We started Wednesday evening with Article 29, but I've previously posted my vote - and thoughts - about that article.
After the break, we continued on to the last of the warrant.
Articles 28, 32, 33, 34, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53 had passed on the blanket vote Monday night, so we moved on to Article 30...
Article 30, "Fund - Wastewater System Odor Control Facilities Design": There are odor problems with the sewer system at the Service Road vent and the Shivericks Pond lift station; this article funds the design work needed to address these issues.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 31, "Waterways - Engineering, Permitting, Minor Construction and Dredging": Take this one literally; it transferred $100,000 from the Waterways Fund for engineering, permitting, minor construction and dredging.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 35, "Community Preservation Fund - Historic Resources (VFW/Schoolhouse)": This follows through on - and funds - a plan developed last year that will put affordable housing behind the VFW building and renovate it for use as a public space.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 36, "Community Preservation Fund - Affordable Housing Retention Fund": There are 69 affordable homes in Falmouth that have an older type deed restriction which is tied to market value instead of median income. In order for these to continue to count as affordable, we literally need to buy and change those deeds; that is what these funds do.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 37, "Community Preservation Fund - Open Space (Grinnell)": This article funds the purchase of four parcels totaling 11 acres in Waquoit. It's a collaborative purchase, much like the Haddad parcel was, and I really like these arrangements. Purchasing open space is best done by private groups (which is why I support the efforts of the 300 Committee), but the next best thing is when different groups pitch in so the taxpayer isn't footing the entire bill.
However, I had held this article, because even though Falmouth would contribute $400,000 to the purchase, we won't own it. Nope, these parcels will be added to the Waquoit Bay Estuarine Research Reserve. The state will own them.
Given that the state has deeper pockets than we do, I cannot for the life of me understand why we would give the state $400,000 so they can buy land. If Falmouth is going to pay the bill, we should own it.
I had held this article to argue this point, but released the hold when it came to the floor. Frankly, there were controversial articles yet to be heard, and I needed to save my breath. I abstained from voting. It passed.
Article 38, "Community Preservation Fund - Historic Resources (Main Street Library)": This was for additional work needed for the historic section (the 1901 part) of the library.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 43, "Community Preservation Fund - Community Preservation Act General Budgeted Reserve Account": This is self-explanatory; it allocated $99,322 for the CPC reserve account.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 44, "Community Preservation Fund - Administrative Expense": Again, this is self-explanatory; these are the administrative expenses for the Community Preservation Committee; $90,000 which represents 2.7 percent of the revenues from the CPA.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 45, "Intermunicipal Agreement - Solid Waste Transfer Station": This gave the selectmen the authority to enter into an agreement with Mashpee, Bourne and/or Sandwich and the Massachusetts Military Reservation to operate the waste transfer station.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 50, "Petition - Amend Falmouth Code - Chapter 235 Section 8 Regulations (N. Curran)": This was another one of those articles that generated a lot of discussion.
Basically, Neil Curran, a former member of the conservation commission and the petitioner of the article, was asking town meeting to re-assume its role in approving changes to the conservation regulations, something that we learned it had done until 1984.
The highlight of the discussion was Pam Truesdale, the former conservation administrator, who did a fine job of educating us about the history of the regulations and urged town meeting to pass this article. Among other things, she raised concerns about over-regulation. As a former member of the commission, I must express some solidarity with her position.
I also spoke in favor of this article, making note of recent letters in the Falmouth Enterprise calling for the abolition of the conservation commission and the Falmouth Wetlands Regulations. These are, I argued, evidence that the commission needs to do more to educate the public, and this article would help do that.
I voted "Aye". The vote was close enough for Town Meeting Moderator David Vieira to call for a standing count, but on a count of 64-119, it failed.
Article 51, "Petition - Town Beaches and Parking Lots (D. Shearer)": Apparently this wasn't my town meeting, because this was yet another article I favored. I voted "Aye"; it failed.
I'm not sure why there was so much opposition. While I appreciate the concerns about policing and parking that were raised, the article only asked that town meeting "recommend" that the selectmen open the lots. A recommendation would not be binding on the selectmen, but apparently some believed that it would.
Article 52, "Petition - 419 Woods Hole Road (M. Finneran)": I've previously praised Chairman Kevin Murphy for the idea of transferring development rights, but the option that was presented Wednesday is not an apples to apples bargain.
According to Chairman Murphy, Chris Wise, who purchased the old Nautilus Hotel and will be converting it into senior housing, has purchased a bankrupt development at Oshman Way, right off the Woods Hole Road. Apparently Mr. Wise intends on giving the town this property in exchange for the development rights to Webster Woods, i.e., the woods would be spared.
The problem is that the discussion about what would be built at Oshman Way centered on 1-2 bedroom units. Obviously, these are not 'family' units, although 2-3 bedroom family units were part of the plan for Webster Woods. Strike one.
Somewhere in here Precinct 1 representative Peter Clark, spoke. The most memorable thing about it was a remark about Woods Hole being the "victims of affordable housing issues." I'm not sure what Mr. Clark meant by this - he didn't elaborate - but I wasn't impressed by it. To suggest that there are "victims of affordable housing issues" is to suggest that there's something inherently negative about affordable housing.
Rebecca Putnam, another Precinct 9 representative and owner of her own real estate brokerage (and, yes, my wife) is familiar with the property and the conservation issues on this site, so she asked about it. Chairman Murphy fielded the question, but dropped the ball. He went on and on about something, but never answered the question about the conservation issues at this site. Strike two.
Another affordable housing development elsewhere in town - Little Pond Landing - has been tied up because of conservation issues. I don't see any benefit in the town tying itself up in such issues.
It was enough to sour me on the idea of exchanging Webster Woods for Oshman Way, and so I voted "Aye"; it failed.
I want answers - if not a better option - or I'll be supporting the Webster Woods plan come November. Chairman Murphy threw down the gauntlet almost a year ago; that should be enough time to develop an equivalent plan elsewhere.
Article 54, "Funding Article": This is the housekeeping article that gives town government permission to carry out the spending approved in this warrant.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
And so ended the 2008 Spring Town Meeting.
No comments:
Post a Comment