 |
| OK, I'm reaching here ... |
There has been an unprecedented public outreach effort by the Town in support of a new $30 million Public Safety Complex. There have been tours, multiple presentations, public events, and a website (See www.SandwichPublicSafety.com ). There has even been people stationed at the soccer field to discuss & explain the issue with that most elusive voter -- the soccer parents!
There has been such a huge outreach effort that, if there was in fact an Override question pending, the information campaign probably would have crossed that fine line which prohibits the use of public resources to campaign for an Override. I'm not going to press the issue -- but can you imagine what would happen if the School Department used Town resources to advocate for an Override? (Actually, I remember what DID happen!)
Nobody can question if the public has had the opportunity to be informed on the issue.
I think we have now reached that equivalent point at Town Meeting where everything has been said multiple times and nothing new is being added to the conversation.
I call the Question.
Let's put it to a vote and move on. Regardless of whether you are for or against the proposal -- kicking the issue down the road isn't going to improve it. If taxpayers want it, they will approve it. If they feel it is too expensive, they will reject it.
That's all.
If it gets approved, we get plan accordingly and move on. If it gets rejected, we move on and supporters can try to come back with a more affordable plan at some point in the future.
There's nothing left to study. The studies are done -- if you believe them, vote yes. If you don't vote "No". And move on ...
I have to assume the BOS is planning to send this to Town Meeting who will then have the option to send it to all of the Town voters for approval. Yes, the law says 2/3 of the BOS (3.3 members --- make your own joke here!) must approve an override proposal. But, to waste the large amounts of Town money and staff time invested in writing this proposal by NOT sending it along to Town meeting would send the message that they don't have confidence in their professional staff, or the Voters.
Individual BOS members are always welcome to speak against the proposal as individuals (we've seen that before!) but give the voters a chance to decide.
And, then Move On !!
36 comments:
Too expensive; disposotion of other property not well defined; schedule of other capital expenses - like schools, library and senior center not defined well enough either. I am voting No and so is the Mrs and my son.
There is a not too subtle difference between this outreach effort and others. The taxpayers put up the money to gather this information. Therefore, it's incumbent on us to see that the information gets to the voters.
I'm sure Anon, Mrs. Anon and Anon, Jr will vote no. But, just for the heck of it they might read the Long Range Capital Plan submitted by the Capital Planning Committee to the Board of Selectmen on 11/29/12. Is it specific enough? Probably not, but, we're working on it.
The problem with plans Mr. Pierce is that they never, ever happen.
Residents will recall that the Golden Triangle sale was to finance the Agilent purchase (never happened). Dewey Ave sale was to add moneys to the capital repair accounts (never happened). I could give you a dozen more examples of colossal failures to follow through by town hall and the Boards.
The plans town hall produces always kinda make sense there is just never ever any follow through and there is always a long sad story why.
Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice….
I am Voting No.
After reading the article in the CCTV regarding our town's "fiscal cliff", I couldn't help but think, here we go again! It must be mid-December because Bud Dunham has launched into his chicken little mantra, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" For the twelve years that I have lived in Sandwich, the doomsday warnings about the upcoming budget season have gone from very concerning to laughable. Apparently, our Town Manager, BOS, SC and FinCom should skip the reading of the Night Before Christmas and perhaps re-read an old favorite, "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"! Every year we hear the dire predictions about budget shortfalls as we watch our elected boards run in circles and wave their hands. By June or July, we then observe these same elected officials (and School Supt) announce, with straight faces, that they have surpluses to buy IPads. In the past decade, school enrollment has dropped dramatically and I've yet to hear about staff count declining. There's a new fire boat that we now have to pay to maintain ( the Feds didn't provide funding for maintenance and gas). We still own that bloody albatross, the Clark Haddad building because no one has the testicular fortitude to stand up to the hysterical folks and tell them to get a life. I could go on and on but most people who pay attention know this sad tale. There's the power plant's status which is the pink elephant in the room, as well. Honestly, there's so many pink elephants in this town that we are going to have to use some of our open space for a "Sacred Pink Elephant Burial Ground". I believe that would fall under the DPW's line item!
Seriously, we've heard these apocalyptic warnings before and most years I've worried about how this would affect my family and my property values. I've watched the meetings and sent emails to my elected officials, only to throw my hands in the air in July and say, "what was I worried about!" This year I'm asking for a pair of Bose sound/proof headphones and reading a good book.
