Well, the spring town meeting has come and gone, and now it's time to review my votes. Enjoy this folks, since I doubt any of the other selectman's candidates - or, for that matter, any town meeting member - is or has publicized how they voted and why. Full disclosure should be the rule, not the exception.
So, articles 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 53 and 55 passed on the blanket vote. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, town meeting simply agrees with the printed recommendation in the warrant booklet. I won't review these articles since we could spend all year going over them. Besides, the controversial issues - the ones worth discussing - are the ones that get held and voted individually.
Article 1 was to accept the nominations for the finance committee. I voted aye (i.e., yes); it passed.
Article 2 was to accept committee reports; I voted aye; it passed.
Article 6 was to approve a raise for the Town Meeting Moderator, Town Clerk, Selectman and Chairman of Selectman. The recommendation was to give a raise only to the Town Clerk, with which I agreed. I previously commented on raises for the selectmen here. I voted aye; it passed.
Article 7 was to approve the use of revolving funds, amended to exclude the Historical Commission fund, which was not approved at the last town meeting. I voted aye; it passed.
Article 10 would have amended the zoning bylaw to make things like pools and tennis courts accessorie structures. The problem, as a homeowner testified, is that there is no provision for things like corner lots.
I voted no; it didn't pass.
Article 12 would have allowed a "barn or carriage house that shall not exceed 25' in height". I thought this was a good idea, but perhaps a bit premature (like the CLSV proposal last fall to rezone the 31 acres on Rt 151 for a shopping plaza, housing, hotel and ice arena). I voted "no"; it didn't pass.
Article 14 was to approve the purchase of a 4-acre parcel on Davisville Road for about $550,000. This is a Proposition 2-1/2 override - you the voters will have to approve the purchase. I had a problem with this in that there is no specific use planned; it's just a purchase of land for "public recreation and municipal purposes." We keep hearing from the selectmen that the town has a "low inventory" of land for municipal purposes, but I just don't see it - there's a lot of unused town-owned land out there. I voted "no"; the article passed.
Article 15 was to approve the purchase of about two acres near Menahaunt Beach. Unlike the Davisville parcel, there is a specific use for this land (to add to Menahaunt Beach) AND funding is a combination of 300 Committee funds ($110,000), Community Preservation Act funds ($290,000) and a Proposition 2-1/2 override for $306,000. I thought it a well planned purchase, so I voted "aye"; it passed. I recommend you support it on May 15.
Article 19 will add a part-time postition to the Collector's Office. While a decent case was made for adding this position, I wasn't convinced. I voted "no"; it passed.
Article 22 will fund 1/2 of a clinical social worker position to the town's Human Services Department. I was initially skeptical about this expense - until we learned that the two social worker positions in the school system were cut due to lack of funds. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul, so I voted "aye"; it passed.
I'm going to put Articles 23 & 24 under the same heading. These approved two new positions each for the fire and police departments. I'm not quite sure why Mr. Lowell held these since they were no-brainers - these are public safety positions and we need them. I voted "aye" for both; they passed.
Article 25 was the budget. There was nothing earth shattering here, so if you have any specific questions, contact me. I voted "aye"; it passed.
Article 33 was to appropriate money for the Workers Compensation Fund. My apologies here...I seem to have forgotten to put the figure in my notes. If you want it, give me a holler and I'll dig it out for you. I voted "aye"; it passed.
Article 34 is a Proposition 2-1/2 override for $450,000 to remove sludge from the retired treatment ponds at the West Falmouth sewage plant. Unfortunately, this is a necessary expense, so I recommend that you - the voters - approve this at the polls on May 15. We have to get rid of this stuff; it's costing us $3,000/month to keep it where it is. I voted "aye"; it passed.
Article 35 was to appropriate $68,623 to renovate the 3rd floor of town hall. I voted "aye"; it passed.
Article 46 was to approve $90,000 to pay for the Community Preservation Committee's adminstrative overhead. It was held so Peter Clark, the Chair of the CPC, could make a brief presentation. I voted "aye"; it passed.
Article 47 was to approve the taking of private roads to become public roads. In each case, the homeowners on the respective roads are charged a betterment over a 20-year period to pay for the necessary improvements. I voted "aye"; it passed.
Article 48 was to amend the town code to allow for the fueling of boats from trucks. This is already happening, so the article just makes it legal. The news on this article was that Selectman Bumpus wanted to amend the article so truck fueling wouldn't be allowed at bulkheads or docks. As noted, this is already happening, so the amendment would have defeated the purpose of the article. I voted "no" on the amendment; it failed. I voted "aye" on the article; it passed.
Article 49 requires anyone without a commercial kennel license keeping 4 to 9 dogs get a multiple dog license. One aspect of this new regulation included the requirement that the dogs be spayed or neutered. An amendment was added to exempt those owners who keep show dogs (which cannot be spayed or neutered if you show them). I voted "aye" for the amendment and the article; both passed.
Article 50 would have added a whole set of rules requiring the owners of a "companion animal or farm animal" to provide adequate protection from the elements and predators. Like many things that sound good, in reality it would have opened a can of worms. It defined "adequate shelter" in a way that was restrictive and burdensome for farmers; indeed, it would have created rules that conflicted with established state law. One amendment removed the references to farm animals. I voted "aye" on this amendment; it passed.
That done; there was still the issue of shelter and protection for pets, which was so poorly defined that nearly everyone who owns dog and has them outside is likely to break the law in some way. Someone added an amendment that removed the shelter issue. I voted "aye" for the amendment; it passed.
Even with the amendments, the article was still a problem. I voted "no"; it passed.
Article 51 requires anyone with 4 to 9 dogs to get a kennel license if they don't qualify for a multiple dog license. I voted "aye"; it passed.
Article 52, which would have allowed dogs to go off leash provided they were under the control of a competent handler, generated a bit of debate. Nancy Hayward offered an amendment that would've gutted the article. Clayton Jones made a good case against the amendment, and for the article, with the New York City example (New York experienced a ten-fold DECREASE in dog bites when the leash law was eliminated), and other individuals - including myself - argued similar points. One of those points was the obvious - that this article simply makes legal what is already being done in places like Beebe Woods and the Coonamessett cranberry bogs.
Selectman Kevin Murphy offered an amendment that would've allowed dogs off-leash only in those places approved by the selectmen. I liked - and voted for - this amendment, but in the end, it, Ms. Hayward's amendment and the article failed by a small margin.
Article 54 originally asked the town to take - at no cost - part of the Gariner Road seawall in Woods Hole and appropriate $90,000 for it's repair. This was dropped entirely in favor of a simple request to allow the selectmen to explore options.
Except the selectmen can already do this.
This is one of my pet pieves. The selectmen have certain defined duties. When they ask town meeting for permission to do something that they already do - and they've done this many, many times - it demonstrates either 1) a lack of confidence in their own abilities, or 2) an ignorance of their own job. Or both.
It doesn't inspire any confidence in the selectmen and the job they do.
I voted "no" on the article; it didn't pass.
Article 56 approved the funding for the warrant (outside the budget of Article 25). It totaled $17,936,121. It's a bookkeeping thing. I voted "aye"; it passed.
NEXT POST: The Spring Special Town Meeting
No comments:
Post a Comment