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.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
