In this weeks local paper there has been discussion about Article 48 on the warrant for the special town meeting in Sturbridge. I wrote about this in the last post for this blog. As always in small town politics there seems to be some confusion as to exactly the purpose of Article 48.
Here is the text of Article 48:
To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to file legislation in the General Court to clarify the intent of the vote taken under Article 41 at the December 2004 Special Town Meeting, such legislation to state that the original vote to acquire land for “open space and conservation purposes” was intended to include and allow such land to be used for active recreation purposes, as is permitted under Amendment Article 97 of the MassachusettsHere is what I don't get - why do we need to "clarify the intent of the vote taken" if we already took a vote? Here is a link to another Sturbridge blog which has the documentation of the first meeting where the original article was voted on. As you can see this article was for the purchase this land for conservation purposes and there was even a substitute motion which stated the land was not to be used for recreation fields. So what is the problem?
Constitution, in addition to other open space and conservation purposes, or take any other action in relation thereto. - Town Meeting Warrant
In a letter to the editor on December 2, 2011 Sturbridge Villager, Dave Holland of Sturbridge writes:
No money is being requested. No money has been budgeted. If anyone has doubts about either of these facts, please check with Financial Committee and review the 2012 budget.And he is right. But (and in Sturbridge politics there is always a but) if we change the use of the land, we COULD build recreation fields which WOULD cost money. In addition, as pointed out by Janet Garon of Sturbridge:
...they placed the property under the management and control of the Conservation Commission in accordance with MA General Law Chapter 40, Section 8C, as this section of MA General Law only allows passive recreational uses. Furthermore, as a condition of using CPA funds, which was matched by funds from the Department of Revenue, the Act REQUIRES that all properties purchased with CPA funds must have a permanent Conservation Restriction placed on them - Sturbridge Villager 12/2/2011Unless I am wrong wouldn't it be like ummm illegal to use the land for something else especially if there is state money involved? I am not against having recreation fields, but having been in this town long enough, we never do anything on a small scale and it always costs us money, which many of us can't afford.
And of course there is this from The Evening News on 12/2/2011 written by Mike Placella of Fiskdale"
Does “active recreation” mean the possibility of baseball, softball, soccer and lacrosse fields for the children of our community, potentially yes. - The NewsI see "it's for the children", the only problem is if we have to spend money we don't have, no parents with children will be able to live here.
Dear I'm Just Musing:
ReplyDeleteI want to thank you for taking the time to post comments about Article 48. I also saw Don Holland's letter in the SEN, and wondered how he could so easily miss the money piece of this issue - is it simply because there's no dollar sign in the language?
As one who has attended town meetings for about 20 years now, I'm becoming more and more aware that our warrant articles lack specificity and the fallback that town officials use when the dollar signs do finally hit squarely between the eyes is, 'we have public meetings, you should be aware.' Certainly voters should do research but transparency has always been an issue in Sturbridge; I thought it was getting better but with some things, it's worse.
To close my opening thoughts about the lack of dollar signs in Article 48, consider another article on the warrant that also doesn't include dollar signs: Article 52, the Green Community "Stretch Code" will actually cost homeowners (and business owners) additional money for any addition they plan to do on their homes - so, you want to add a family room to your house? Plan on spending an additional $10,000 if this passes - the Summary Box says "new construction" but it also includes existing buildings.
Here's the Summary Box from the article - I would have pasted the entire article but it's too long: still I challenge anyone to find a single $$$$$ sign.
"Summary: The “Stretch Code” is a section of the Mass. Building Code that REQUIRES
enhanced energy efficiency standards in design and construction of buildings including
residential and commercial construction. The Town Planning Board and Board of Selectmen
have committed to energy use reduction as part of the “Green Communities” program. The
Town Planner and Building Inspector have held public meetings to promote this program to
the public and to contractors."
But hey, let's pass this because it doesn't mention any money, budgets, or plans right now. Compared to $6,000,000 athletic fields, this is a drop in the bucket - but just because there are no dollar signs, don't be fooled - you'll pay later.
Anonymous: Thanks for commenting. I will read up on Article 52 today, and I am sure I'll vote against it as well, something about anything with the word "Green" in it makes me wonder.
ReplyDeleteFor too long in Sturbridge as well as in other towns, people have stood on the sidelines and let others pass articles, etc. which cost all of us more money. I am barely getting by now and can't afford higher taxes. I've written in this blog and other places as well that this is (in my opinion anyway) where change truly begins, at the local level, and this is what I feel the Tea party movement is all about and where it needs to make change.
Too many people believe what they read in the mainstream media about the tea party and what it is an they are wrong. This is where we make a difference.
I can't begin to express my gratitude to the folks who ate on the ball and helping average citizens get the clarity needed to understand how the general public is constantly and now, seemingly at an increased pace, railroaded into turning over our rights as land and home owners under the guise of helping the planet... If indeed the cause wereas just and worthy and necessay people will line up willingly.... Unless we're too stupid to get it as they believe , right?
