draft budgets for next year reflecting 5% expense reductions. That seems right to lots of us, since times are going to get very tough for towns and are already tough for many taxpayers. But Turner resists this openly, Haas more quietly. Turner says our taxes are relatively low, so we shouldn't be cutting expenses and the services they provide. That position might be defensible in ordinary times, but it's just irresponsible given what's going on in the world and in Massachusetts. Maybe things will get better, maybe they won't. But to not plan for bad times seems foolhardy.
Turner's position isn't surprising in light of his past positions. He has publicly stated more than once that since the town is in the process of paying off loans for some past capital items, we have the "opportunity" to rehabilitate the town hall, build a new library, etc. I call that the "edifice" complex. How about reducing taxes, Bruce? Tom?
As you might suspect, I am not well received at selectmen's meetings. But that won't stop me from publicizing the positions of our officials. The voters need to know who is watching out for them and who is watching out for themselves.
Don't believe me? Go to a meeting and see for yourselves. Disagree with me? Post your views; they're always encouraged.
I went to the selectmen's meeting last night. It was a real eye opener. I urge all of you to go to a meeting to see how bad things have gotten. Animosity permeates the room and rudeness results.
Bruce Cumsky continues to raise issues and take positions that Bruce Turner and Tom Haas don't like. When Cumsky pushes the issue, Turner (and sometimes Haas) becomes rude, both to Cumsky and to whoever in the audience agrees with Cumsky. The atmosphere is pretty poisonous.
For example, last night Cumsky reiterated his request that all boards and departments prepare draft budgets for next year reflecting 5% expense reductions. That seems right to lots of us, since times are going to get very tough for towns and are already tough for many taxpayers. But Turner resists this openly, Haas more quietly. Turner says our taxes are relatively low, so we shouldn't be cutting expenses and the services they provide. That position might be defensible in ordinary times, but it's just irresponsible given what's going on in the world and in Massachusetts. Maybe things will get better, maybe they won't. But to not plan for bad times seems foolhardy.
Turner's position isn't surprising in light of his past positions. He has publicly stated more than once that since the town is in the process of paying off loans for some past capital items, we have the "opportunity" to rehabilitate the town hall, build a new library, etc. I call that the "edifice" complex. How about reducing taxes, Bruce? Tom?
As you might suspect, I am not well received at selectmen's meetings. But that won't stop me from publicizing the positions of our officials. The voters need to know who is watching out for them and who is watching out for themselves.
Don't believe me? Go to a meeting and see for yourselves. Disagree with me? Post your views; they're always encouraged.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Special Town Meeting
All the articles passed. One barely passed, the one about hiring an engineer (at up to $20,000) to analyze possible renovations at town hall. I'm told the opposition was based on getting experts in town to do the work, for free. But "cover your ass" mentality permeates town hall. Hmmmmm!
The cell tower charade also passed. Now the selectboard will put out an RFP for leasing town land to a tower company, with the expectation that no one will bid, and therefore we'll all rise up in opposition to the planning board and other cell opponents, and get a real cell tower bylaw passed, instead of the nonsensical (and probably illegal) one we have now. I've commented before about the oiliness of that approach, but we're stuck with it now.
I just hope the RFP doesn't screw things up, and there are several ways that could happen. First, there are cell tower companies out there, especially the smaller ones, that build up "inventories" of sites as a way to market themselves to the telecom companies. One or more of them might bid to increase their "inventory," even though they know there's no chance of actually erecting a tower on the town hall site. That can be handled by saying in the RFP that actual construction must start within, say, 6 months of awarding the contract, with penalties for not doing so. Second, the RFP should be completely consistent with the zoning bylaw. It should make it clear that a special permit is required from the planning board, not just approval by the selectboard, and should outline some of the provisions of the bylaw, such as no lights, minimum distances, etc. Otherwise, a bidder might argue that it reasonably believed the requirements set forth in the RFP were the only ones that had to be met. Third, the RFP should have tight time deadlines, but they should be realistic, or bidders could argue that it was impossible to comply. Same with other requirements: no impossibly difficult ones.
All of these problems, if the RFP isn't done right, could lead to having to start the process over and over, with delay after delay. That just plays into the hands of the "no cell towers ever" crowd.
I still don't understand why we have to go down this path at all. Why not just deal with the cell tower issue straight up? See my posting below under "Town Meeting: Cell Towers."
All the articles passed. One barely passed, the one about hiring an engineer (at up to $20,000) to analyze possible renovations at town hall. I'm told the opposition was based on getting experts in town to do the work, for free. But "cover your ass" mentality permeates town hall. Hmmmmm!
The cell tower charade also passed. Now the selectboard will put out an RFP for leasing town land to a tower company, with the expectation that no one will bid, and therefore we'll all rise up in opposition to the planning board and other cell opponents, and get a real cell tower bylaw passed, instead of the nonsensical (and probably illegal) one we have now. I've commented before about the oiliness of that approach, but we're stuck with it now.
I just hope the RFP doesn't screw things up, and there are several ways that could happen. First, there are cell tower companies out there, especially the smaller ones, that build up "inventories" of sites as a way to market themselves to the telecom companies. One or more of them might bid to increase their "inventory," even though they know there's no chance of actually erecting a tower on the town hall site. That can be handled by saying in the RFP that actual construction must start within, say, 6 months of awarding the contract, with penalties for not doing so. Second, the RFP should be completely consistent with the zoning bylaw. It should make it clear that a special permit is required from the planning board, not just approval by the selectboard, and should outline some of the provisions of the bylaw, such as no lights, minimum distances, etc. Otherwise, a bidder might argue that it reasonably believed the requirements set forth in the RFP were the only ones that had to be met. Third, the RFP should have tight time deadlines, but they should be realistic, or bidders could argue that it was impossible to comply. Same with other requirements: no impossibly difficult ones.
