Most of the items discussed did not seem particularly divisive...but we managed to ask enough questions that we stayed until 10:00 anyway. All articles passed.
The big one was the proposal to acquire property on Lincoln Street to create a parking lot. On the one hand, Needham's downtown *does* need more parking, and for that reason I had intended to vote for it. On the other hand, multiple affordable housing advocates raised concerns about Needham going in the wrong direction by tearing down housing to make more room for parking - there were other concerns raised too, but that was the one which stuck with me. Had the town been doing more elsewhere in that regard I wouldn't have minded, but as it was I voted no.
Other proposals involved a new fire truck (one member raised a question about whether the information on lifespans was accurate; a similar truck, which did not include a ladder, lasted 22 years - but it's a different kind, only included a pumper, and this type lasts 15-20 - voted yes), garage bays for the department of public works vehicles (lots of questions... but it was just a feasibility study, and frankly I think a study can answer them effectively - voted yes), appropriations for this fiscal year to two funds we had debated in the special town meeting for last fiscal year (voted the same way I did in the special meeting; one yes, one no), and a fund to set up replacement and repairs for athletic fields, usually artificial turf. That had a lot of discussion on various issues; one of the most interesting was the propensity of turf to cause injuries, which as a baseball purist I'm certainly well aware of. But the fields were already installed by a generous donation to the town and there had been no complaints, so I couldn't justify opposing a fund to maintain them; I voted yes. Then various people were honored for their service to town meeting and civic life and town meeting dissolved.
Overall, this was a fascinating experience - I can't say I accomplished much, but I certainly learned a lot and I voted my conscience and I'm proud of how I served. I'm going to continue getting into involvement with municipal affairs - not everything is done at town meeting, after all, and I have plenty of time on my hands.
And I'll be back for the next special town meeting, and again next year - I won a two year term, after all.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Special town meeting + Citizens United resolution
Most of the stuff on the Special Town Meeting was noncontroversial. There were two exceptions; a bit over 1 million dollars to buy properties adjacent to the fire and police station so as to provide parking when they're expanded, and an appropriation of money to the capital improvement fund. Both passed anyway, but not without questions and a few no votes, including my own. The concern with the former largely was because it was very expensive, and although the "free cash" (money collected in excess of the budget - because of the balanced budget requirement, there's some every year, but it was high this year because of no snow and a property tax settlement) allowed a fire truck to be purchased with cash instead of debt, freeing up some debt for this, that only applies to the first five years of a twenty-year debt financing. Many concerns were raised about the amount of 20-year debt used and the price of this purchase, including by the finance committee (which ultimately endorsed the article) and I voted no for that reason. Next was a small appropriation to the capital improvement fund; many disagreed with the town's emphasis on revolving funds, and this one in particular struck me and a few others as an unnecessary roadblock for things which could simply be funded by free cash, so I voted no. Finally, although this was non-controversial, the capital facility fund also had appropriations recommended; it was described as an "emergency" fund, so I asked if spending money from it still had to go through the normal process if a building was falling apart. (It does, but it's not used for that so much as general repairs, apparently.) This article passed unanimously.
Finally, there was a long argument over a resolution urging a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united. I had initially sought to speak on this issue, however many others did as well, and I felt most of the points I would have raised (specifically regarding the historical context of the first amendment; the founders surely did not mean to give unlimited free speech to the British East India Company!) were covered. The proponents were more in number - something like 8-2 on who spoke, although surely there were others wishing to speak - and also I felt had better arguments, although I'm admittedly biased.
