I attended a selectmen's meeting at the end of June that involved a little dust-up between the board of health and the selectboard (or at least its chairman). The selectboard didn't seem excited about the issue; the board of health thought it more serious. I was amused by the discussion (especially the attempt by the director of the board of health to provide legal justification for what the board was trying to do) but not bothered by it, until statements were made by two members of the board of health. Rather than characterizing those statements, I will simply quote the minutes of the meeting: "There was further discussion regarding the board of health's members' role regarding supervision of the director/clerk. Two of the board of health members attending stated that they do not supervise the director/clerk. Chairman Cumsky disagreed with that assertion."
Wow!! I was unaware that members of boards in Egremont don't supervise employees of that board. I wonder who does supervise them. And if board members don't supervise that board's employees, I wonder what the function of the board is.
This is obviously silly. What I'd really like to know is why the two board of health members would make statements so off the wall. What's going on here? Why can't the town hall denizens just do their jobs and not engage in political infighting?
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Cell Phones and High Speed Internet
Egremonters have repeatedly said during the past few years that these subjects are more important to them than all other issues in town (with the possible exception of spendthrift plans for new buildings). So what are our elected officials doing about them?
Obviously not much. I and many others believe both the selectboard and the planning board should be out beating the bushes to get these services to our townspeople. That involves more than just waiting for someone to submit an application, or joining some group that is promising to look into the matter. What more important functions do they have? Do they serve the people or vice versa?
I invite the members of the selctboard and the planning board to respond to this posting with a report on their activities and plans for accomplishing these important tasks. If they fail to do so, I assume that means they're just going to sit back with "same old, same old." Sigh!!
Obviously not much. I and many others believe both the selectboard and the planning board should be out beating the bushes to get these services to our townspeople. That involves more than just waiting for someone to submit an application, or joining some group that is promising to look into the matter. What more important functions do they have? Do they serve the people or vice versa?
I invite the members of the selctboard and the planning board to respond to this posting with a report on their activities and plans for accomplishing these important tasks. If they fail to do so, I assume that means they're just going to sit back with "same old, same old." Sigh!!
Friday, July 09, 2010
Planning Board Appointment
The combined planning board and selectboard met and appointed Haeckel to fill the vacancy by a vote of 4 to 3. Most of the planning board and selectboard members had already made up their minds, so pretty much meaningless questions were asked of the candidates just to convey the impression that the voting members were on top of things.
Both candidaters were asked their views on cell service. Hudnut was pretty strongly in favor. Haeckel gave a carefully rehearsed answer: he "supports" it for all of Egremont (whatever that means) but insists on "prudent planning" to prevent inappropriate siting. We'll see how he actually acts when the time comes.
There was an interesting (I could use a much perjorative adjective) procedural move attempted by Vining and Krancer. They wanted a written "all at once" vote rather than a "one by one" oral vote starting with Proctor and ending with Krancer. The justification was that later votes could be influenced by the reasons stated for or against a candidate in prior votes. I guess more information and dialogue is a bad thing in their minds. Cumsky strongly objected and the motion was defeated 4 to 2 with Martinson abstaining. My guess on why they pushed this procedural move was that Vining and Krancer knew that Haeckel would get 3 votes but weren't sure about Martinson's vote, and were afraid she'd be influenced to vote for Hudnut, and that would never do because dissent on the planning board is not tolerated.
Here's my take on the voting motives:
Proctor (voted for Hudnut): Probably thought Hudnut the better candidate. Also influenced by the fact he's in the process of selling the farm and may need planning board approval (or at least cooperation) to maximize proceeds.
Cumsky (voted for Hudnut): Knows how strongly townspeople want cell phone service, and thinks he gains more votes than loses them by opposing the PB bloc's candidate.
Burdsall (voted for Hudnut): Wants cell service and knows Haeckel will be an impediment.
Vining (voted for Haeckel): The tiger does not change her stripes.
Turner (voted for Haeckel): Was paying back an election debt to the PB bloc of voters. Also dislikes anything supported by Cumsky or Allen.
Krancer (voted for Haeckel): The tiger's cub does not change her stripes.
Martinson (voted for Haeckel): Sigh! Probably didn't do her homework and didn't realize how important the cell service issue was and believed Haeckel's rehearsed answer on it.
Townspeople overwhelmingly view cell and high speed internet service as the most imporatant issues facing Egremont. The appointment of Haeckel is a step backward in those efforts. Those who voted for him need to be held accountable by the electorate, and should not escape by claiming other factors were involved (especially any asinine and self-serving statements that Haeckel needed less time to "come up to speed" on PB procedures). If by some miracle the PB actually becomes proactive and successful in bringing cell service and high speed internet to town, the Haeckel voters will be somewhat redeemed. If not, they should be thrown out of office, or, better yet, the PB should be eliminated (as we almost succeeded in doing about 10 years ago) and their functions shifted to the selectboard as Massachusetts law permits.
Both candidaters were asked their views on cell service. Hudnut was pretty strongly in favor. Haeckel gave a carefully rehearsed answer: he "supports" it for all of Egremont (whatever that means) but insists on "prudent planning" to prevent inappropriate siting. We'll see how he actually acts when the time comes.