All of these problems, if the RFP isn't done right, could lead to having to start the process over and over, with delay after delay. That just plays into the hands of the "no cell towers ever" crowd.
I still don't understand why we have to go down this path at all. Why not just deal with the cell tower issue straight up? See my posting below under "Town Meeting: Cell Towers."
Friday, October 03, 2008
Cell Phones
The special town meeting is tomorrow. I spoke again today to the Mariner Tower rep who proposed the possibility of a tower at the town hall site earlier this year. He said he had not yet received a formal response from the FAA, but was confident the FAA would disapprove a tower at the town hall site. He also said he thought a tower at Proctor's farm could not get FAA approval. I suggested the Egremont Country Club, and he thought that site was too far east.
To cover the south half of town, the ideal site would be south of Route 23 and west of the south village. Any ideas?
The special town meeting is tomorrow. I spoke again today to the Mariner Tower rep who proposed the possibility of a tower at the town hall site earlier this year. He said he had not yet received a formal response from the FAA, but was confident the FAA would disapprove a tower at the town hall site. He also said he thought a tower at Proctor's farm could not get FAA approval. I suggested the Egremont Country Club, and he thought that site was too far east.
To cover the south half of town, the ideal site would be south of Route 23 and west of the south village. Any ideas?
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Town Meeting: Water Company Cost Overruns
When will this nightmare end? Year after year, the water company takes in far less than it spends, and the taxpayers have to make up the difference. When the water company was established, townspeople were told it would be self-supporting. It's just not fair for most of us to have to bear the cost of our own wells, maintenance, water testing, etc, and then have to also subsidize the water company's customers. When are we going to say "enough" and elect water commissioners who will promise to set rates that will cover expenses? And if it turns out that can't be done, let's sell the water company to the users and let them control their own fate.
When will this nightmare end? Year after year, the water company takes in far less than it spends, and the taxpayers have to make up the difference. When the water company was established, townspeople were told it would be self-supporting. It's just not fair for most of us to have to bear the cost of our own wells, maintenance, water testing, etc, and then have to also subsidize the water company's customers. When are we going to say "enough" and elect water commissioners who will promise to set rates that will cover expenses? And if it turns out that can't be done, let's sell the water company to the users and let them control their own fate.
Town Meeting: Article 3
This article seeks $20,000 to hire someone to assess renovation of town hall. There is continuing concern about ADA compliance, and other renovations certainly could be considered. If this has to be done, I'd prefer using the expertise of townspeople (at no cost) rather than paying an outside consultant, but that attitude has always fallen on deaf ears down at town hall. Consultants often buttress the "edifice complex" of some of the town hall denizens, producing grandiose proposals like the ones I've starting hearing about for a library.
It's important to note this appropriation would be for town hall only, not a police station or a library or a senior center or any other pipe dream. Of course, one thing can lead to another, and I worry about the "getting a little bit pregnant" risk.
I need to be convinced that we really need to do this before I vote for it.
This article seeks $20,000 to hire someone to assess renovation of town hall. There is continuing concern about ADA compliance, and other renovations certainly could be considered. If this has to be done, I'd prefer using the expertise of townspeople (at no cost) rather than paying an outside consultant, but that attitude has always fallen on deaf ears down at town hall. Consultants often buttress the "edifice complex" of some of the town hall denizens, producing grandiose proposals like the ones I've starting hearing about for a library.
It's important to note this appropriation would be for town hall only, not a police station or a library or a senior center or any other pipe dream. Of course, one thing can lead to another, and I worry about the "getting a little bit pregnant" risk.
I need to be convinced that we really need to do this before I vote for it.
Town Meeting: Cell Towers
Article 1 on the warrant for the October 4 special town meeting seeks to empower the selectmen to lease a portion of the town hall property to a cell tower company. It is an exercise in futility.
Two years ago we adopted a cell tower zoning bylaw that was designed to prevent cell towers in town. Among its many defects: (1) Celltowers are permitted only at Catamount and the town hall property on Route 71. There has been a tower on Catamount for years and, despite some extensive marketing efforts by the company that owns it, no telecom company (i.e., cell phone company) is interested in putting an antenna on it. It's just in the wrong place; it doesn't provide coverage adequate for a telecom company to want to use it. The town hall property is in the runway path of the Great Barrington airport. It is likely the FAA would not permit any tower anywhere on the site, and it is virtually certain the FAA would not allow it if the airport owner and the pilots who use the airport are opposed. They are. (2) The bylaw doesn't permit any lighting on a tower. Can you imagine a tower in the runway path of an airport without lighting? (3) A tower must be at least 500 feet from any dwelling and at least one and one-half times its height from the property boundary. It's not clear those requirements could ever be met at the town hall site, especially given the need to erect a tower where it will provide the coverage the telecom companies want. (4) Even if all these (and a host of other) obstacles could be miraculously overcome, a tower would require a special permit from the planning board (which requires the positive vote of 4 of the 5 members of the PB), and their record on this issue doesn't inspire optimism.
I've spoken to the guy from Mariner Tower whose visit to town hall early this summer precipitated this article. He is pretty certain that no tower could be built at town hall. There is no reason to think any other tower company would feel otherwise. So what's the point of putting this empty exercise before the voters? There's a theory that once the voters approve it, get excited about the possibility of getting cell phone service in town and then find out it ain't gonna happen, they'll rise up in anger and demand that the zoning bylaw be changed. That's a tactic I might have come up with when I was a Wall Street lawyer. But it seems inappropriate in any open democratic process, and it doesn't pass my smell test.