The arguments in favor of the resolution primarily discussed the historical role of town meeting as an upholder of democracy and the corrupting influence of unlimited corporate funds, while those opposed spoke of "free speech" by the definition of the Roberts court, concerns about town meeting discussing national business and it opening the floodgates, and a proposed amendment by congressman McGovern which they felt would have been overly broad. Because the resolution didn't advocate a specific amendment (and that amendment wasn't as broad as they were claiming anyway if I was reading it properly) that argument fell flat, and while no one wants the AARP or Sierra Club banned from advocating, I think people understood the definition between the AARP and a for-profit company and had faith in congress to write a decent amendment - the historical case they made wasn't very effective either, because all their examples were from the 20th century. (In most of the 18th and 19th, corporations were very narrowly regulated by states for a specific purpose and charters weren't given out like candy by Delaware.) As for national business, this is one issue, and not only does it impact local elections, but constitutional amendments often come from the bottom up, as the proponents effectively demonstrated. And the opponents didn't have an alternative, more narrow amendment proposed either; their solution to the concerns of a broad amendment was not to propose a narrow one, but to allow bribery (or "independent campaign expenditures") to run rampant.
I think given the choice, Town Meeting members would much rather see themselves as defenders of New England's tradition of democracy than a group of people dedicated solely to municipal governance, and arguing for the former is always going to be more effective than the latter. It passed without need for a roll call on a voice vote, and it seemed everyone was voting louder than usual. I, of course, voted for the resolution; as a citizen and an elected official, I detest when politicians are owned by big business. This is a democracy, not an oligarchy, and I for one am determined to keep it that way!
Finally, there was a long argument over a resolution urging a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united. I had initially sought to speak on this issue, however many others did as well, and I felt most of the points I would have raised (specifically regarding the historical context of the first amendment; the founders surely did not mean to give unlimited free speech to the British East India Company!) were covered. The proponents were more in number - something like 8-2 on who spoke, although surely there were others wishing to speak - and also I felt had better arguments, although I'm admittedly biased.
The arguments in favor of the resolution primarily discussed the historical role of town meeting as an upholder of democracy and the corrupting influence of unlimited corporate funds, while those opposed spoke of "free speech" by the definition of the Roberts court, concerns about town meeting discussing national business and it opening the floodgates, and a proposed amendment by congressman McGovern which they felt would have been overly broad. Because the resolution didn't advocate a specific amendment (and that amendment wasn't as broad as they were claiming anyway if I was reading it properly) that argument fell flat, and while no one wants the AARP or Sierra Club banned from advocating, I think people understood the definition between the AARP and a for-profit company and had faith in congress to write a decent amendment - the historical case they made wasn't very effective either, because all their examples were from the 20th century. (In most of the 18th and 19th, corporations were very narrowly regulated by states for a specific purpose and charters weren't given out like candy by Delaware.) As for national business, this is one issue, and not only does it impact local elections, but constitutional amendments often come from the bottom up, as the proponents effectively demonstrated. And the opponents didn't have an alternative, more narrow amendment proposed either; their solution to the concerns of a broad amendment was not to propose a narrow one, but to allow bribery (or "independent campaign expenditures") to run rampant.
I think given the choice, Town Meeting members would much rather see themselves as defenders of New England's tradition of democracy than a group of people dedicated solely to municipal governance, and arguing for the former is always going to be more effective than the latter. It passed without need for a roll call on a voice vote, and it seemed everyone was voting louder than usual. I, of course, voted for the resolution; as a citizen and an elected official, I detest when politicians are owned by big business. This is a democracy, not an oligarchy, and I for one am determined to keep it that way!
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Notes from the second night of Town Meeting
We didn't get a lot done today. Five articles. But two of them were extremely contentious.
The first one related to unauthorized bow and arrow use on public land, which for some reason was still allowed even though handgun use was not, and to increase a variety of fines. I offered a motion to divide (my first motion) into two articles, one regarding bow and arrow use, the other fines. One person proposed to ban crossbow use as well, but the moderator ruled it out of order. The motion required 20 people to pass; it got 22. I spoke against the fines as well, saying $50, which several of them would be raised to, was a lot of money for a first offense. Town meeting disagreed; a few voted no on the bow and arrow use, a few on the fines, but neither came close to being voted down.
