Thursday, October 11, 2012

Mass Insanity

I have a theory, that goes something like this:

When you’re unable to see an issue from the perspective of someone with an opinion different than your own, strange things start to happen.

Oddly, despite any evidence to the contrary, you begin to think that the opposing view doesn’t actually exist; that people are either "making it all up" or that the number of people with an opposing view is extremely small.

Weirdly, the inability to see the world from anywhere but your own point within it, results in delusions.

Put another way, the inability to purposefully delude yourself, results in actual delusions.

We experience this all the time when viewing events on the national stage. The inability to see across ideological lines is largely a product of not being able to comprehend how the other side sees an issue.

Here in Arlington I think we’re seeing this with regards to the leaf blower issue as well.

People opposed to the current bylaw actually think that Town Meeting is acting on its own, independant of the will of their constituents.

What our motivation is supposed to be escapes me.

I don’t know of any Town Meeting members that cast their votes based solely on how many constituents asked them to vote one way versus another. Some of the decisions, including the recent leaf blower votes, are too much part of a nuanced process of moving the issue toward resolution for each vote to be a simple poll.

That said, I get the impression that some would be dumbfounded to learn that prior to voting I was contacted by equal numbers of people on both sides of the issue.

Looking back now, it looks like I was contacted by 10 separate individuals or groups with regards to this issue. I received 5 contacts asking me to repeal the bylaw, and 5 contacts asking me to sustain it.

Those contacts consisted of 2 professional landscaper associations, 4 residents outside of my precinct, and 4 residents within my precinct.

Of the contacts within my precinct, 1 wanted the bylaw repealed, and 3 wanted it sustained.

Depending what side a person is on regarding this issue, they’ll interpret that statement as either false ("not the whole story," "just a some crazy people") or they’ll interpret it as validation ("this shows its just the special interests that are trying to derail our government.")

I don’t think it means either. I think it means that there are valid positions held on both sides of this debate, and that a prerequisite of putting this issue behind us for good is that we come to an understanding of that.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Leaf Blowers, yet again.

We have a special Town Meeting scheduled for October 10th to once again consider the "leaf blower ban" passed by the last Town Meeting.

When this article came up at Town Meeting last, I voted against it.

I felt then, and still feel now, that a ban is too severe a method to deal with the problems that leaf blowers have caused.

Those problems are real.

We have seen examples of leaf blowers being used in ways that do infringe upon other peoples rights.

People have legitimate, if still hotly debated, concerns over pollution.

People have legitimate reasons for being opposed to the noise created when these devices are used in close proximity (often less than a few feet) from their home.

There is a legitimate issue involved in curbing the practice of leaf blower operators "sweeping" debris into public streets, in violation of (but largely unenforceable) town law.

However I do not feel - it has not been proven to me yet - that these real concerns prevent leaf blowers from being used responsibly, in a way that avoids these issues.

Because of this, I believe that a ban (or even a seasonal restriction) should not be the preferred method of dealing with these issues.

So what should we do? I approach this issue with the following thoughts:

If we simply repeal this ban as the opponents want, and not replace it with something that addresses the issues people have, we’ll be right back dealing with this issue again very soon.

Those that want to see the problems addressed are not going to give up and walk away, just because they lose this round.

If we leave this ban in place, the opponents are also not going to stop trying to repeal it.

We will have more articles introduced to overturn the bylaw, more special Town Meetings, and so on.

Town Meeting must pass something that deals with the real issues people do have, but tempers the approach so that we manage to curb the behavior that needs to be addressed, while permitting the responsible use of these machines.

Based on my discussions with supporters and opponents of the ban, I believe that the supporters are willing to accept a different approach, something other than a ban.

However, were we to repeal this "ban," I am not confident that opponents would accept any future restrictions.

We are talking about regulating the use of a machine, and there is an inherent interest among many, especially the landscape businesses, to avoid any regulation.

So long as this law is in place they are motivated to come to the table and work something out.

Once the current law is repealed, they lose that motivation.

It is my intent to not vote to repeal the bylaw, until such a solution is passed.

I hope to see a solution proposed at this special Town Meeting that addresses the issues people have, while eliminating anything like a ban.

If we don’t come up with a solution that adequately deals with the issues people have, we’ll be faced with this debate for the foreseeable future, until we do.

And if we repeal this ban without a solution, we’ll find it even more difficult to bring the necessary parties to the table, and put this issue behind us for good.

If you have thoughts or ideas on this, please share them with me. I am interested, and I want to see a solution - more importantly an end - to this predicament.

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Restore trees to East Arlington

[This letter to the editor from Clarissa Rowe, former Board of Selectmen member, and current Town Meeting Member for Precinct 4 in East Arlington, appeared in last week's Advocate, and is worth repeating. Please share this information with others.]


Restore trees to East Arlington

Last week’s microburst storm in East Arlington destroyed more than 100 shade trees there. There was extensive damage to other trees as well. Nearly every block is missing at least one major shade tree now. If you haven’t seen the damage, take a walk or a short drive down a couple of streets in East Arlington and you will see.

If people want to help replace those trees, please consider donating to the town of Arlington’s "Trees Please" fund. You can contribute at the treasurer’s office on the first floor of Town Hall (map), or at the DPW at 51 Grove St (map). The other place you can give money for new trees is at the Tree Committee’s booth at Town Day. These contributions will help the tree department and the Tree Committee plant more trees next spring, and could aid efforts at pruning the storm-damaged trees this fall.

If you are interesting in helping out with the spring planting effort, please go to www.arlingtontrees.org.