Yes! Who can forget the I pads! I haven’t heard word one about how these so-called tools have reinvented education at the High School, raised student performance or stemmed the great exodus of students to Sturgus, UCT and JP High.
We (taxpayers) spent just about the same amount on I pads in the last week of last year’s budget surplus spending frenzy as is now needed to close this year’s deficit. Funny how that works!
Let’s hope tax payers have long and strong memories.
The Truth Maker would say to Mrs. Beasley I know you are smiling with a wide grin as you prepared your usual astute observations in the matter of local politics here in Sandwich. We thought you had decided to give up on the revolations being preached about and are glad that is not the case.
Not enough folks are paying attention to what continues to be the ever lasting seriel opera in our fair town of Sandwich. The themes remain the same , while the cast of charactors do a little make over.
It is called voices in the wilderness with very few paying attention to the long term affects all this has played out over the years..
Perhaps we really need to change our form of government and go for a single Mayor, that can be held accountable for every indecision our town has made in the last 20 years, because of all the outside influence our town recieves from every committee that decides it is to there best interest, rather then to the whole town to place stumbling blocks when it come to progressive and innovasion thinking.
When these committess decide to come together for the sake of the whole town, we might just see a few changes that we all can be proud off. Thinking out loud, we can only hope, that is the case.
TM, Today the executive body is a Board of Selectmen. The legislative body is Town Meeting. Judicial oversight comes from the courts enforcing the General Laws of the Commonwealth. Sandwich could opt for a mayor as executive and city council legislature. But, when the smoke cleared and the dust settled Proposition 2.5, which is the law of the land we live in, still places all the real decisions at the ballot box. The job of the executive body is to reduce complex questions to questions that can be answered aye or nay and put those questions in front of the taxpayers. The voters, usually a small fraction of the taxpayers, then say aye or nay. In my never sufficiently humble opinion, previous executive bodies have let the voters down by not asking tough questions.
The Truth Maker would agree with Mr. Pierce in the matter of not only not asking tough questions, but restricting the dialog to remain among only the board of selectmen as well. How can any member of the board of selectmen, just take upon themselves to determine what we the tax payers will except and prevent the questions from really being voted on, due to a dictoral process, where by they are the only ones that know what is good for the town.
It will be a shame if the selectman, who was the main Force for not allowing the taxpayers to vote on a new safety building, the last time , prevents it once again. as well from happening at the next town meeting.
Let the people decide what is good or not and place the question before the voters and see where it sticks
I will vote NO on the public safety building, as will the majority of people I know. Thank goodness it is going to the ballot box and not just the 200-300 people at Town Meeting.
It is way to large and so much space will go unused.
Again why spend thousands upon thousands to renovate the upstairs of the Town Hall as a Community Space and then spend thousands and thousands again for a cosmmunity room in the proposed complex. So on and so forth.
Most people want to have Town Meeting done away with, simply because it is an antiquated system and are tired of hearing the dribble that comes from the audience instead of just getting to a vote. Never mind the never ending presentations that one can barely stay awake thru.
Maybe someone in the audience can outline the steps to move away from Town Meeting.
The only people I have talked to that are voting YES on the PSB are police and fire families. However....have you noticed the "billboard" on QMH Road near SHS saying "Vote NO"? It is my understanding that that is the home of a firefighter! What?
Personally, I still feel that it was wrong and is wrong to use town moneys to support a political campaign for an override. The glossy brochures, the employees campaigning at youth soccer events, the prominent space on the town’s web page all smells like an unregistered Political Action Committee.
How is it that the school’s use of an automated calling tool to encouraging voter participation, without taking a side, was a problem but very active political campaign this isn’t?
5:29, if Most People want town meeting done away with, it's a shame that Most People didn't say so before last year's charter review committee -- which may or may not have been a farce, but which is the only opportunity we have to suggest that kind of change.
I don't think a single person suggested it.
Judging by their inaction, what Most People really want is not to change things, but to continue to say how stupid they are.
(I think I'd cheer a decision to do away with TM myself, at this point.)
PSB? Too expensive... but not going to get less so. I predict it goes down by a wide margin, and that we'll end up spending more, later, on something not as nice. Or we could use portable trailers after storms eventually take out the existing buildings completely. They are in a salt marsh behind a rapidly eroding barrier beach... it's only a matter of (not much) time.
The new Christmas Blue Knight across from the "Vote No" banner does a nice job of illuminating it at night......for free!