I think we ought to face the cell phone service situation head-on. First, we should actively seek input from the tower companies and telecom companies. (Would you believe that when the PB formulated its bylaw 2 years ago, it didn't speak to a single tower company or telecom company?) I know from conversations with the companies that they need and want a tower in the south part of town, toward the east end. Second, we should amend the bylaw to permit towers where the companies want them. That doesn't risk having towers in inappropriate locations: the bylaw requires a host of "compatability" findings before a special permit will issue. Third, we should amend the bylaw to remove all its impediments that artificially prevent or seriously impede the companies from complying with it. (And if we don't do that, we risk a lawsuit from one of the companies seeking to hold our bylaw illegal under federal law, which it probably is.) Fourth, we should put the permitting authority in the selectboard. That's where the authority lies with respect to wired or wireless internet service (such as WiSpring), and the considerations for cell phone equipment are the same and should be before the same board.
So I'm planning to vote against article 1 on the ground that any amount we spend on this useless exercise is money wasted. And next May, if the selectboard won't do it, I'll put forth the changes suggested above by citizens' petition.
Article 1 on the warrant for the October 4 special town meeting seeks to empower the selectmen to lease a portion of the town hall property to a cell tower company. It is an exercise in futility.
Two years ago we adopted a cell tower zoning bylaw that was designed to prevent cell towers in town. Among its many defects: (1) Celltowers are permitted only at Catamount and the town hall property on Route 71. There has been a tower on Catamount for years and, despite some extensive marketing efforts by the company that owns it, no telecom company (i.e., cell phone company) is interested in putting an antenna on it. It's just in the wrong place; it doesn't provide coverage adequate for a telecom company to want to use it. The town hall property is in the runway path of the Great Barrington airport. It is likely the FAA would not permit any tower anywhere on the site, and it is virtually certain the FAA would not allow it if the airport owner and the pilots who use the airport are opposed. They are. (2) The bylaw doesn't permit any lighting on a tower. Can you imagine a tower in the runway path of an airport without lighting? (3) A tower must be at least 500 feet from any dwelling and at least one and one-half times its height from the property boundary. It's not clear those requirements could ever be met at the town hall site, especially given the need to erect a tower where it will provide the coverage the telecom companies want. (4) Even if all these (and a host of other) obstacles could be miraculously overcome, a tower would require a special permit from the planning board (which requires the positive vote of 4 of the 5 members of the PB), and their record on this issue doesn't inspire optimism.
I've spoken to the guy from Mariner Tower whose visit to town hall early this summer precipitated this article. He is pretty certain that no tower could be built at town hall. There is no reason to think any other tower company would feel otherwise. So what's the point of putting this empty exercise before the voters? There's a theory that once the voters approve it, get excited about the possibility of getting cell phone service in town and then find out it ain't gonna happen, they'll rise up in anger and demand that the zoning bylaw be changed. That's a tactic I might have come up with when I was a Wall Street lawyer. But it seems inappropriate in any open democratic process, and it doesn't pass my smell test.
I think we ought to face the cell phone service situation head-on. First, we should actively seek input from the tower companies and telecom companies. (Would you believe that when the PB formulated its bylaw 2 years ago, it didn't speak to a single tower company or telecom company?) I know from conversations with the companies that they need and want a tower in the south part of town, toward the east end. Second, we should amend the bylaw to permit towers where the companies want them. That doesn't risk having towers in inappropriate locations: the bylaw requires a host of "compatability" findings before a special permit will issue. Third, we should amend the bylaw to remove all its impediments that artificially prevent or seriously impede the companies from complying with it. (And if we don't do that, we risk a lawsuit from one of the companies seeking to hold our bylaw illegal under federal law, which it probably is.) Fourth, we should put the permitting authority in the selectboard. That's where the authority lies with respect to wired or wireless internet service (such as WiSpring), and the considerations for cell phone equipment are the same and should be before the same board.
So I'm planning to vote against article 1 on the ground that any amount we spend on this useless exercise is money wasted. And next May, if the selectboard won't do it, I'll put forth the changes suggested above by citizens' petition.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Saturday Special Town Meeting
Congratulations to the selectboard for holding the upcoming special town meeting on a Saturday. Neither I nor anyone else knows if more people will come to a Saturday meeting, but it's worth a try. We'll see.
Of course, more or fewer people come to town meetings depending on how controversial the agenda is. So counting heads at the upcoming meeting may not prove anything.
But we desparately need to increase attendance at town meetings, so it's important to determine whether Saturday mornings are better or worse than, say, Tuesday evenings. I think the selectboard intends to ask those who come to the upcoming meeting which they prefer. That will likely prove that the people who come to a Saturday meeting have a preference for Saturday. Duh! Why not poll the populace to see what they prefer? I can think of several ways to do that: (1) Use the town's e-mail list. (2) Have voters fill out a questionnaire at the next election opportunity. (3) Send something out with tax bills.
I can already imagine the objections down at town hall. Sometimes I think we have an aristocracy in this town, not a democracy.
Congratulations to the selectboard for holding the upcoming special town meeting on a Saturday. Neither I nor anyone else knows if more people will come to a Saturday meeting, but it's worth a try. We'll see.
Of course, more or fewer people come to town meetings depending on how controversial the agenda is. So counting heads at the upcoming meeting may not prove anything.
But we desparately need to increase attendance at town meetings, so it's important to determine whether Saturday mornings are better or worse than, say, Tuesday evenings. I think the selectboard intends to ask those who come to the upcoming meeting which they prefer. That will likely prove that the people who come to a Saturday meeting have a preference for Saturday. Duh! Why not poll the populace to see what they prefer? I can think of several ways to do that: (1) Use the town's e-mail list. (2) Have voters fill out a questionnaire at the next election opportunity. (3) Send something out with tax bills.