Clarissa Rowe, Herbert Road



[Adding to Clarissa's letter, you can also donate to the "Trees Please" fund in the form of a check made payable to ‘Trees Please’ - Town of Arlington and mailed to:

Trees Please Fund, Department of Public Works
51 Grove Street
Arlington, MA 02476

See arlingtontrees.org/trees-please-program for more details]

Monday, July 23, 2012

State Rep Candidates Forum

Eric Helmuth (Town Meeting Member, Precinct 12) has passed along information regarding an upcoming candidates forum for State Representative:

STATE REPRESENTATIVE CANDIDATES FORUM
Thursday, July 26, 7-9 pm
Arlington Senior Center, 27 Maple Street (behind town hall).

Nearly one-quarter of Arlington is electing a new state representative to an open seat this fall -- and some of those affected may not even realize it.

This Thursday, July 26 at 7pm at the Arlington Senior Center (27 Maple Street), the three Democratic candidates vying for their party's nomination in the Sept. 6 primary will introduce themselves to voters and take questions from the audience. The primary election is open to both registered Democrats and unenrolled voters.

The forum will be moderated by our terrific State Senator, Ken Donnelly, who not only represents Arlington in the Senate but himself lives in this newly-redrawn House district.

WHAT PARTS OF ARLINGTON ARE IN THE NEW DISTRICT?
Due to redistricting taking effect with the November general election, three precincts in Arlington (8, 10 & 12) are leaving the district so ably represented by Sean Garballey to join Precincts 2 & 4 in East Arlington in representation by the 24th Middlesex district, which has been vacant since Will Brownsberger's election to the Senate. The district also includes all of Belmont and parts of North Cambridge.

Arlington precinct map:
www.arlingtonma.gov/public_documents/ArlingtonMA_Maps/PrecinctPollingMap.pdf

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?
Everyone in town has a stake in this election. With redistricting, Arlington's representation in the House goes from 3 to 2 members. It's vital that the new representative for the 24th Middlesex understands Arlington's unique needs. Even if you don't live in the district, you probably know people who do. Come on out Thursday evening and meet the candidates who want to represent your town's interests in the statehouse -- and please forward this email to your Arlington friends.

WHO ARE THE CANDIDATES?
Candidates for the Democratic nomination are Margaret Hegarty (www.margarethegarty.com), Bobby Reardon (www.bobbyreardon.com) and Dave Rogers (www.rogers4rep.com).

SPONSOR AND ADDITIONAL INFO
The forum is sponsored by the Arlington Democratic Town Committee. Visit www.ArlingtonDems.org for more information and the latest updates on the event.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Special Election on Thursday, July 19th

I've attempted to pull together some non-biased resources regarding the Special Election on Thursday, July 19th to uphold or repeal restrictions on the use of gas-powered leaf blowers. Let me know if you spot any errors, and of course share this with anyone who needs the info.



Polls are open from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m.
That's 2 o'clock in the afternoon - you can't vote till 2 o'clock.

The League of Women Voters is offering rides to the polls for the Special Election on July 19 between 2 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. People should call Phyllis Maddox at 781-354-0907 prior to the election.
Note that they are only doing this from 2 till 5.

You can find your polling location here:
http://www.arlingtonma.gov/public_documents/ArlingtonMA_Clerk/pollinglocations
Note that some polling locations are different than normal, due to construction at the Thompson School.



Take a look at the ballot here:
http://www.arlingtonma.gov/Public_Documents/ArlingtonMA_Clerk/elections/2012/Sampleballot_07192012.pdf

The question reads:

"Shall the town vote to approve the action of the representative town meeting whereby it was voted to amend the Town Bylaws to prohibit the use of gas-powered leaf blowers on private property between May 15th and October 15th by a vote of 95 in the affirmative to 85 in the negative."

To clarify matters even more...

  • Vote "Yes" to keep the bylaw, creating restrictions on the use of gas-powered leaf blowers during the Summer.
  • Vote "No" to repeal the bylaw, and not create any new restrictions on the use of gas-powered leaf blowers during the Summer.



"Where do I go to read the biased opinions of others that I depend upon for issues like this?"

Opponents of the new bylaw: http://www.arlingtonlandscapeassociation.com
Supporters of the new bylaw: http://arlingtonleafblowers.blogspot.com

Opponents on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ArlingtonLandscapeAssociation
Supporters on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/117654194928538/



Video On Demand of the Town Meeting Debate and vote, and the Board of Selectmen meeting where the topic of this election was discussed:
Town Meeting Debate #1
Town Meeting Debate #2
BOS Meeting



FAQ about the election:
(Most of this is just copied and pasted from
http://arlingtonleafblowers.blogspot.com/2012/06/leaf-blower-election-vote-repeal.html#more,
since Adam Auster got it all right. I didn't want to send you to a non-independent source for the info so I've copied it here, but the page does a good job and touches on other issues as well if you're interested)


Q: Why has the Town scheduled this vote?

A: State law provides for a special election (a town-wide referendum) on any new bylaw adopted by Town Meeting on receipt of signatures from at least 3% of all registered voters in Town requesting a repeal election.

Lawn-care companies collected some 1,400 signatures and on May 31 the Town Clerk certified 1,053 of them as valid.
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/arlington/2012/05/voters_will_get_chance_to_reve.html

That exceeded the 3% minimum and triggered the special election.

The law governing this vote is MGL Chapter 43A Section 10.
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter43A/Section10

Q: Why did the Town schedule the vote for July 19? Why not hold it on Election Day in November?

A: Under the terms of the law, the Town must schedule this vote "forthwith." Town Counsel, in consultation with the Attorney General's Office, has determined that this election may not be combined with any regular election and must be held as soon as possible.

The Selectmen may have chosen the Thursday date to minimize costs, since on Thursdays many Town employees work late and would not require extra pay to staff the election.

