Articles 52 deals with making Sturbridge a "Stretch Code" community. I won't post the whole article but it deals with requiring homeowners and businesses (those pesky businesses again) to meet certain "green" standards when they build, either new or additions, to their property.
 |
| Get the code here |
First there is the International Energy Conservation Code, which is brought to you by the fine people at the United Nations, as part of something known as "Agenda 21". I haven't had time to read much on Agenda 21 yet, but from the little I have heard this is not necessarily a good thing for us. I will write more on it when I get more info. What I have heard is it is a way for the government to take control over ALL resources to regulate them in the interest of global warming. You know, global warming which everyday is proven a bunch of BS.Read the article on the warrant, is that not what the town wants to do, control what you do to your property? If i want to "go green" should I not be allowed to do it on my own? Voting this article in is opening a very big door into what you can and can not do with your own property. This isn't just about a sign people.
And I am sure the proponents of this will use the same arguments as they are with Article 48, "But there is no money in the article, it won't cost the town anything." Not directly anyway. How much will it cost to train the building inspectors? How much more work will he have to do? How many assistants will he need?
But that isn't even the biggest money issue, how much will this add to construction costs? Oh, wait, I got it we'll increase the tax base if we put more into our houses, we can assess them more. how could I miss that.
Voters of Sturbridge, I am all for helping the environment, even though I don't drink the global warming Kool-Aid, but I;ll do it on my own. We are being led down the garden path but not to the garden you may think.
Update: Both articles were defeated, I'll post numbers as soon as they are available. Thank-you Sturbridge voters, are wallets appreciate it.
If you haven't had the time to read about agenda 21,it will take awhile to hunt up all of the info yourself. I have spent months building a page exclusively FOR educating people on AG-21 so you don't have to hunt the info.There's tons here and all linkable to many articles.
ReplyDeletePlease take the time to educate yourself and as many others as we can.Our freedoms depend on fighting agenda 21 from all sides.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stopping-Agenda-21-and-sustainable-development/200953626623622#!/pages/Stopping-Agenda-21-and-sustainable-development/200953626623622
I will "Like" your page, I will also be attending an informational meeting on Agenda 21 in Paxton Tuesday. I admit i don't know much about it right now, have only heard a few things, but it's time to take a stand.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to email me at imjustmusing@gmail.com if you will be at that meeting, perhaps we can meet.
Read the 2nd paragraph in the warrant article under Section 8.31.4, Authority of Article 52; it says the following:
ReplyDelete"780 CMR 115.AA may be adopted or rescinded by any municipality in the commonwealth in the
manner prescribed by law."
Sure, they said that about the Community Preservation Act (CPA), too, which is that 3% surcharge on our tax bills. But what if the town is awarded Green Community grants? Can it be rescinded while we are under the obligation of a grant from the state?
Read the Dept of Revenue Guidelines for the CPA: http://www.communitypreservation.org/DOR%20Guidelines.cfm, click on IGR 209, and go to Page 16, .10 at the top of the page: Surcharge Revocation. With what this town owes on that debt service for 4 projects, the CPA absolutely cannot be revoked until that debt is paid. when the debt is paid down to a certain amount, it may be possible to reduce the surcharge amount to 2% or 1%. But right now, it's like a big fat credit card - and you will notice on this Special Town Meeting warrant, there are...what...4 CPA articles that ask for money to spend on trails and other things totaling $45,000 - shouldn't that be paid toward our long-term debt service? According to the Report of the Community Preservation Committee in the back of the Warrant, we will still owe $1.7 million after this Special Town Meeting - that's part of that $50,000,000 in 20-year debt service we owe and we'll be paying interest and principal on it until the years 2017, 2026, and 2030.
Now, how do you suppose certain town officials plan to pay for $6,000,000 athletic fields?
Go ahead; try to revoke the CPA. And if the Stretch Code is passed, don't be surprised if there is some similar reason or loophole why it cannot be. Voters should ask this question at Town Meeting.