I can already imagine the objections down at town hall. Sometimes I think we have an aristocracy in this town, not a democracy.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Board of Health Dust-Up
This week's Berkshire Record reports on the BOH/Karen Waller dust-up at the Egremont Inn. From what I know, the article is fairly accurate. And it's more evidence of how a minor incident can be blown out of proportion by overly sensitive people. (I say minor incident, because no reasonable person could take Karen's alleged threat seriously.) I'll repeat my prior statement: If you work for the BOH and go around telling people they have to spend many tens of thousands of dollars to "fix" a problem with their septic systems that doesn't seem to be a problem at all, you better expect people to think you're just a little tyrannical and, now and then, to blow up at you. If you can't take that, quit. (Or better, lobby for a change in a law that is overkill.)
One thing I find interesting is that the complaint to the Board of Selectmen wasn't made by Sandra Martin, the alleged "victim," nor by the chairman of the Board of Health, but by the Board of Health clerk. Why? What's going on here?
This week's Berkshire Record reports on the BOH/Karen Waller dust-up at the Egremont Inn. From what I know, the article is fairly accurate. And it's more evidence of how a minor incident can be blown out of proportion by overly sensitive people. (I say minor incident, because no reasonable person could take Karen's alleged threat seriously.) I'll repeat my prior statement: If you work for the BOH and go around telling people they have to spend many tens of thousands of dollars to "fix" a problem with their septic systems that doesn't seem to be a problem at all, you better expect people to think you're just a little tyrannical and, now and then, to blow up at you. If you can't take that, quit. (Or better, lobby for a change in a law that is overkill.)
One thing I find interesting is that the complaint to the Board of Selectmen wasn't made by Sandra Martin, the alleged "victim," nor by the chairman of the Board of Health, but by the Board of Health clerk. Why? What's going on here?
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Friday, August 01, 2008
Annual Salaries
Returning to the salary overpayment matter: The best and fairest way to handle the problem of 52 weeks and one day in a year (two days in a leap year) is to determine the number of full pay periods in the upcoming fiscal year, divide the employee's annual salary by that number, and pay accordingly. That will always result in the employee getting exactly the annual salary that was approved at town meeting, and will make it much easier to handle the situation when an employee quits in mid-year and a replacement comes on board without any hiatus. But that's not what the selectmen decided to do. They decided to treat each year as having 52.2 weeks and determine salaries accordingly. That doesn't work as well and is mathematically flawed, but apparently other Massachusetts towns follow that path so we're not alone in our error.
I'm not sure what all this says about the state of math education in Massachusetts, but it's not comforting. Also, I'm ignoring the fiscal year ended 6/30/08. I'm waiting to see if we overpaid people in that year, which would be contrary to what we decided at town meeting.
Returning to the salary overpayment matter: The best and fairest way to handle the problem of 52 weeks and one day in a year (two days in a leap year) is to determine the number of full pay periods in the upcoming fiscal year, divide the employee's annual salary by that number, and pay accordingly. That will always result in the employee getting exactly the annual salary that was approved at town meeting, and will make it much easier to handle the situation when an employee quits in mid-year and a replacement comes on board without any hiatus. But that's not what the selectmen decided to do. They decided to treat each year as having 52.2 weeks and determine salaries accordingly. That doesn't work as well and is mathematically flawed, but apparently other Massachusetts towns follow that path so we're not alone in our error.
I'm not sure what all this says about the state of math education in Massachusetts, but it's not comforting. Also, I'm ignoring the fiscal year ended 6/30/08. I'm waiting to see if we overpaid people in that year, which would be contrary to what we decided at town meeting.
Fire Truck
Most of you know that our new fire truck was in a very bad accident last Sunday on Creamery Road. Thank goodness there were no fatalities, although there was one badly hurt person. I'm told the town's insurance is applicable, but it's too early to tell what the net cost to the town will be.
Most of you know that our new fire truck was in a very bad accident last Sunday on Creamery Road. Thank goodness there were no fatalities, although there was one badly hurt person. I'm told the town's insurance is applicable, but it's too early to tell what the net cost to the town will be.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Board of Health
There was a dust-up last week when the Board of Health did a title 5 examination at the Egremont Inn. (In case you haven't heard, Steve and Karen are selling the Egremont Inn.) Things apparently were said that shouldn't have been said, and the Board of Health folks were quite upset, so much so that they formally complained to the Selectboard.
I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened or was said. But I'm a bit surprised that the Board of Health folks were shocked and dismayed - shocked and dismayed! - that anyone could blow up at them. Title 5 has cost Egremont property owners many millions of dollars, and it's the Board of Health that enforces it. Do they expect a property owner to receive the news that he or she is going to have to spend $20,000 to $80,000 (or more) with a big smile and a thank you?
Title 5 may be necessary in the eastern part of the state, but it's just a millstone out here. Apart from a drinking water problem in and around the north village, I'm not aware of any real water quality problem in town, at least not one that couldn't be solved by means a lot less expensive than a fully compliant title 5 system. But "clean water" has become a religious principle for many people - at least until they're the ones who have to spend all that dough.
There was a dust-up last week when the Board of Health did a title 5 examination at the Egremont Inn. (In case you haven't heard, Steve and Karen are selling the Egremont Inn.) Things apparently were said that shouldn't have been said, and the Board of Health folks were quite upset, so much so that they formally complained to the Selectboard.
I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened or was said. But I'm a bit surprised that the Board of Health folks were shocked and dismayed - shocked and dismayed! - that anyone could blow up at them. Title 5 has cost Egremont property owners many millions of dollars, and it's the Board of Health that enforces it. Do they expect a property owner to receive the news that he or she is going to have to spend $20,000 to $80,000 (or more) with a big smile and a thank you?
Title 5 may be necessary in the eastern part of the state, but it's just a millstone out here. Apart from a drinking water problem in and around the north village, I'm not aware of any real water quality problem in town, at least not one that couldn't be solved by means a lot less expensive than a fully compliant title 5 system. But "clean water" has become a religious principle for many people - at least until they're the ones who have to spend all that dough.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Calendar Confusion
Most people know there are 52 weeks plus one day in a year (two days in leap years). But apparently not the folks at town hall in Egremont.