Q: Why don't the polls open until 2 pm?

That is another requirement of state law.

Q: Is there a minimum-turnout requirement? A "quorum" for this vote?

A: Yes. Under state law, no action of the representative town meeting shall be reversed unless at least twenty per cent of the registered voters shall so vote.
That means that to repeal the bylaw, not only must a majority of votes favor repeal, but at least 20% of all registered voters must do so.

Q: Is there a similar turn-out requirement for those who want to keep the new bylaw?

A: No. In the case of a special repeal election, where a bylaw has already been approved by Town Meeting, state law places the burden on those seeking repeal.

Votes in favor of the bylaw are not counted towards the 20% turnout requirement.

Q: What will happen if the repeal fails? What if it passes?

New bylaws must be approved by the Attorney General and then be legally advertised before going into effect. This would probably occur around October 15. Since the bylaw does not restrict leaf blowers after October 15, the practical effect of the new bylaw would not be felt until May 15 of 2013.

If the repeal passes, with at least 20% of registered voters voting "No" (for repeal), the bylaw is repealed.

Q: Is it too late to register to vote in this election?

A: The last day to register to vote for this election was June 28.

Q: So if I don't want the new bylaw to be repealed, I should just stay home and not vote?

A: Where did you read that? That idea is wrong in a number of different ways. The confusion comes up because opponents of the new bylaw do have a requirement to get at least 20% of registered voters to vote "No" on the ballot.

That is a high number of people turning out and voting in the election, but maybe not so high as you'd think.

Consider that the special override election held on June 7th of last year had 46.6% turnout
(http://www.arlingtonma.gov/Public_Documents/ArlingtonMA_Clerk/elections/2011/ElectionResults_06072011.pdf)

Voting absentee has also been heavily promoted for people that will be out of town for this election.

Regardless of what side you choose, it is in your interest to turn out and vote. If the 20% number of people voting "No" is met, the outcome will be determined by which side got more votes. In other words, it is possible for there to be more than 20% "No" votes and for the bylaw to still stand, if there are more "Yes" votes (in this scenario, turnout would be over 40%).

Even if the 20% threshold is not met, the results of this election will be looked to as an advisory vote by people trying to determine what the will of the voters in Arlington actually is with regards to this issue.

So you should most definately turn out and vote, regardless of your opinion on this issue.



That's it. Let me know if you spot any errors, and be sure and pass this information along to anyone that needs it.

Friday, May 25, 2012

Leaf Blower Referendum

There's a post up over at truepersons about the Leaf Blower referendum. As usual, truepersons comes through with a lot of background material, including relevant video.

I offer my disagreements with some of their analysis in the comments section, which I've reproduced here.

You can read the full post at truepersons.com: Arlington’s Leaf Blower Ban

Below is my comment to the post, which captures my feelings about the referendum at this time. Feel free to weigh in with your own opinion, if you like.
(reposted from truepersons.com)

I’ll offer up some disagreements with parts of this analysis.

First, I’ve already explained in other places that I opposed this ban, and voted against it.

I think that calling a special town meeting would have been the right move, and that moving forward with a referendum was a political mistake.

First, the Town Meeting vote that passed this bylaw was not overwhelming. 95 - 85, and that means there were a fair number of absences that I’ll bet would not be absent for this vote if it comes up again.

Second, there’s a fair amount of blame to be had by opponents for not getting more involved until after the article was passed. As a Town Meeting Member, I only heard directly from the proponents. No one contacted me and said "don’t pass this."

Further, opponents didn’t have their act together during Town Meeting debate. The debate could crudely be characterized as proponents presenting us with studies, photographs, and other evidence, while opponents said that people that didn’t like leaf blowers ought to just leave town.

I still voted against it, but I had to remind myself that I was not sitting in a court of law, weighing evidence presented to me. Had I been doing that, the proponents certainly made a better case to Town Meeting than the opponents did. This is a legislative body, however, and I’m not restricted to just considering the arguments put before me.

I think that if opponents put a fraction of the energy into lobbying Town Meeting Members that they have put into getting this referendum put on the ballot, they’d easily succeed in getting a vote of Town Meeting to go their way.

However proponents of the leaf blower restriction have also been successful in this ordeal, and they are in a position to win some concessions also.

It may be that some easy compromises are available, perhaps insisting that the machines not be used in a way that knowingly blows material onto other peoples property, and that they not be used within so many feet of another dwelling.

Something that at least partially addresses a few of their concerns.

I suggest this because, if anyone’s paying attention, you’ll notice that the proponents are getting smarter, and stronger, over time. Opponents would be wise, I think, to reach concessions now, rather than later.

Why do I think that moving forward with a referendum a mistake? It puts opponents in a very adversarial stance with regards to not only the proponents, but the town, and especially Town Meeting.

Is the referendum going to be legally successful? Their chances are not good, to say the least.

Who are they going to need to work with should this fail?

The very group of people they are squaring off against with this referendum.

That doesn’t seem like a wise move, to me anyway...

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Fall Out Follow Up

I'm pleased with the outcome of last night's Board of Selectmen's meeting.

I had a prior commitment and was unable to attend, but I watched the first 45 minutes of the meeting on my computer.

There was an effort to put a non-binding question on the ballot, and it was defeated by a vote of 4 to 1, largely for the same reasons I felt made it an inappropriate thing to do.

Again, the Board of Selectmen could have done this; they do have the authority to do this. But we shouldn't resort to this sort of thing just because a vote doesn't go our way.

I don't recall if it was Dan Dunn or Joe Curro who said "it's not that we can't do this, its a question of whether we should."