The next was the first contentious article. Needham had been a dry town for a long, long time. Presently it allows restaurant sales, but not liquor stores or supermarkets. A proposal before Town Meeting would have put the question of up to 6 liquor licenses to a referendum. There was a lot of debate; opponents highlighted substance abuse, a possible increase in crime, and proponents thought Needham's enforcement was adequate and that youth use would be controlled, and moreover that the people, not just Town Meeting, should vote on such a divisive issue. One thing which was not raised, but I wanted to, is that the same things which might make youth use easier - walking distance - also would make it easier for adult non-drivers, such as the disabled and elderly or people who just can't pass a driving test. (As it is now, you've got to take public transit or get a ride. I'm a teetotaler, but if I were a drinker it'd impact me.) Debate was closed down, but they needed a hand-count - almost a third wanted it to keep going and I got the sense they ALL wanted to speak. (I was a no. I wanted to speak.) A motion to extend the length of time from application to decision from 30 days (which could be extended anyway if the applicant wanted it) to 60 was narrowly voted down (narrowly because 1/3rd is enough to kill it) and then the vote to send it to the people passed by an overwhelming margin - over 70%, IIRC. I voted in favor, as I had pledged to do; I believe in direct democracy, and I think people should have the option to drink.
The next major issue was a proposed pesticide ban and outright transition to organic land management. The proponents argued strongly against pesticides, but they had only been used once in the past five years, and not strongly against the current integrated pest management policy. Every relevant town board was overwhelmingly against the proposal, and a motion to refer the issue to a committee (which I supported, because there are flaws in current pest policy - the board discussing it "tries to meet annually" and does not post it publicly, and I got the sense there might have been some issues they were overlooking, although proponents were weak on specifics) failed fairly narrowly on a voice vote - I honestly wasn't sure, but no one who felt strongly about it doubted the moderator's vote. Then the article failed overwhelmingly - the first "no" of Town Meeting.
Next was the Citizens United petition - or would have been, were it not being presented at 10:45 at night. Instead, the proponent moved to postpone discussion of the resolution, which succeeded. Someone moved to adjourn, it failed - I voted yes this time, was tired. We then voted overwhelmingly for appropriations to the community preservation fund for annual funding and a historical materials storage upgrade. One passed with a few scattered 'no' votes, the other unanimously, I don't remember which.
The first one related to unauthorized bow and arrow use on public land, which for some reason was still allowed even though handgun use was not, and to increase a variety of fines. I offered a motion to divide (my first motion) into two articles, one regarding bow and arrow use, the other fines. One person proposed to ban crossbow use as well, but the moderator ruled it out of order. The motion required 20 people to pass; it got 22. I spoke against the fines as well, saying $50, which several of them would be raised to, was a lot of money for a first offense. Town meeting disagreed; a few voted no on the bow and arrow use, a few on the fines, but neither came close to being voted down.
The next was the first contentious article. Needham had been a dry town for a long, long time. Presently it allows restaurant sales, but not liquor stores or supermarkets. A proposal before Town Meeting would have put the question of up to 6 liquor licenses to a referendum. There was a lot of debate; opponents highlighted substance abuse, a possible increase in crime, and proponents thought Needham's enforcement was adequate and that youth use would be controlled, and moreover that the people, not just Town Meeting, should vote on such a divisive issue. One thing which was not raised, but I wanted to, is that the same things which might make youth use easier - walking distance - also would make it easier for adult non-drivers, such as the disabled and elderly or people who just can't pass a driving test. (As it is now, you've got to take public transit or get a ride. I'm a teetotaler, but if I were a drinker it'd impact me.) Debate was closed down, but they needed a hand-count - almost a third wanted it to keep going and I got the sense they ALL wanted to speak. (I was a no. I wanted to speak.) A motion to extend the length of time from application to decision from 30 days (which could be extended anyway if the applicant wanted it) to 60 was narrowly voted down (narrowly because 1/3rd is enough to kill it) and then the vote to send it to the people passed by an overwhelming margin - over 70%, IIRC. I voted in favor, as I had pledged to do; I believe in direct democracy, and I think people should have the option to drink.
