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.