Opponents sound like they are poised to turn in the signatures needed for a referendum on Thursday, and as they made clear last night (from what I saw) they intended to do so whether the BOS placed a non-binding question on a later ballot or not.

The part of the meeting I was able to watch ended with Steve Byrne making the point that I think opponents ought to be considering much more seriously: calling a Special Town Meeting.

It's a lot easier to get a majority of the 252 Town Meeting members to agree with you, and turn out for the meeting than it is to get 20% of voters to show up for a special-afternoon-only election in June. The failure to succeed might also lead some to conclude that the opposition to this bylaw is not as strong as opponents make out.

But that's just me gossiping.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Fall Out

That partial Leaf Blower ban passed by Town Meeting has a lot of people upset.

On tonight's Board of Selectmen's agenda is the topic of "Leaf Blowers: Ballot Question."

This has spurred me to send the following letter to members of the Board.

(Also for the record, I'd still vote no on this article if given the chance, for the reasons I've discussed previously.)

Subj: BOS Agenda, Ballot Question: Leaf Blowers

Dear (member name):

As a Town Meeting Member representing precinct 4, I voted against Article 25, the leaf blower ban, as I did not feel that proponents had adequately educated the public about the intent of and reasons for this action. However my vote was in the minority, and a partial ban was passed.

On your agenda for tonight is the topic "Ballot Question: Leaf Blowers." I don't know what will be discussed under this agenda item, but as stated I would guess that someone on the Board of Selectmen is going to suggest that Article 25 be placed on the ballot.

While I voted against Article 25, proponents made their case successfully, and received a majority vote at Town Meeting to enact this bylaw.

I am opposed to any attempt by another branch of our local government to supercede, discredit, or otherwise act in a way that indicates that the decision was not made legally, honestly, and in a manner in keeping with the form of government we observe here in Arlington.

I understand that many objections to Article 25 have been raised, some of which may prove to be quite legitmate.

If a strong enough case for adjustments to this bylaw are made, there are avenues to pursue remedies prior to the law going into effect.

If I understand the process correctly and amendments were offered to Article 25 during the next regular Town Meeting scheduled for 2013, then there would not be time for those amendments to be implemented for the Summer of 2013.

However there are procedures in place to call a Special Town Meeting, during which Town Meeting could consider any amendments deemed worthy.

In short, while I did not vote in favor of Article 25, I feel that the process was fair and conducted correctly.

It is not anyone's place to second-guess our governing process, whether we agree with the outcome or not.

Let the system do its job, as it has now for so long.

Sincerely,


Wes Beal
68 Melrose Street
Town Meeting Member, Precinct 4


[edit: I was asked since posting this something along the lines of
"What about citizen's who choose to pursue a referendum? Are you saying it isn't their place to question Town Meeting?"
Good point; it is not my intention to suggest that. In the narrow confines of this letter, I was speaking to actions taken by elected branches of government, in this case the potential for the Board of Selectmen to take action to alter a conclusion reached by Town Meeting to a result more to their liking (if in fact that attempt is made tonight).]

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Contact Sports


I voted with the minority to pass Mr. Stephen Harrington’s substitute motion to Article 58 at last night's Town Meeting, the final session of Town Meeting this year.

The intent of this Article was:
To see if the Town will vote to appropriate $25,000 to defray the expense of purchasing, leasing, or bonding of capital equipment to reduce the likelihood of traumatic brain injuries in students participating in athletics at the Arlington Public High School for helmets, pads and baseline testing software; or take any action related thereto.

We are learning a lot more about concussions these days, and have come to understand just how common, and serious, these injuries are.

Mr. Harrington has championed this issue, and succeeded in getting the School Department to allocate $22k for the purpose of replacing old (and ineffective) football helmets, over the course of 3 years. This Article would have seriously accelerated that program.

The official argument provided by the Finance Committee against passing this Article was that the School Department has heard the concern, and moved to address the issue.

I suspect that personal conflicts also played a role in this Article being defeated. Mr. Harrington has been an outspoken critic of the School Committee for some time (you can get a taste of his politics by visiting his blog at www.truepersons.com).

In this particular case he brought attention to a very important issue, and the Schools have seen the merits of his concerns, and responded. It is easy for me to suspect that rejecting Mr. Harrington’s request for additional funds was a way of not letting him have the last word on the subject. Some may suspect that Mr. Harrington’s submission of this Article was an attempt on his part to be sure he got the last word in. They may be right. I have had a chance to talk with him about this issue, and I'm convinced that he is very sincere in his intent to address it.

I don’t share Mr. Harrington’s views much of the time. For me though this Article was about reducing the number of concussions suffered by High School athletes. The Article would have accomplished this, equipping student athletes with better equipment now, rather than 3 years from now.

To me that Seemed like a good thing to do.

The substitute motion was defeated by a vote of 121 to 53, and we voted No Action on Article 58.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Leaf Blowers

Yesterday I took some time and wrote down my thoughts about the leaf blower ban proposed in Town Meeting. Last Wednesday we debated the article, and we would be voting on it at Monday night's Town Meeting session.

I thought I might make this post yesterday, before Town Meeting, but I wanted to get what I learned about unaccounted water posted, and I thought this might make more sense after the vote took place anyway.

Of course yesterday I was fairly certain the leaf blower ban was not going to pass!

As I mention in this post, the proponents made some really good arguments. They had me changing my mind on this issue several times. I also suspect they got some help from some of the opponents, as I'll admit I was tempted to change my vote yet again last night, and support the ban, after hearing some of the arguments made against it.

We passed a ban on leaf blowers in Arlington, by a vote of 95 to 85. I voted against the ban, but as I think is clear if you read what I had to say before the vote below, I don't feel too bad about losing this one.