The next major issue was a proposed pesticide ban and outright transition to organic land management. The proponents argued strongly against pesticides, but they had only been used once in the past five years, and not strongly against the current integrated pest management policy. Every relevant town board was overwhelmingly against the proposal, and a motion to refer the issue to a committee (which I supported, because there are flaws in current pest policy - the board discussing it "tries to meet annually" and does not post it publicly, and I got the sense there might have been some issues they were overlooking, although proponents were weak on specifics) failed fairly narrowly on a voice vote - I honestly wasn't sure, but no one who felt strongly about it doubted the moderator's vote. Then the article failed overwhelmingly - the first "no" of Town Meeting.
Next was the Citizens United petition - or would have been, were it not being presented at 10:45 at night. Instead, the proponent moved to postpone discussion of the resolution, which succeeded. Someone moved to adjourn, it failed - I voted yes this time, was tired. We then voted overwhelmingly for appropriations to the community preservation fund for annual funding and a historical materials storage upgrade. One passed with a few scattered 'no' votes, the other unanimously, I don't remember which.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Notes from the first night of town meeting
It began with honoring four Needham hockey players - three from BC, one from Union - whose teams made the Frozen Four (and three won it all). I'm glad to see college hockey commemorated and Needham succeeding like this... but I would have been gladder to *not* call any of them national champions, had BU not lost three star players and with it its season. :P
A lot of items passed by unanimous consent with no discussion. This included article 9, which in retrospect I should have proposed an amendment on increasing the town's contribution to property tax relief for the elderly. I didn't because the issue had been subject to some debate in 2010, and I feared reopening it would let its opponents shoot down the whole program. But in retrospect, none of its opponents put it up for debate, so once I realized this I should have tried to increase it. Maybe next year.
I spoke twice. The first was on article 11, related to trash disposal, which is currently funded by fees - not a flat fee, but on a per-bag basis, so people who use more trash pay more. This is a good measure in that it provides an incentive for recycling and minimal use, but a bad program in that I'm pretty sure (though haven't run the numbers - but it seems housing size varies more than trash use) that it's more regressive than property tax. Another member disagreed with me on the way out, so before proposing anything for next year, when fees may need to go up because the fund is low, I need to look into this more.
The second was a question relating to revolving funds. Needham gets grants from the MBTA which transportation for seniors. However, these aren't based on fare collection - so opposed as I am to the fare hikes, it doesn't make sense to use them for fare relief.
Pretty much everything passed unanimously or with a couple no votes, with one exception. Surprisingly, it was a zoning article related to parking lot illumination. Currently it "requires" a minimum of one foot candle - how much light a candle a foot away provides. I put requires in quotes because this is far higher than anywhere else, and the planning board for the last twenty years has been enforcing an average, not a minimum. However, this meant no minimum illumination, so a member proposed for the sake of people with poor night vision, as often happens to the elderly, an amendment adding a minimum of 0.2 like some towns have. The planning board thought it unnecessary, the grammar of the amendment, of all things, became a point of debate (it was correct but someone thought otherwise), the first voice vote was very close and the moderator couldn't tell, but on a revote, it became clearly voted down. The unamended proposal passed nearly unanimously.
After that, it was nearly 11, so we voted to adjourn. I was the lone no vote, largely because I wanted to keep going and couldn't see the clock.
A lot of items passed by unanimous consent with no discussion. This included article 9, which in retrospect I should have proposed an amendment on increasing the town's contribution to property tax relief for the elderly. I didn't because the issue had been subject to some debate in 2010, and I feared reopening it would let its opponents shoot down the whole program. But in retrospect, none of its opponents put it up for debate, so once I realized this I should have tried to increase it. Maybe next year.
I spoke twice. The first was on article 11, related to trash disposal, which is currently funded by fees - not a flat fee, but on a per-bag basis, so people who use more trash pay more. This is a good measure in that it provides an incentive for recycling and minimal use, but a bad program in that I'm pretty sure (though haven't run the numbers - but it seems housing size varies more than trash use) that it's more regressive than property tax. Another member disagreed with me on the way out, so before proposing anything for next year, when fees may need to go up because the fund is low, I need to look into this more.