Each year we vote at town meeting to pay specified salaries for town positions. Say we vote to pay $52,000 for the town jester. If we pay the jester weekly, we shouldn't automatically pay $1,000 a week. Every seventh year or so (actually fewer because of leap years), there will be 53, not 52, paydays, so we'd end up paying $53,000, not $52,000.
How can you deal with this problem? The easiest way is to look at a calendar for the upcoming fiscal year, count the number of paydays, and divide the annual salary by that number. But what if you fail to do that, and find at the end of the year that there's one last payday and you've already paid out the whole annual salary? In Egremont, you just go ahead and overpay people (probably illegally) and then try to deal with the problem in the next year. Do you think our selectmen approve of doing that? You can probably guess.
Most people know there are 52 weeks plus one day in a year (two days in leap years). But apparently not the folks at town hall in Egremont.
Each year we vote at town meeting to pay specified salaries for town positions. Say we vote to pay $52,000 for the town jester. If we pay the jester weekly, we shouldn't automatically pay $1,000 a week. Every seventh year or so (actually fewer because of leap years), there will be 53, not 52, paydays, so we'd end up paying $53,000, not $52,000.
How can you deal with this problem? The easiest way is to look at a calendar for the upcoming fiscal year, count the number of paydays, and divide the annual salary by that number. But what if you fail to do that, and find at the end of the year that there's one last payday and you've already paid out the whole annual salary? In Egremont, you just go ahead and overpay people (probably illegally) and then try to deal with the problem in the next year. Do you think our selectmen approve of doing that? You can probably guess.
Edifice Complex
I've previously posted warnings about the town's big spenders and their tactics to get expensive buildings (such as a library) built, whether townspeople want them or not. No matter how often or how strongly townspeople express their opposition, the big spenders don't give up.
Most recently, a meeting was held among the selectmen, the library committee, the finance committee and other groups to discuss a "master plan" for the town hall property. The meeting was to determine where a new police station, a new library and other structures should go. There wasn't much discussion about whether we NEED these things, but rather just where they'd go, as if it had already been decided to build them.
I'll post more info on this subject as time goes by. For now, let me just say that it seems the big spenders have put the cart before the horse: We should decide what we want to do about the police department before we build a police station, and we should decide what we want to do about the library before we build a library. That's especially true since consolidation of services among several towns is the most likely future development, including consolidation of school districts, fire protection, police coverage and libraries.
It's not hard to identify the big spenders, and I'll not name names just yet. But it's very disturbing to hear one of our selectmen say publicly - not once but twice - that both the library and the police station are "affordable" because we're about to pay off existing debt so will have money to spend on other things. Is that the kind of attitude you want on our selectboard? God forbid we should just reduce taxes!
I've previously posted warnings about the town's big spenders and their tactics to get expensive buildings (such as a library) built, whether townspeople want them or not. No matter how often or how strongly townspeople express their opposition, the big spenders don't give up.
Most recently, a meeting was held among the selectmen, the library committee, the finance committee and other groups to discuss a "master plan" for the town hall property. The meeting was to determine where a new police station, a new library and other structures should go. There wasn't much discussion about whether we NEED these things, but rather just where they'd go, as if it had already been decided to build them.
I'll post more info on this subject as time goes by. For now, let me just say that it seems the big spenders have put the cart before the horse: We should decide what we want to do about the police department before we build a police station, and we should decide what we want to do about the library before we build a library. That's especially true since consolidation of services among several towns is the most likely future development, including consolidation of school districts, fire protection, police coverage and libraries.
It's not hard to identify the big spenders, and I'll not name names just yet. But it's very disturbing to hear one of our selectmen say publicly - not once but twice - that both the library and the police station are "affordable" because we're about to pay off existing debt so will have money to spend on other things. Is that the kind of attitude you want on our selectboard? God forbid we should just reduce taxes!
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Prospect Lake Boat Access
Well, I was wrong. Thanks to the efforts of town officials, especially Mary Brazie and Bruce Cumsky, the state folks came back pretty promptly and fixed the new boat ramp. They put in steps down toward the "canal" and, I think, dredged out the canal enough so a canoe or flat bottomed boat can now actually be launched and get to the lake. Good job, folks!
But there's still some bad news. They installed a big ugly sign board that has 9 warning signs on it: no swimming, no littering, no unleashed pets, no jet skis and no overnight parking each get a sign; cartop boats only; and some others. The most puzzling one says that anyone in a canoe or kayak must wear a flotation device, but only between September 15 and May 15. Isn't that backwards?
So now townspeople finally have boat access to Prospect Lake, but not swimming access. For swimming, you still have to park on the road and avoid the cars whizzing by. Parking in the new boat access lot and walking down the road to where you can get into the lake, whether or not you'd want to, and whether or not that's safe, is prohibited (at least theoretically): The lot warning signs specifically say it's only for cartop boat launching, not for parking and walking down the road. And a young man with a 3 year old told me recently the Egremont police told him not to park on the road. The officer must have thought he was supposed to park in the lot, but he didn't have a boat, he just wanted to go swimming. Looks like the police and the town need to get together and decide what's what.
Well, I was wrong. Thanks to the efforts of town officials, especially Mary Brazie and Bruce Cumsky, the state folks came back pretty promptly and fixed the new boat ramp. They put in steps down toward the "canal" and, I think, dredged out the canal enough so a canoe or flat bottomed boat can now actually be launched and get to the lake. Good job, folks!
But there's still some bad news. They installed a big ugly sign board that has 9 warning signs on it: no swimming, no littering, no unleashed pets, no jet skis and no overnight parking each get a sign; cartop boats only; and some others. The most puzzling one says that anyone in a canoe or kayak must wear a flotation device, but only between September 15 and May 15. Isn't that backwards?