------------

Here's what I wrote yesterday morning, before the vote was taken last night:

One of the things that surprises me most about being an elected member of a legislative body, is how often I’m tempted to change my mind about the votes I make. I guess I thought this would be more an exception to the norm than it has been. Good arguments are presented that run counter to how I thought, and I find myself won over to the other side of something.

That has almost happened with the debate on banning leaf blowers in town. Almost, but not quite. I still feel it is going too far at this point to ban the use of leaf blowers.

I have though seen examples where leaf blowers have been used irresponsibly, and in a manner that - were it the norm - would have me in favor of a ban.

Also, the science I think is starting to develop, that may result in us concluding at a future date that there is no good reason to allow the use of these machines.

We aren’t quite there yet, though. The science behind the air pollution is still a mix between the engine emissions - that apply to other devices such as weed-eaters, edgers, lawn mowers, snow blowers, and etc., and the particulate matter kicked up specifically by leaf blowers.

For the latter, it depends on the harmful materials being present universally, or near enough so, in all areas in town. We haven’t been given evidence of that yet. Nor have we been given sufficient evidence that the use of a leaf blower must, necessarily, transmit pollutants beyond a persons own property.

We’ve been shown examples where they certainly have been, but we haven’t been shown that this cannot be solved by more responsible use of the machines without resorting to a full ban.

To use a crude analogy: cars can be used in a very harmful manner. But we have not resorted to banning them; rather we insist they be used responsibly. Ditto for guns, and probably a number of other things.

When I used to work to pass clean indoor air laws (smoking-bans), we made the point that there was "no safe limit" on secondhand smoke. The same claim cannot (yet) be made about the use of leaf blowers.

However, as advocates continue to build awareness about the potential harms of these machines, we may start to see more science. A day may come fairly soon when the case against leaf blowers is sufficient to justify a ban.

My advice to proponents of a ban in the meantime: work to educate town residents on this issue.

I found many of your arguments and examples fairly convincing. So I approached some of my neighbors, specifically some that I thought would be more predisposed to supporting a ban, and asked them what they thought.

The feedback I received was that a ban was going a bit too far. The people I spoke with were not aware of all the information proponents have provided during debate at Town Meeting. They are environmentally conscious individuals, who go out of their way already to live in a manner they feel is environmentally responsible.

Before we can get the town to accept a ban (whether we pass a bylaw or not), these are the sort of people who need to believe it is the right thing to do. A ban does not regulate itself. It depends on buy-in from the community both to be observed and to be enforced.

Again, some of the science presented by proponents is working toward justification of a specific ban on leaf blowers.

Definitely some of the shown examples of how some are using these machines is wrong, and should be stopped.

I recommend that ban proponents educate before they legislate.

I leave you with a list of arguments made by proponents. I suspect this issue may return again someday.

  • The noise from gas-powered leaf blowers is not just an inconvenience, it is physically harmful. Excess noise causes increased stress levels, anxiety, high blood pressure and has been linked to health problems including: hypertension, depression, premature birth and headaches.
  • Noise from gas-powered leaf blowers detracts from the peace and quiet of our residential neighborhoods and erodes property values.
  • The operation of a gas-powered leaf blower adversely affects the quality of life and health of the surrounding neighbors. It is similar to second-hand smoke.
  • Leaf blowers are unnecessary. They were invented in the 1970's. Leaves have been around much longer.
  • Gas-powered leaf blowers create dust clouds that carry toxins including: animal feces, mold, spores, lead, carcinogens, carbon, asbestos and other particulates that remain in the air for days. These particulates are a serious health threat for young children, pregnant women and seniors. It can cause lung ailments, trigger asthma and cause cancer and a host of other maladies. The dust seeps into neighbors homes, contaminates local vegetable gardens, lands on swing sets, window sills and is inhaled and injested by neighbors, landscape crews and homeowners.
  • In the more than 400 communities across the country where leaf blowers have been banned or restricted, landscaping companies have not gone out of business or significantly increased their prices. In Orange County, California a Grand Jury dismissed arguments that it will cost more to have workers use rakes and brooms, and concluded that the health hazards citizens are exposed to far outweigh any questionable economic benefits.
  • Arlington is proud of its status as a Green Community. Condoning the use of gas powered leaf blowers which have been proved to be bad for the enviroment and a health hazard is contrary to what a Green Community stands for.
  • Protect the quality of life and health in Arlington. Take back your yard, your neighborhood and your town. Vote to support Article #25.

Monday, May 14, 2012

An Education in Unaccounted Water

After hearing the remarkable statistic that Arlington "loses" 27% of its water, I set out to learn more about this, what it actually means, and how and if it costs us as a Town.

Eventually I turned to Michael Rademacher, Arlington’s Director of Public Works. I was extremely grateful that he made the time to sit down with me and explain this issue, in a way that even I could understand.

Everything below is based on the results of my education. For those that come to this issue with more knowledge than my English degree provided me on it, I apologize. I’ve attempted to write all of this down in a way that someone like myself could understand, so for many this will seem a bit remedial.

What is unaccounted water? Unaccounted water is any water that we received, but cannot determine what it was used for. Most of our water is measured by water meters. There are some exceptions: in the case of fire hydrants being used or maintained, for example, Arlington has to make an estimate of how much water was used. Otherwise, we measure how much water we used by totaling up the amounts from all of the water meters in town.

But before we get too far into that, we need to understand where our water comes from. We get our water from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, or MWRA (on the web at http://www.mwra.com/). The MWRA provides water to 51 communities in our area, including the city of Boston. For the sake of simplicity, this is how it was explained to me:

The MWRA keeps track of all the water that enters each community. At the end of a year, they know how much water they provided overall, and to each community individually. They approach each community, including Arlington, and tell us what the percentage of water we used was, and how much we then owe.