The second was a question relating to revolving funds. Needham gets grants from the MBTA which transportation for seniors. However, these aren't based on fare collection - so opposed as I am to the fare hikes, it doesn't make sense to use them for fare relief.
Pretty much everything passed unanimously or with a couple no votes, with one exception. Surprisingly, it was a zoning article related to parking lot illumination. Currently it "requires" a minimum of one foot candle - how much light a candle a foot away provides. I put requires in quotes because this is far higher than anywhere else, and the planning board for the last twenty years has been enforcing an average, not a minimum. However, this meant no minimum illumination, so a member proposed for the sake of people with poor night vision, as often happens to the elderly, an amendment adding a minimum of 0.2 like some towns have. The planning board thought it unnecessary, the grammar of the amendment, of all things, became a point of debate (it was correct but someone thought otherwise), the first voice vote was very close and the moderator couldn't tell, but on a revote, it became clearly voted down. The unamended proposal passed nearly unanimously.
After that, it was nearly 11, so we voted to adjourn. I was the lone no vote, largely because I wanted to keep going and couldn't see the clock.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Town Meeting Warrant Discussion/Orientation
I got a ton of useful information at the warrant discussion and orientation. Most of the things I was skeptical about either got withdrawn or I understood why they were needed now. I don't want to be a rubber stamp, but I think I might end up voting yes on almost everything (except the outright pesticide ban, which seems superfluous) the way it's going now.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Thoughts on the warrant/budget
I don't want to give the school committee a budget increase of 5.2% when there's little inflation or overall student growth... but when I looked through the actual budget items, they seem to need it, for a variety of reasons from special education to older students costing more. I couldn't find any wasteful spending. These things are more complex than I thought.
That said, I'm disappointed that the library's only getting a 1.2% increase, well below most town departments. As I see it, it's as important as the schools, and I'm going to see if I can get it raised.
Article 7: I'm for this. It's an increase in the exemption for widows/widowers, orphans, seniors over 70, veterans and their spouses/parents, and the blind ( from 90% to 95%, but honestly I'd like it at 100%, the legal maximum.) Heck, if possible I'd like to expand this exemption to other groups, but I probably can't - looks like it's handled at the state level.
Article 9: Property tax assistance to old and disabled. WIsh it was higher, wish it was broader, if I can't get that I'll take what I have.
Article 16: I really need to look into this more. Zoning is not an area I'm that familiar with - I can read the language, but I don't know why it's needed or what the downside is. Regarding swimming pools at least.
Article 17: I went to a board of selectmen hearing on this issue by accident. It seems to be written too broadly - I sympathize with artists, but if they can hold large classes in studio apartments that's a lot of traffic in residential areas. I'm a no unless I get convinced well.
Article 20: I had no idea we had a problem with archery without the board of selectmen's consent.
Article 21: I'm for it. Let the voters decide. And when they do, I'll be one of the voters voting yes - don't see any good in banning alcohol when the neighboring towns allow it, save for helping businesses in the neighboring towns at Needham's expense.
Article 22: Pesticides are generally bad, but the IPM policy seems like enough at restricting them? Then again, Green Needham supports this article. I need to learn more.
Article 23: I could not be more in favor of this resolution. Citizens United must end.
Article 24: I'd love this job, but I think it's forbidden by conflict of interest issues. No historian is going to vote no on archiving historical artifacts.
Article 25: It's expensive. It's also housing for our least fortunate, for people who often have trouble living on their own, and independence can be a wonderful thing. I'm in favor of it.
Articles 26-28: I'm a history major. I've already made up my mind as a yes vote on anything related to history/preservation.
Article 30: Lots of appropriations for upgrades of equipment, seems necessary, need to learn more.
Article 31: Is parking that bad? It's a lot of money, much of the town's in walking distance, and when my mom drives into needham she can usually find it. Need to check with more motorists, but tentatively against.