ReplyDeleteI agree, if I want to go green I'll do it on my own. If it will save me money then I am all for it, but I am still not convinced that there Global Warming is in fact real.
ReplyDeleteFor too long I have sat on the sidelines and not paid attention, can't afford to do so anymore.
These two warrant articles are presented as being pretty benign in terms of costs/impacts on voters pocketbooks and wallets. Taxpayers should be very concerned about how all this stuff is going down in Sturbridge - no public hearings - a public hearing is different than a public meeting - and not even a single public forum.
ReplyDeleteYet consider this: when the town did mosquito control spraying, there was a public hearing. When the town wanted to institute the Pay as You Throw program, there was a public hearing. There have been public forums hosted by the Trails Master Plan Committee telling us where and how that town appropriation is being spent and they're aired on cable access.
But nothing - NOT ONE hearing or forum informing voters as to how that $72,000 appropriated in 2009 for field designs on the Shepard parcel has been spent. I requested copies of the field designs and other associated documentation, and I was told it would cost $106.
It is in a taxpayer's best interest to watch the Selectmen's and other meetings. I picked up on all this from a brief mention by one Selectmen in April 2011, when she stated the Rec Committee had decided not to bring forward the $6,000,000 warrant article because the plans were not yet finalized. But if the plans had been finalized, they would have been on the April 2011 town meeting warrant. And just like this coming Monday's meeting, it would have been stacked with pro-athletic fields proponents who don't care how much it costs all the taxpayers in this town, nor do they care about the long term maintenance and insurance costs, or the additional personnel necessary to maintain them.
Come out and vote on Monday evening; your wallet depends on it.
Carol, thanks for commenting. I only wish I had heard about these two articles sooner than I did, perhaps I could have spread more information.
ReplyDeleteAnd I wish I could attend every single meeting held by every committee in town; apparently, I am expected to do so by some town officials.
ReplyDeleteYou see, my problem is that I gave town officials too much leeway to do the correct thing and in placing my trust in them, I have failed miserably in getting the word out sooner. On June 27, I had the clear understanding that town officials would be following the correct legal process to convert the parcel, but not until October 3rd, when I read the language in Article 48, did I realize that a bait and switch had occurred.
You see, Article 48 has a much larger, sweeping impact to it; this is not just about the Shepard parcel. Article 48 is precedent setting. Consider that there are other towns in the Commonwealth that have acquired property using vague warrant articles and that 3% CPA surcharge on our tax bills and state-matching funds; consider that they also neglected to complete the transactions by placing the required conservation restriction on those properties; and consider that whether the property is under the so-called "protection" of the Conservation Commission or not - this conversion, and it absolutely is a conversion - will give other towns the tools needed to proceed with conversions across the entire state.
The town is circumventing a process, called the Article 97 process - which Selectmen voted for and requested from Town Counsel on 6/27/11 - yet voters were given Article 48 to "correct" the 6 year deed. I have provided the 6/27/11 meeting minutes and a transcript of that meeting at www.aroundsturbridge.com.
Article 97 is an Amendment to the state's Constitution and it reads as follows:
Article 97
Adopted in 1972 as the 97th Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution.
Guarantees Massachusetts residents basic environmental rights and protections.
Lands and easements taken or acquired for such purposes shall not be used for other
purposes or otherwise disposed of except by laws enacted by a 2/3 vote of the
Massachusetts Legislature.
Language of Article 97:
"The people shall have the right to clean air and water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of their environment; and the protection of the people in their right to the conservation, development and utilization of the agricultural, mineral, forest, water, air and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a public
purpose. The general court shall have the power to enact legislation necessary or expedient to protect such rights. In the furtherance of the foregoing powers, the general court shall have the power to provide for the taking, upon payment of just compensation therefore, or for the acquisition by purchase or otherwise, of lands and easements or such other interests therein as may be deemed necessary to
accomplish these purposes. Lands and easements taken or acquired for such purposes shall not be used for other purposes or
otherwise disposed of except by laws enacted by a two thirds vote, taken by yeas and nays, of each branch of the general court."
Here is how municipalities are supposed to adhere to that law: http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/fourthlevelpages/article97policy.htm The last paragraph outlines what the town is SUPPOSED to do when properties are placed under the protection of the Conservation Commission.
I would like to thank anyone who came out last night and voted in opposition to the two warrants that were going to cost the taxpayers of this town. I was upset that the Annual town meeting warrant was not passed. Many more people would have been able to attend the meeting on a Saturday. I deeply regret not standing up and saying a few words about that article. Two out of three isn't bad and frankly i was surprised that article 48 was shot down.
ReplyDeleteI would have liked to see the Town Meetings on Saturday as well. Just shows how your vote does count.
ReplyDeleteI was disappointed to see that the Conservation commission was supporting the conversion of conservation land to soccer fields.
ReplyDelete