This is an important detail in understanding the economic impact of unaccounted water. For the sake of explanation, let’s assume that MWRA provided 10,000 gallons of water to all communities, and therefore need to collect $100 to cover their costs. When they get to Arlington, we’ll say for this example that we used 10 gallons, or 1%, of the water MWRA provided. Therefore we owe MWRA $1.

Back to the topic of our unaccounted water. We know that we received 10 gallons of water from MWRA. However, after totaling up the estimated water used by fire hydrants and other such things, plus all the water we measured through our water meters, we can only account for 7.3 gallons.

We still have to pay for the full 10 gallons, and we do so by setting the amount charged consumers at a rate that covers that cost.

Remember how MWRA charged Arlington based on the proportion of water it used compared to how much water MWRA provided all its customers?

Because the average amount of unaccounted water for all the communities served by MWRA is close to 15%, the amount paid by consumers in Arlington to cover unaccounted for water is necessarily higher than what is charged in communities where the percentage of unaccounted for water is lower.

So there is a certain incentive to lower the rate of unaccounted for water in Arlington. How do we do that?

First we need to understand where we think this water is actually going. Here are the likely sources:

Leaks. The lifespan of a water pipe is not unlimited. Pipes get old, and they leak more. Both water quality (we are blessed with very high water quality) and soil conditions play a major role in how long pipes last before they begin to leak a lot. The average lifespan of a water pipe is around 50 to 60 years.

Un-Metered uses we are not aware of. When we need to let water out of a fire-hydrant, we can estimate how much water was released. The Town does not believe there are many cases where water is being used but not metered, or estimated. For example, all municipal buildings are confirmed to have operating meters. However they continue to be on the look-out for this. Some examples of places you’d watch out for include practice fields that are being irrigated using some faucet long ago forgotton, or a municipal building that at some point had plumbing put in that managed to skip the meter. We don’t have reason to believe that there are any significant cases where this is happening, but we are an old community.

Old Water Meters. When water meters get to be older than 15 years, they start to measure the water that passes through them less and less efficiently. Many things factor into just how inefficient they are, the most significant of which is water quality. The bottom line though is that over time, older meters fail to measure between 5% and 10% of the water that passes through them.

Back to the question of how to fix these problems. We have been doing tests every other year to identify leaks in our pipes. Arlington is going to do this every year now, which should help to prioritize what gets repaired, by letting us spot leaks sooner. A good thing, and the costs of doing these tests has been significantly lower than the money saved by patching found leaks so far.

But is this enough? Remember how the typical lifespan of a pipe is between 50 and 60 years? We currently provide funding to our Department of Public Works an amount that allows them to replace roughly 1 mile of pipe per year. However we have around 130 miles of water pipe in town. If we’re going to replace our pipe at a rate that will keep up with deterioration, we need to double the amount we allocate for that. Of course the extra cost of doing this will get passed along to the consumer; but based on what I have learned I believe that the consumer will in the long-term save, as our system is better maintained.

This is really the same logic as you’d use when caring for your car. You can save a little money in the short term by not getting your oil changed, but the long term costs of doing so are higher.

Higher water bills hurt, but if we don’t pay more today to keep things working, we’re going to have to pay even more tomorrow.

Replacing our older water meters is a bit tougher to work through the pros and cons of. This is water that, after all, is being used even if it isn’t being accurately measured. It could be argued that all we accomplish by updating our meters is knowing where all our water is going, rather than actually saving any water that was previously lost.

It is also a hard pill to swallow, as at the individual level if you happen to have an old, inefficient water meter working in your home, then you are going to get hit with a bit of a surprise if a more reliable meter is installed and you suddenly see your water use jump by 5% to 10%.

I’d point out though that all meters need replaced eventually, and if yours is new, you are essentially subsidizing your neighbor’s water bills, paying for every drop used while others get 5% to 10% of the water they use for "free."

"Free" is in quotation marks on purpose. Remember that in the end we pay for all the water MWRA delivers to us, whether our meters accurately capture the use, the water leaks out of old pipes, or whatever.

To the extent that all water meters are as close to equally efficient as possible, the more equitable each of our water bills are. This seems to me to be the ideal. It doesn’t matter much if all the meters in town are failing to measure 2% of the water that passes through them, or 22%. What matters is that they are, as much as possible, failing to measure the same amount.

The only way to achieve this that I know of right now is to routinely replace meters when they hit a certain age.

The DPW can, working within its current budget, phase in the replacement of all water meters over the course of 4 to 5 years. If they tried to do this any faster, it’d be necessary to outsource the labor needed, and the cost would go up considerably.

With the understanding of the problem I currently have, I think that replacing our water meters is the right thing to do. If we also double our spending on repairing and replacing old pipes, getting everything on a schedule that will replace our whole system every 50 to 60 years (which is the typical lifetime of a pipe before it is likely to fail or leak substantially), we ought to see our unaccounted for water drop to a rate that is below average for our area.

This is worth doing, as it will lower the amount of water we receive from MWRA, and that will lower all of our water bills, eventually saving us all some money.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Town Meeting Attendance

There hasn't been anything from the sixth night of Town Meeting that I've been ready to write about yet; I'm still digesting some of what was discussed.

There has been one development though, on an issue dear to my heart. The Town has begun to post attendance records of Town Meeting members to the Town website.

You can view this here:

http://www.arlingtonma.gov/public_documents/ArlingtonMA_TownMeet/2012ATM/voting/index

Everyone is vulnerable to something coming up at some point, that makes it so they can't avoid missing a meeting now and then.