Articles 32/33: Infrastructure and fire trucks are important. I'm a yes.
Article 34: Is there a need for a parking garage? This is something I need to listen to debate on.
Article 39: Can we just switch to grass? I remember as a baseball fan hearing plenty of bad stuff about synthetic turf, and it seems really expensive to renovate it. I support youth athletics, but if we can do this for cheaper we should.
That said, I'm disappointed that the library's only getting a 1.2% increase, well below most town departments. As I see it, it's as important as the schools, and I'm going to see if I can get it raised.
Article 7: I'm for this. It's an increase in the exemption for widows/widowers, orphans, seniors over 70, veterans and their spouses/parents, and the blind ( from 90% to 95%, but honestly I'd like it at 100%, the legal maximum.) Heck, if possible I'd like to expand this exemption to other groups, but I probably can't - looks like it's handled at the state level.
Article 9: Property tax assistance to old and disabled. WIsh it was higher, wish it was broader, if I can't get that I'll take what I have.
Article 16: I really need to look into this more. Zoning is not an area I'm that familiar with - I can read the language, but I don't know why it's needed or what the downside is. Regarding swimming pools at least.
Article 17: I went to a board of selectmen hearing on this issue by accident. It seems to be written too broadly - I sympathize with artists, but if they can hold large classes in studio apartments that's a lot of traffic in residential areas. I'm a no unless I get convinced well.
Article 20: I had no idea we had a problem with archery without the board of selectmen's consent.
Article 21: I'm for it. Let the voters decide. And when they do, I'll be one of the voters voting yes - don't see any good in banning alcohol when the neighboring towns allow it, save for helping businesses in the neighboring towns at Needham's expense.
Article 22: Pesticides are generally bad, but the IPM policy seems like enough at restricting them? Then again, Green Needham supports this article. I need to learn more.
Article 23: I could not be more in favor of this resolution. Citizens United must end.
Article 24: I'd love this job, but I think it's forbidden by conflict of interest issues. No historian is going to vote no on archiving historical artifacts.
Article 25: It's expensive. It's also housing for our least fortunate, for people who often have trouble living on their own, and independence can be a wonderful thing. I'm in favor of it.
Articles 26-28: I'm a history major. I've already made up my mind as a yes vote on anything related to history/preservation.
Article 30: Lots of appropriations for upgrades of equipment, seems necessary, need to learn more.
Article 31: Is parking that bad? It's a lot of money, much of the town's in walking distance, and when my mom drives into needham she can usually find it. Need to check with more motorists, but tentatively against.
Articles 32/33: Infrastructure and fire trucks are important. I'm a yes.
Article 34: Is there a need for a parking garage? This is something I need to listen to debate on.
Article 39: Can we just switch to grass? I remember as a baseball fan hearing plenty of bad stuff about synthetic turf, and it seems really expensive to renovate it. I support youth athletics, but if we can do this for cheaper we should.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Victory!
183 votes. 16th place. A two-year term when I was just hoping not to place 23rd. This despite catching a cold and not holding a sign up.
Wow.
Thanks to everyone who cast a vote for me, and especially to those who told other people to do the same. I hope this is the start of a fine political career, although just serving in Town Meeting would be a wonderful experience and give me the chance to have a real say and make a difference in my community. All politics is local, as a great speaker from this state famously said.
I hope I'll be able to help make Needham a better and more affordable place to live, and I'll do my part to keep my constituents updated about municipal affairs.
http://www.needhamma.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=3413
Wow.
Thanks to everyone who cast a vote for me, and especially to those who told other people to do the same. I hope this is the start of a fine political career, although just serving in Town Meeting would be a wonderful experience and give me the chance to have a real say and make a difference in my community. All politics is local, as a great speaker from this state famously said.
I hope I'll be able to help make Needham a better and more affordable place to live, and I'll do my part to keep my constituents updated about municipal affairs.
http://www.needhamma.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=3413
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)