So now townspeople finally have boat access to Prospect Lake, but not swimming access. For swimming, you still have to park on the road and avoid the cars whizzing by. Parking in the new boat access lot and walking down the road to where you can get into the lake, whether or not you'd want to, and whether or not that's safe, is prohibited (at least theoretically): The lot warning signs specifically say it's only for cartop boat launching, not for parking and walking down the road. And a young man with a 3 year old told me recently the Egremont police told him not to park on the road. The officer must have thought he was supposed to park in the lot, but he didn't have a boat, he just wanted to go swimming. Looks like the police and the town need to get together and decide what's what.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Wetlands Mania
I live in a development on the west side of Prospect Lake. My neighbors and I have to maintain our own private roads, Lakeside Drive and Second Street. They run perpendicular to the hill that slopes down to the lake on that side, so we have constant problems with washouts, etc., and have to engineer ways to get water down the hill through culverts and ditches so the roads don't become dangerous or impassable.
At one particularly troublesome spot, water goes under a road via a culvert, then through a ditch down to a culvert under Lakeside, through that culvert and then on to the lake. The ditch between the two roads is on the line between two lots, each privately owned by different owners.
The problem is that the culvert under Second Street can't handle all the water when it rains really hard, or when the snow melts in the spring, or in snow/ice situations. So water flows over the road, often creating dangerous conditions, especially in winter, and water backs up on the uphill side of Second Street, causing a mess and jeopardizing a nearby well. The situation could be fixed by putting in a larger culvert under Second Street. But that would necessitate enlarging the ditch that goes down to Lakeside, so the consent and participation of the two owners of the lots (between which the ditch runs) would be necessary.
At our property owners meeting this July, we were going to vote to put in the larger culvert because one of the lot owners volunteered to enlarge the ditch if we would pay to rent the equipment required to do that, which we were ready to do. Sounds like a good, fair, neighborly way to handle a real safety problem, right?
Not so fast. There are "wetlands" close by. (I put it in quotes because ordinary human beings wouldn't think they were wetlands.) Replacing the culvert and enlarging the ditch would require filing a "Notice of Intent" with the Conservation Commission and the state DEP, and, with respect to enlarging the ditch, the filings could only be done by the property owner who volunteered to do the work. And the filings and related costs would be greater than the cost of renting the equipment and would probably double or triple the cost of the whole project, and would likely result in an "Order of Conditions" that would likely involve even more costs. And one of the conditions would likely be that replacement "wetlands" would have to be created covering an area equal to the area of the "wetlands" destroyed, meaning some nearby property owner would have to volunteer to have part of his property dedicated to being a "wetland".
Not surprisingly, no one volunteered. And not surprisingly, the ditch-enlarging volunteer changed his mind about the whole thing in a New York second. So a rational solution to a serious safety problem fell apart and was abandoned in another New York second. I would describe the reaction of the people at the meeting as one of stunned silence.
I think this is insane. Water is going to go down the hill to the lake no matter what is done or is not done. And washouts and ice on a road are real problems requiring real solutions. The people who think this grandiose, self-imposed, no-exceptions scheme for "protecting our wetlands" should be rigorously enforced even if it results in injuries to automobiles and people need to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Fat chance.
Any wetlands defenders out there? Post a response.
I live in a development on the west side of Prospect Lake. My neighbors and I have to maintain our own private roads, Lakeside Drive and Second Street. They run perpendicular to the hill that slopes down to the lake on that side, so we have constant problems with washouts, etc., and have to engineer ways to get water down the hill through culverts and ditches so the roads don't become dangerous or impassable.
At one particularly troublesome spot, water goes under a road via a culvert, then through a ditch down to a culvert under Lakeside, through that culvert and then on to the lake. The ditch between the two roads is on the line between two lots, each privately owned by different owners.
The problem is that the culvert under Second Street can't handle all the water when it rains really hard, or when the snow melts in the spring, or in snow/ice situations. So water flows over the road, often creating dangerous conditions, especially in winter, and water backs up on the uphill side of Second Street, causing a mess and jeopardizing a nearby well. The situation could be fixed by putting in a larger culvert under Second Street. But that would necessitate enlarging the ditch that goes down to Lakeside, so the consent and participation of the two owners of the lots (between which the ditch runs) would be necessary.
At our property owners meeting this July, we were going to vote to put in the larger culvert because one of the lot owners volunteered to enlarge the ditch if we would pay to rent the equipment required to do that, which we were ready to do. Sounds like a good, fair, neighborly way to handle a real safety problem, right?
Not so fast. There are "wetlands" close by. (I put it in quotes because ordinary human beings wouldn't think they were wetlands.) Replacing the culvert and enlarging the ditch would require filing a "Notice of Intent" with the Conservation Commission and the state DEP, and, with respect to enlarging the ditch, the filings could only be done by the property owner who volunteered to do the work. And the filings and related costs would be greater than the cost of renting the equipment and would probably double or triple the cost of the whole project, and would likely result in an "Order of Conditions" that would likely involve even more costs. And one of the conditions would likely be that replacement "wetlands" would have to be created covering an area equal to the area of the "wetlands" destroyed, meaning some nearby property owner would have to volunteer to have part of his property dedicated to being a "wetland".
Not surprisingly, no one volunteered. And not surprisingly, the ditch-enlarging volunteer changed his mind about the whole thing in a New York second. So a rational solution to a serious safety problem fell apart and was abandoned in another New York second. I would describe the reaction of the people at the meeting as one of stunned silence.
I think this is insane. Water is going to go down the hill to the lake no matter what is done or is not done. And washouts and ice on a road are real problems requiring real solutions. The people who think this grandiose, self-imposed, no-exceptions scheme for "protecting our wetlands" should be rigorously enforced even if it results in injuries to automobiles and people need to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Fat chance.