The attendance of some is so poor, they should in my opinion step down and allow another to take their place. I'm not suggesting that there isn't a good reason for the poor attendance: life happens, and it may be that Town Meeting is not an obligation someone is able to fill any longer.

In that situation, the right thing to do is to step down, and allow another to represent their precinct.

Posting attendance is an important step forward for the Town. Now, if we can get the votes of Town Meeting members recorded and made public, we'll be on our way to a functioning representative democracy.

Here's the section on my precinct, number 4; a "1" means they were present, a "0" means they weren't:


2012 Town Meeting, Precinct 4 Attendance

Name Precinct Session1 Session2 Session3 Session4 Session5 Total
Beal, Wesley L. 4 1 1 1 1 1 5
Brogan, Gregory D. 4 1 1 1 1 1 5
Costa, John J., Jr. 4 1 0 0 0 0 1
Costa, Michael R. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Costa, Patricia A. 4 1 0 0 0 0 1
Ferrara, Ryan J. 4 1 1 1 0 0 3
Flueckiger, Molly E. 4 1 1 1 0 1 4
Kaba, Nawwaf W. 4 1 1 1 1 1 5
Laite, George 4 0 0 1 0 1 2
Marshall, Joseph M. 4 1 0 1 0 0 2
Rowe, Clarissa 4 1 1 1 0 1 4
Swilling, Nathan W. 4 1 1 1 1 1 5

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

2012 Session #5, Monday May 7th

If you’ve read the news on what occurred at this session of Town Meeting, you know that we made a one time appropriation of money for energy conservation efforts, but voted down a proposal to create a dedicated fund for this purpose.

Why in the world would we do such a thing?

There are a few problems with the proposal for a Energy Conservation Fund that was put before us.

Some take issue with the Town creating too many special, distinct funds in general. The rational behind being against too many of these is sound: the more special accounts we create, the less money there is available in the general fund.

Dedicated funding can be useful. I know that I will spend money each week at the grocery store. Conceivably I could open up an account at a grocery store, and deposit some amount of money from my paycheck that could only be spent at the grocery store. This might help me budget better.

I do this for medical expenses now, through a flexible spending account that allows me to move aside money used to cover medical expenses pre-tax.

But if I do this for everything (groceries, medical expenses, housing, utilities, etc., etc.), or I allocate too much money for a particular expense, I lose flexibility, should something come up and I need to re-prioritize my spending.

I don’t believe we should never create special funds, and I think a special fund for energy conservation efforts is a good idea.

I voted no, in opposition to the Energy Conservation Fund, because it needed more restrictions in place on how much money we would allow to enter into it.

The fund would have been funded through energy rebates we receive when we implement new energy saving measures. Examples were provided where NStar offered a rebate of around $25k for some measure taken, as well as other examples wherein the rebates were of a similar amount.

Some dedicated funds we create have caps on them. The effect of this is that money is deposited into an account, until that account reaches a defined balance, at which point any additional money collected goes into the general fund.

I think this would be a much better way to approach the Energy Conservation Fund. If they bring this back to us next year, with language to the effect that the fund would only be allowed to grow to a maximum balance of X, then I anticipate that I’ll support it. We want these monies being put to work for energy conservation, not accumulating in an account somewhere. In the same way I don’t allow my healthcare flexible spending account to grow to an unlimited size, I don’t want this fund to grow beyond a useful amount either.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

2012 Session #4, Wednesday May 2nd


During this session we dealt with Articles 42 and 43 (among many others), financing repairs of our sewer and water facilities.

The discussion of these two articles revealed something I did not know, that I very much want to know more about:

27% of the water that comes into Arlington from MWRA simply "vanishes."

It disappears, never making it to a meter, never being accounted for.

I need to know more about this. If you're familiar with the issue and can enlighten us all, please post a comment, or just contact me directly.

----
Update on Vanishing Water:

I’ve learned a bit more about this topic, and rather than just leave this ominous question hanging out there, I’ll share what I've learned:

A normal loss of water is considered to be around 15%. The losses we see are likely due to old pipes in need of repair, and to older meters that do not accurately measure all the water used.

The Town of Arlington pays a wholesale rate to the MWRA as the water comes into our system, then measures the water “captured” by meters, and bills residents an amount that allows the Town to cover the costs paid to MWRA, and other costs associated with operating our system.

So the bad news is that this sort of loss results in residents paying for more water than they actually use, (except in those cases where the meter isn’t actually recording all the water used).

In practice, for every 3 gallons of water measured, we are charged for 4 gallons of water used.

It is hoped that gradually replacing the older water meters will bring our 27% loss rate down a bit.

Ultimately, we’re going to have to spend a fair amount of money to fix this problem.

There is most definitely a point at which it costs more to obtain improvements than those improvements will result in savings.

How much? and at what point it becomes economical to really fix the issue, I still don’t know an answer to.

