We got a lot done last night.
Animal Control
I was pleased to witness members not get confused or distracted by all the new language in our animal control bylaws, taken up under Article 13.
As I said yesterday, this language is largely taken straight from state law, and while it changes a lot what our bylaws look like, it does not change much of anything with regards to owning a dog in Arlington.
Self-Serve Gasoline
Next up was Article 14, which sought to permit self-serve gasoline in Arlington.
However upon reviewing work being done to update our zoning bylaws, and hearing some of the concerns people had the proponent, Carl Wagner, chose to ask us to wait a bit and not pass this yet.
There are concerns that if passed we could have large, "mega-stations" permitted in town, without buffers between them and residential areas.
Also, many flaws in the current Americans with Disabilities Act that are supposed to insure that those that cannot pump their own gas receive full service, have been identified.
The proponent felt it better to study these issues and act on more information at a later date.
I believe this was a highlight of our democratic process - an example of when and how our system of government really shines.
John Worden got up and gave an excellent speech on why full service should be preserved, whether or not self-serve is allowed.
His testimony was both very entertaining and relevant, right up until the end.
Then he closed with a comment suggesting station attendants, if asked to pump someone's gas, would pretend they were unable to speak English.
I hope Mr. Worden will issue an apology for this.
It was in exceptionally poor taste, unbecoming of the level of respect and decorum to be expected of this body.
I felt it wise to vote for his amendment, as it provided a safety should the main article pass.
The amendment was voted down, and the main motion was voted down.
Resolutions on Utility Poles, Overnight Parking Fees
Moving on, we voted on two resolutions last night. One asking the Board of Selectmen to pursue remedies for unsafe or otherwise unnecessary utility poles, and another asking the Board of Selectmen to address the fees associated with on street parking permits.
I voted for both resolutions, largely because they were resolutions, and did not carry legal weight.
The utility companies failure to deal with old poles is real. As a speaker said, they don't earn any money by taking old poles down. There's too little motivation for them to address this problem.
My thoughts: regardless of the specific language in the resolution we passed, let the Board of Selectmen deal with this in whatever way they see fit, but knowing that we also consider it a real issue that needs addressed.
I would of preferred the second resolution regarding overnight parking fees not include any dollar amounts. It did, but since it was a resolution only I still voted for it.
My thoughts: these permits are only issued in very limited cases (something like 80 are currently issued) where a real hardship exists with regards to parking availability.
They are not issued because people have a third car they want to park somewhere or any trivial reason like that.
They are issued because structurally or geographically, off-street parking simply is not possible.
A lengthy process must be undertaken to obtain one of these permits, including review by a committee, and ultimate approval by the Board of Selectmen.
Once a decision is made to issue such a permit, I see no need to charge an excessive amount for it.
So my vote in favor is intended to send a message to the Board of Selectmen that I feel they should charge a reasonable amount, that covers the costs of issuing the permit, but no more than that.
The Board can feel free to ignore any mention of a specific dollar amount in that resolution, as far as I am concerned.
Just kindly consider the spirit of the resolution, and I'll be happy.
A drawback of getting a lot done at last night's session is that I am running out of time to write up all I would like for this review.
There were several more votes I considered significant last night, including an age exemption for a candidate for police officer, the establishment of a public art fund, and compensation for retirement board members.
I hope to write up my thoughts on those votes soon, but will save that for another time.
We worked through 17 articles last night, and ought to conclude this year's Town Meeting in a couple more sessions.
As a former English/journalism teacher, I particularly enjoyed Bill Kaplan's tortured search for grammatical clarity in the undergrowth of animal-control language. Now this is just what democracy is all about ...
ReplyDeleteBob Sprague
It was entertaining to watch. Got to rest a lot of that blame on the state legislature, as the language used was copied straight from there.
ReplyDeleteMaybe someday someone will figure out how to say it in a way that is both accurate and sensible.
I voted against the utility pole resolution because it asks Selectmen to do something they clearly cannot do. It just struck me as a bit silly and imprecise, even though there is no practical harm.
ReplyDeleteI'd have readily supported a resolution saying we really care about this and want to the BoS to try even harder, and would they please specifically try harder to lobby for changes in state law or utility regulations on our behalf. Which I hope they do.
I confess I do not take resolutions very seriously, and that factored a lot into my willingness to vote for it (and the other one too).
DeleteI begrudgingly admit that there is a place for resolutions, that there are times when they are meaningful, but otherwise I find them pretty meaningless, or in this case pretty harmless.
I figured that since it couldn't do anything, it likely couldn't hurt anything either.
At most I felt it showed that Town Meeting thinks the issue should be addressed.
But others are probably rightly more responsible than I am when it comes to resolutions, and would want to see a statement just as accurate as we'd want if it were in fact actionable.
I was eventually persuaded by Ms. Knobloch's remarks to vote for this.
DeleteIt's not written well and seems to be based on the sponsor's incomplete legal research (looking up a statute online). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
But it does put TM on record as caring about the issue, which actually can matter. (BTW the Town should go after the utilities before the Department of Public Utilities.)
On the other hand I could not support the resolution on parking-permit fees, which puts TM on record as supporting a specific fee based on legal and other research that is incomplete.
This is exactly why you have a parking authority, to perform this analysis diligently (and also periodically, as things change).
Okay it's "just" a resolution, but I think this sort of thing infantilizes TM by saying, in effect, We only voted for this thing because we knew you wouldn't actually do it. Bah.
Also note that despite many questions to Town Counsel over the past 3 nights, on these 2 questions each of which asserted specific legal claims about which that no one bothered to get a straight answer before voting.
We do not distinguish ourselves with this sort of thing.
Well.... To be more accurate I think it puts us record as supporting a fee that is in line with costs.
DeleteJust as I suspect the Board to not take away from the first that we want them to figure out how and accomplish a solution on utility poles in 90 days, on the second I do not expect them to "under charge" for the permit if it is determined that the costs are higher than the $25 quoted by proponents.
To put another way, whether or not they think that is what we want, I expect them to do what is in line with the actual costs.
Go figure that there is yet another nonbinding vote in town that we can all debate the meaning of.
The most I can accurately say I think I did above: these permits are not a special gift of extra parking privileges. They are issued in specific situations, due to a hardship. We have no need to discourage them through a high fee, since we won't be issueing them to anyone that asks. We have no need to make them more painful than they already are.
But that of course is just my thinking, and just my rationale last night.