Any wetlands defenders out there? Post a response.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Prospect Lake
For a long time, many of us have been urging the town to provide public access to Prospect Lake. To use the lake, you had to park right on Prospect Lake Road, then unload your boat, children, etc., with cars whizzing by. It was an accident waiting to happen.
So we were happy when the state announced a couple of years ago that they were going to create boat access (and maybe swimming access) from a vacant lot the state had acquired years ago, a lot that's not on the lake itself but on the major stream that feeds it (known to locals as the "canal"), about 300 feet or so to the west of the old dangerous access point on Prospect Lake Road. And, lo and behold, crews showed up in early summer to do the job. They cleared the lot, put in a "driveway", created a parking area, and built a long wooden ramp down to the canal so folks could take their boats down the ramp and launch them into the canal. But, for reasons only explicable to bureaucrats, they stopped the ramp short of the canal. To launch a boat, you'd have to carry your boat through a lot of muck and then somehow get into it.
It's a joke. Go look at it if you don't believe me. Lord knows how much taxpayer money was spent on a project that is totally useless. If folks use it at all, they'll just park their cars there and then walk 300 feet to the old spot to get into the lake. That won't significantly reduce the danger to pedestrians, so even that objective hasn't been achieved (and maybe even made worse).
What to do? Complaining to the state isn't going to accomplish anything. I think the town should just take the bull by the horns and finish the job by actually building a ramp into the canal. That probably violates all kinds of laws, so town hall probably won't do it. Who'd like to volunteer to help me do it at night on the sly?
Another lake subject: Friends of Prospect Lake arranged for another treatment of the weeds a few weeks ago, and it was very successful. I know there are people in town who don't like treating the lake with chemicals, but the ones used don't hurt anything except weeds, and providing public recreation is more important than appeasing what seems to be some people's unwarranted paranoia.
For a long time, many of us have been urging the town to provide public access to Prospect Lake. To use the lake, you had to park right on Prospect Lake Road, then unload your boat, children, etc., with cars whizzing by. It was an accident waiting to happen.
So we were happy when the state announced a couple of years ago that they were going to create boat access (and maybe swimming access) from a vacant lot the state had acquired years ago, a lot that's not on the lake itself but on the major stream that feeds it (known to locals as the "canal"), about 300 feet or so to the west of the old dangerous access point on Prospect Lake Road. And, lo and behold, crews showed up in early summer to do the job. They cleared the lot, put in a "driveway", created a parking area, and built a long wooden ramp down to the canal so folks could take their boats down the ramp and launch them into the canal. But, for reasons only explicable to bureaucrats, they stopped the ramp short of the canal. To launch a boat, you'd have to carry your boat through a lot of muck and then somehow get into it.
It's a joke. Go look at it if you don't believe me. Lord knows how much taxpayer money was spent on a project that is totally useless. If folks use it at all, they'll just park their cars there and then walk 300 feet to the old spot to get into the lake. That won't significantly reduce the danger to pedestrians, so even that objective hasn't been achieved (and maybe even made worse).
What to do? Complaining to the state isn't going to accomplish anything. I think the town should just take the bull by the horns and finish the job by actually building a ramp into the canal. That probably violates all kinds of laws, so town hall probably won't do it. Who'd like to volunteer to help me do it at night on the sly?
Another lake subject: Friends of Prospect Lake arranged for another treatment of the weeds a few weeks ago, and it was very successful. I know there are people in town who don't like treating the lake with chemicals, but the ones used don't hurt anything except weeds, and providing public recreation is more important than appeasing what seems to be some people's unwarranted paranoia.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Library
The informational meeting on the library proposal was held today at the north firehouse. Quite a few folks came, I'd say about 50. They listened politely to the consultant the town hired as he went through his charts, talking about putting a new library here or there on town property He then opened up the meeting to questions from the floor. Most of the "questions" were statements in opposition to a new library, with a smattering of statements in support. The meeting then was broken up into groups that were supposed to talk about various aspects of the process, but I and lots of other people left because we weren't interested in various aspects of the process, we just wanted to express our opposition.
Any reasonable person would come away from the meeting with the belief that there was little - make that no - chance of a new library being built. But I'm sure the proponents won't get that message, just like the proponents of last year's annex proposal didn't get the message when the townspeople overwhelmingly expressed their opposition. That's not because the proponents are dense, it's because they're persistent. They use the "nose under the tent" approach: If you just keep talking about it (and hiring consultants to do fancy presentations), eventually it acquires a life of its own, and the opponents get tired of fighting.
So if you're opposed to spending any more time or money on the library dream, let the selectmen know. If we don't nip this thing in the bud, the proponents could slip it through.
The informational meeting on the library proposal was held today at the north firehouse. Quite a few folks came, I'd say about 50. They listened politely to the consultant the town hired as he went through his charts, talking about putting a new library here or there on town property He then opened up the meeting to questions from the floor. Most of the "questions" were statements in opposition to a new library, with a smattering of statements in support. The meeting then was broken up into groups that were supposed to talk about various aspects of the process, but I and lots of other people left because we weren't interested in various aspects of the process, we just wanted to express our opposition.
Any reasonable person would come away from the meeting with the belief that there was little - make that no - chance of a new library being built. But I'm sure the proponents won't get that message, just like the proponents of last year's annex proposal didn't get the message when the townspeople overwhelmingly expressed their opposition. That's not because the proponents are dense, it's because they're persistent. They use the "nose under the tent" approach: If you just keep talking about it (and hiring consultants to do fancy presentations), eventually it acquires a life of its own, and the opponents get tired of fighting.
So if you're opposed to spending any more time or money on the library dream, let the selectmen know. If we don't nip this thing in the bud, the proponents could slip it through.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Cell Phones
When the planning board proposed its new "improved" cell phone equipment zoning bylaw a couple of years ago, many of us said it was just a thinly disguised effort to keep cell phone equipment out of Egremont, and consequently it was likely illegal under federal law. (At the time, I was personally told that by representatives of two telecommunications companies.) Well, it looks like Verizon has now informed the town that they want to put cell phone equipment in town and can't under the PB's bylaw, and they may be ready to take legal action if the town doesn't do something.