When I hear about this sort of thing, I worry, as we are not accustomed any longer to footing the bill for this sort of infrastructure. Eventually, one day, we're going to have to.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

2012 Session #3, Monday April 30th, Article 8, The Amendments

Two separate amendments were offered on Article 8. Both were intended as "Poison Pills," meant to make the original article unattractive and therefore not worth the proponents efforts to pass it. The first read:
in part b, 6, by striking out the words "at the time of the Special Permit application" and inserting in place thereof the words "on January 1, 2012" in part c, 3, by adding at the end thereof the words "and that at least one of the owners is 65 years of age or older, or disabled." in part c, 4, by inserting, after "he or she" in the sixth line, the words "is 65 years of age or older, or disabled and" and adding, at the end of said paragraph the words "otherwise the permit shall lapse, and the accessory unit shall be merged with and become a part of the principal unit, the kitchen being removed." in part c, by adding a new sub-paragraph 5 as follows: 5. An accessory apartment may also be permitted to provide an accommodation for an elderly person related by blood or marriage to one or more of the owners, but such permit shall lapse and the accessory unit shall be merged with and become a part of the principal unit, the kitchen being removed, when the elderly person dies or vacates the unit.
This amendment would have restricted the occupation of any accessory apartments to people 65 or older, or disabled, and to a blood relative or spouse of one of the owners. It was not made clear, but questioned whether this would have been legal under non-discrimination laws. I voted against this amendment. The second amendment I found more interesting. Still meant to discourage the passage of the original article, it read:
The other unit must be rented at no more than an affordable price as defined in Article 11, Section 11.08.
Outside of Town Meeting I did a fair amount of searching, and asked a lot of people questions about what an "affordable price" would be. The referenced Town Bylaw reads:
Rental Units priced such that the rent (including utilities) shall not exceed 30% of the income of a household at 60% of median income;
After collecting different answers from different sources, I determined that the current affordable price would be $965 for a studio or $1,103 for a one bedroom on the low end, and $1,467 per month on the high end. Since these accessory apartments are defined with a maximum size of 700 square feet, I believe the affordable price defined by the amendment is more than sufficient. The standard size of a first-floor apartment in my neighborhood of East Arlington is roughly 1,100 square feet. The average rent in our area as best I can determine is roughly $1,400 per month. Going just by the cost per square foot, a rent of $891 would be appropriate for a 700 square foot apartment. I voted in favor of this amendment. The idea that this was meant to discourage passage of this Article highlights the need, in my opinion, for a much more robust understanding on the part of Town Leaders of the need for more affordable housing in Arlington.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

2012 Session #3, Monday April 30th, Article 8, Accessory Apartments

This article would have allowed homeowners to construct an accessory apartment at their residence, so long as it was part of the main structure, was no larger than 700 square feet, the residence was owner-occupied, and a few other restrictions.

It was defeated, near as I could tell, because opponents thought that people might build accessory apartments.

Oddly, the potential for a change in the character of the individual neighborhoods that might witness this new development took a back seat to the issue of how many more people might occupy a 700 square foot apartment.

Here is some data on the population of Arlington over the last 40 years:

42,844 (2010 U.S. census)
42,389 (2000 U.S. census)
44,630 (1990 U.S. census)
46,465 (1985 state census)
48,219 (1980 U.S. census)
52,720 (1970 U.S. census)

I would suggest that these numbers show us, unless we assert that Arlington has been a bad place to live in the past, that density is not an issue with regards to Article 8.

There are many reasons to be cautious about allowing new types of development. I can’t help but notice that the same spirit of opposition existed with regards to Article 7 which would have permitted “mixed use” development in town.

I strongly believe in exercising caution when it comes to allowing new development. When we make changes such as this, the impact is often far reaching, and extremely difficult to undo.

However we can’t oppose any new development. And we can’t oppose any new growth. I hope we in Arlington realize that without growth, we will continue to face higher taxes, as opportunities for new revenue fails to keep pace with increasing costs.

I may come back and write again about Article 8; there were a couple amendments offered, one restricting the amount of rent that could be charged, that are worth discussing further.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

2012 Session #2, Wednesday April 25th, Article 9 – Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Memorial Park


When I chose to run for Town Meeting, I had an agenda. As much as anytime in the past, our personal lives are hectic. Time is a precious commodity, and we are encouraged to delegate civic responsibility to people and institutions, so that we can cope with all the other demands on our time.

My agenda in Arlington is to preserve our system of government, the Town system, as long as it is feasible. Moving to adopt a City form of government would be much easier. It is a far more efficient way to get things done. I don’t believe we have to do this. We are not yet too large a place to manage ourselves. In fact our population has shrunk considerably over the past 40 years. We maintained a Town system in the past, so why not now?

Article 9 would have removed the authority of Town Meeting to approve a new land use. Information on how much land would have fallen under article 9 was conflicting; maybe only a few places, maybe more. Also importantly, if this Article had passed, Town Meeting would not have the opportunity to review and approve of the site plan for the one property currently under consideration, Cooke’s Hollow.

From what I’ve seen of the rough ideas for the space at Cooke’s Hollow so far, it looks like a good thing. The proposed ideas are both beautiful and respectful of the character of the location. The plans would need to be developed much more fully before I could honestly review and vote in the positive for implementation, but so far I like what I see. Finding additional memorial space in Arlington is also a legitimate problem, worthy of much more attention. Despite the prophesies of Arlington being transformed into a necropolis by opponents, I suspect Article 9 would have had a small impact on Arlington overall.

None of that for me was to the point.

While proponents claim that the area impacted by Article 9 was very limited, it is still a case of whittling away at the role and authority of Town Meeting.

Given that in 3 hours of meeting time Town Meeting only managed to take action on this one Article, I can  understand why some may wish to avoid putting issues before Town Meeting, but I still do not approve.

Frankly, proponents of Articles need to start realizing just how much work they need to do. It’s not enough to have a good idea, introduce it to a small handful of people, convince them of its merits, and expect to achieve your goal. If we were a City, you could. Here, you quite intentionally must win the support of the whole Town. It’s not easy or at all efficient to get a majority of a 252 member legislative body to support you.

By sticking with a Town system of government, we lay claim to the notion that far more members of the Town must approve of action than would be the case in a City system of government.

That’s what we’re talking about when we say we want to maintain Town government in Arlington.

It is A LOT of work. That’s not a problem to be solved; that’s the whole point.