There was an interesting (I could use a much perjorative adjective) procedural move attempted by Vining and Krancer. They wanted a written "all at once" vote rather than a "one by one" oral vote starting with Proctor and ending with Krancer. The justification was that later votes could be influenced by the reasons stated for or against a candidate in prior votes. I guess more information and dialogue is a bad thing in their minds. Cumsky strongly objected and the motion was defeated 4 to 2 with Martinson abstaining. My guess on why they pushed this procedural move was that Vining and Krancer knew that Haeckel would get 3 votes but weren't sure about Martinson's vote, and were afraid she'd be influenced to vote for Hudnut, and that would never do because dissent on the planning board is not tolerated.
Here's my take on the voting motives:
Proctor (voted for Hudnut): Probably thought Hudnut the better candidate. Also influenced by the fact he's in the process of selling the farm and may need planning board approval (or at least cooperation) to maximize proceeds.
Cumsky (voted for Hudnut): Knows how strongly townspeople want cell phone service, and thinks he gains more votes than loses them by opposing the PB bloc's candidate.
Burdsall (voted for Hudnut): Wants cell service and knows Haeckel will be an impediment.
Vining (voted for Haeckel): The tiger does not change her stripes.
Turner (voted for Haeckel): Was paying back an election debt to the PB bloc of voters. Also dislikes anything supported by Cumsky or Allen.
Krancer (voted for Haeckel): The tiger's cub does not change her stripes.
Martinson (voted for Haeckel): Sigh! Probably didn't do her homework and didn't realize how important the cell service issue was and believed Haeckel's rehearsed answer on it.
Townspeople overwhelmingly view cell and high speed internet service as the most imporatant issues facing Egremont. The appointment of Haeckel is a step backward in those efforts. Those who voted for him need to be held accountable by the electorate, and should not escape by claiming other factors were involved (especially any asinine and self-serving statements that Haeckel needed less time to "come up to speed" on PB procedures). If by some miracle the PB actually becomes proactive and successful in bringing cell service and high speed internet to town, the Haeckel voters will be somewhat redeemed. If not, they should be thrown out of office, or, better yet, the PB should be eliminated (as we almost succeeded in doing about 10 years ago) and their functions shifted to the selectboard as Massachusetts law permits.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Planning Board Appointment
I sent the following email to our selectmen:
"To the Selectmen:
The upcoming appointment to the planning board is extremely important. Townspeople have indicated again and again that cell phone service and broadband access are the most important issues facing the town. With the very real possibility that a tower company may apply for a special permit soon, the attitude of the members of the planning board toward cell phone service becomes critical.
Given the importance of this matter, the appointment should not be made unless all the members of the selectboard and the planning board participate. In addition, the candidates should be required to state their positions on cell phone service and on the need for a cell tower in town. (They need not state their position on the Kelly site specifically.) One of the candidates has taken the position in the past that cell towers cause health problems (a position with no scientific support) and he should be specifically asked whether he has changed that position. It is simply not fair to have a planning board member appointed who is prone to vote contrary to the strong wishes of the vast majority of townspeople. "
You should make your views known. The town's email address is tegremont@yahoo.com. If you care about cell phone service, you should go to the appointment session and speak up. I will try to publish its date and time. It should also be posted at town hall and in the North Egremont store. Watch for it.
"To the Selectmen:
The upcoming appointment to the planning board is extremely important. Townspeople have indicated again and again that cell phone service and broadband access are the most important issues facing the town. With the very real possibility that a tower company may apply for a special permit soon, the attitude of the members of the planning board toward cell phone service becomes critical.
Given the importance of this matter, the appointment should not be made unless all the members of the selectboard and the planning board participate. In addition, the candidates should be required to state their positions on cell phone service and on the need for a cell tower in town. (They need not state their position on the Kelly site specifically.) One of the candidates has taken the position in the past that cell towers cause health problems (a position with no scientific support) and he should be specifically asked whether he has changed that position. It is simply not fair to have a planning board member appointed who is prone to vote contrary to the strong wishes of the vast majority of townspeople. "
You should make your views known. The town's email address is tegremont@yahoo.com. If you care about cell phone service, you should go to the appointment session and speak up. I will try to publish its date and time. It should also be posted at town hall and in the North Egremont store. Watch for it.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Election Results
For those of you who missed it, the interesting contested election results were:
Selectman: Turner 251, Allen 238, confirmed by recount.
Planning board, 2 year: Hudnut and Haeckel tied, confirmed by recount.
Under Massachusetts law, the tie for the planning board seat will be resolved not by another election, but rather by appointment (for a one year term). The appointment is by majority vote of the combined selectboard and planning board, i.e., the four planning board members and three selectmen. They can appoint anyone, but its likely they'll pick one of the two candidates. More on that later. The last time there was a vacancy on the planning board, certain members of the planning board engaged in some clandestine tactics designed to get who they wanted appointed. Stay tuned.
Selectman: Turner 251, Allen 238, confirmed by recount.
Planning board, 2 year: Hudnut and Haeckel tied, confirmed by recount.
Under Massachusetts law, the tie for the planning board seat will be resolved not by another election, but rather by appointment (for a one year term). The appointment is by majority vote of the combined selectboard and planning board, i.e., the four planning board members and three selectmen. They can appoint anyone, but its likely they'll pick one of the two candidates. More on that later. The last time there was a vacancy on the planning board, certain members of the planning board engaged in some clandestine tactics designed to get who they wanted appointed. Stay tuned.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Selectboard Meeting
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
