Recap of Night 3 (session 2)

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.

Preview of Session 2: Dogs, Gasoline, Utility Poles, and Parking

The second session of the 2013 Town Meeting takes place tonight.

It is our third time meeting, but last Wednesday was a Special Town Meeting, distinct from 2013's annual meeting.

We may move through a lot of articles tonight, or we may decide to debate one or more at length.

First up tonight is Article 13, a revision of our Animal Control bylaws.

This is a necessary housekeeping measure, reflecting changes made to state law last year.

In writing these revisions our Town Counsel has taken what I believe to be a positive approach, adding in a lot of topics not previously spelled out in Town bylaw.

She has picked through the state law, and included everything she thought a local resident might want or need to know.

In the past our law only stipulated a few things, relying on state law to cover everything else.

It is still true that we are bound by state law whether these items are listed in our town bylaws or not, but this makes it much easier for residents to look something up should they have questions.

This revision makes no fundamental changes to what is currently allowed or disallowed in Arlington as pertains to dogs.

Because of this I am hopeful that Town Meeting won't use this opportunity to engage in old debates about whether dogs and owners should have more or less liberties in town than they currently do.

Again, because the language in this rewrite is largely copied straight from state law, it is questionable whether any changes could legally be made.

Given the complexity of the law, and since no one has to date submitted any amendments, any attempts to make changes tonight would likely not be allowed by the moderator.

Nonetheless some members could revisit old fights, and slow things down considerably.

I hope not.

After Article 13, we consider Article 14, permitting self-serve gasoline in Arlington.

I have heard, but haven't confirmed that the proponents of this may ask to reject this tonight, so they can address some other issues that have been identified.

No idea on my part what those issues are as yet.

My sense is that I will vote against the article.

Some station owners in town are opposed to it, our gasoline prices are not higher than neighboring communities now, and a lot of residents I've heard from have real concerns about making this change.

Some want the option of self serve, but most - like myself - just don't really care.

After that we have Article 15, giving Selectmen the power to regulate utility poles, requiring replacement when they are deficient, and that sort of thing.

The Board of Selectmen have recommended No Action on this article.

In their comment, they state they are unsure they posses the legal authority to act on concerns, and feel they will be able to accomplish more by working with the utility companies involved to fix issues.

I'll be interested to hear more about why, and hear arguments from proponents of these changes.

Moving on we have a number of articles, one establishing a principle priority of pedestrian safety in all road projects, and several dealing with parking, parking permits, and fees related to all.

I suspect there will be debate regarding the parking articles.

The Board of Selectmen have recommended No Action on these.

At this time I plan listen to the arguments made and let the strength or weakness of those arguments determine my vote.

There is of course more to come after these. We may get there tonight, we may not.

Long Night

It was a long night, largely unpleasant.

Not wanting to, but on principle feeling it was the right thing to do, I introduced a substitute motion that would have delayed implementation of last year's leaf blower bylaw, and formed a new committee to try and come up with a better way to address the issues we were charged with resolving.

If my motion had passed, we would have continued to grapple with leaf blowers for another year.

That - believe me - is not something I wanted to do.

But I also don't like walking away from a job so miserably dealt with, so clearly not complete.

I'm both relieved and dismayed that my motion failed.

Ultimately I voted for the recommendations presented to us.

As I've discussed before, I don't feel right about telling people they cannot use leaf blowers.

I do believe they are used irresponsibly many times, and that behavior should be stopped.

When cars are used irresponsibly, we don't ban cars: we look for ways to discourage the behavior we don't want.

We have not figured out a way to accomplish this with leaf blowers yet.

(Saving any arguments about carbon emissions and the environment for another day. I don't feel our debate about leaf blowers has ever - successfully anyway - risen to this point. If we do concern ourselves with this someday, I think we should deal with emissions and not what devices produce them, at least without very strong justification.)

For reasons I've already discussed, I voted against the bottled water ban.

Much of the testimony from other opponents was turning me off.

The more I heard from people also opposed to the ban, the more I felt like changing my vote.

"If you ban bottled water, people will just drink other stuff!"

Speak to the problem being addressed. When people want a soft drink, they get a soft drink. Water satisfies thirst, it is craved when needed. People won't stop drinking it.

"If we can't carry a water bottle to some event, we won't have any water to drink!"

You can carry a bottle you've filled with water just a easily as you can one you've purchased at the store, can't you?

"Think of all the kids at sporting events!"

Back when, in the uh, olden days I guess, we brought large igloo containers to youth sporting events, filled with water and ice.

When I hear arguments that I believe are weak or disingenuous, I am tempted to change sides on principle.

I do still think a ban is not a good idea.

Not yet anyway.

Get people thinking about what a waste this is, and we'll see what people want to do down the road.

So for now we are done talking about bottled water and leaf blowers.

I've heard rumors that the original proponents of self-serve gasoline are going to ask us to hold off and not pass that article this year.

It almost seems we are fast running out of things to get angry at each other about.

I'm confident though that we will work around this.