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.
No comments:
Post a Comment