It's always nice to be able to say "I told you so." But much more importantly, we need cell phone service in town, for safety as well as business reasons. It's time for the selectboard to act. We need a provision that permits - not prohibits - cell phone equipment. Our zoning bylaw contains a careful procedure for issuing special permits that could easily be extended to telecommunications equipment. But if we do that, we should also make the issuing authority the selectboard, not the PB. The PB's history of animosity toward telecommunications equipment disqualifies it from overseeing a permit process as important as this.
When the planning board proposed its new "improved" cell phone equipment zoning bylaw a couple of years ago, many of us said it was just a thinly disguised effort to keep cell phone equipment out of Egremont, and consequently it was likely illegal under federal law. (At the time, I was personally told that by representatives of two telecommunications companies.) Well, it looks like Verizon has now informed the town that they want to put cell phone equipment in town and can't under the PB's bylaw, and they may be ready to take legal action if the town doesn't do something.
It's always nice to be able to say "I told you so." But much more importantly, we need cell phone service in town, for safety as well as business reasons. It's time for the selectboard to act. We need a provision that permits - not prohibits - cell phone equipment. Our zoning bylaw contains a careful procedure for issuing special permits that could easily be extended to telecommunications equipment. But if we do that, we should also make the issuing authority the selectboard, not the PB. The PB's history of animosity toward telecommunications equipment disqualifies it from overseeing a permit process as important as this.
Board appointments
As is customary in June, the selectboard plans to fill vacancies in town boards and committees at its meeting next week. If you're interested in being on a board or committee, and have the necessary expertise, please, please submit your name by sending a short simple letter to town hall saying something like "I would like to be appointed to the XXXXXX." You may, but need not, add information on your qualifications and why you're interested.
The selectmen don't have a great track record in seeking out qualified candidates for town boards. They generally just appoint from whoever volunteers. (And they tend not to appoint people whose viewpoints thay don't like.) Not surprisingly, that often results in populating boards with folks who have a narrow agenda and/or perspective and not a great deal of expertise, and that often results in boards doing more harm than good to townspeople. These appointees may think they're saving the world but too often they're hurting us Egremonters.
Unfortunately, qualified people frequently don't like to serve on boards because they have real lives and don't want to spend their time dealing with what often seems unrealistic and impractical. You may feel that way, but I urge you to get involved. The next silly board action may be on your application!
As is customary in June, the selectboard plans to fill vacancies in town boards and committees at its meeting next week. If you're interested in being on a board or committee, and have the necessary expertise, please, please submit your name by sending a short simple letter to town hall saying something like "I would like to be appointed to the XXXXXX." You may, but need not, add information on your qualifications and why you're interested.
The selectmen don't have a great track record in seeking out qualified candidates for town boards. They generally just appoint from whoever volunteers. (And they tend not to appoint people whose viewpoints thay don't like.) Not surprisingly, that often results in populating boards with folks who have a narrow agenda and/or perspective and not a great deal of expertise, and that often results in boards doing more harm than good to townspeople. These appointees may think they're saving the world but too often they're hurting us Egremonters.
Unfortunately, qualified people frequently don't like to serve on boards because they have real lives and don't want to spend their time dealing with what often seems unrealistic and impractical. You may feel that way, but I urge you to get involved. The next silly board action may be on your application!
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Information Meetings
Two information meetings are being held on Saturdays in June: (1) The library study committee will try to convince Egremonters that we need a library to replace the old one. You might want to go, especially if you feel as I do that that's a pipe dream and the committee should hear the reality from taxpayers. (2) The conservation commission (and guest speakers) will hold forth on what's allowed and what's not on tree cutting. If you think you can cut down trees on your own property without restriction, think again. Big brother is watching.
Exact dates and times can be obtained from town hall. And there'll be sandwich boards at strategic locations in town announcing the meetings.
Two information meetings are being held on Saturdays in June: (1) The library study committee will try to convince Egremonters that we need a library to replace the old one. You might want to go, especially if you feel as I do that that's a pipe dream and the committee should hear the reality from taxpayers. (2) The conservation commission (and guest speakers) will hold forth on what's allowed and what's not on tree cutting. If you think you can cut down trees on your own property without restriction, think again. Big brother is watching.
Exact dates and times can be obtained from town hall. And there'll be sandwich boards at strategic locations in town announcing the meetings.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Selectmen's Meeting
Last week's selectmen's meeting was more cordial than the first one attended by new selectman Bruce Cumsky. The only controversy was created by me, when I suggested the selectboard - not the library committee - should approve expenditures under the library architectural contract. All three selectmen disagreed. One said that would be micromanaging. The other two believe that the library committee has spending power.
I'm not sure what the law is (I intend to research it), but as a matter of policy, I believe what town boards and committees do is subject to control by the selectboard, i.e., the buck stops there, not at the committee level. And I think that's particularly true when it comes to expenditures. I'd have to think twice about voting for budget items at the annual town meeting if I knew that the money would be spent by some committee without prior approval by the selectboard. What do you think?
Last week's selectmen's meeting was more cordial than the first one attended by new selectman Bruce Cumsky. The only controversy was created by me, when I suggested the selectboard - not the library committee - should approve expenditures under the library architectural contract. All three selectmen disagreed. One said that would be micromanaging. The other two believe that the library committee has spending power.
I'm not sure what the law is (I intend to research it), but as a matter of policy, I believe what town boards and committees do is subject to control by the selectboard, i.e., the buck stops there, not at the committee level. And I think that's particularly true when it comes to expenditures. I'd have to think twice about voting for budget items at the annual town meeting if I knew that the money would be spent by some committee without prior approval by the selectboard. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