Didn't the Charter Review Committee get their direction from the BOS for what they could or could not "reveiw"?
The Charter Review Committee this time round got instructions from town council about what they could and could not do. The can't recommend a new form of government. They can recommend a Charter Review Commission, which is the instrument to seriously explore a new form of government and get people's opinion about it. Only one person came before the Charter Review to suggest they do that. That was me.
From my perspective to put in rather simple terms. The form of government, while meaningful on some levels is inefficient and causes us to loose resources routinely.
Government by Board of Selectmen, Town Meeting and Prop 2.5 is meant to get important questions to the decision makers. Spending outside Prop 2.5 is controlled by voters at the ballot box. Spending inside Prop 2.5 is controlled by voters at Town Meeting. What goes on the TM warrant and the ballot is controlled by the Board of Selectmen. Inefficiency comes from the BoS insisting on studying everything to death thus kicking problems down the road for ever. Let's stop guessing what the voters want and simply ask them.
Asking voters what they want requires actively engaging in real dialog with an open mind and a genuine willingness to adopt another way of thinking.
Or, asking voters what they want obligates the boards to present voters with genuine reasonable alternative choices.
I am not sure I see too much of either happening.
Anon, democracy doesn't lend itself to essay or multiple choice questions. In the end it comes down to aye or nay. Contrary to the apparent prevailing view in Sandwich, democracy is not a spectator sport.
There are two big issues on the table; school restructuring and the public safety complex.
There have been multiple meetings on the public safety issue. I and other selectmen attended several, listened to the dialog and suggested some steps to answer questions. Maybe, being generous and counting after Town Meeting, 250 people showed up. Where were the other 15,000 voters? Was Two and a Half Men on the night?
Furthermore, the voters ponied up $150,000 for the information. We get criticized for working to give them the information for which they paid.
There were five parent meetings to discuss the school issue. I was able to attend all five. Other selectmen and SC members attended some. I know from discussions with Dr. Canfield and School Committee members that the input was considered and is being incorporated in the plan. Again, being generous, maybe 200 parents showed up Where were the other 3000 parents? Guess they couldn't miss an episode of the Big Bang Theory.
Dear Mr. Pierce,
Most registered voters can get there info on-line from newpapers to blogs, to town websites regarding what is going on in town. There is no need to go to the continuous parade of meetings. I predict the majority of individuals will take their vote to the ballot box regarding the PSC and not to town meeting. People will only go to town meeting when it's something that will impact them personally and it doesn't go to the ballot box. So I forsee not to many folks going to town meeting regarding the PSC. Why, because they don't want have to listen to the continuous parade of citizens at the microphone and they can go vote in peace at the polls.
Stop belittling the voters that are sick of all the meetings, just get to the vote!
Same will probably happen regarding the funds the Superintendent will want for the STEM academy. You can have all the presentations/meetings you want but that too will probably go to the ballot box, where voters will have their say. If it is a vote only at town meeting, then you can expect a packed auditorium.
So how do the citizens dissolve Town Meeting?
Mr Pierce is the poster boy for condescending; I know it all behavior – read his posts.
He is example number 1 of our Boards total refusal to actively engage in real dialog with an open mind and a genuine willingness to adopt another way of thinking.
I will vote NO. I I will not vote for Jim again.
To be sure, this safety complex proposal has and will generate a lot taxpayer interest and attention despite some poor attendance at earlier hearings and meetings. This is a given; especially since the tax dollars involved are substantial and the proposal is not without serious, informed critics.
It’s interesting to me how many town employees including numerous police officers and fireman oppose this plan. Extravagant, wasteful, not necessary and boondoggle are words and phrases I’ve heard our own safety personnel and other town employees use repeatedly when discussing this project.
Many informed critics are able to move virtually room by room through the proposal offering detailed objections, criticisms and serious insightful questions. Partnered with critics others in town that question the total cost and represent the many, many families currently struggling or unable to meet today’s bills, informed, rationale project opposition seems both substantial and on the rise.
Personally, I’ve read and heard a lot about this proposal - both pro and con. So far, and specific to the current plan and proposal, I am, like almost everyone I’ve spoken with, a No vote. And, like blog master Bob, I’d love somebody to “move the question” and take the vote.
Mr. Guerin, I too have not heard one Police Officer or Firefighter that is in support of the proposed PSC!
Webmaster Bob, I liked the idea of C.A.V.E. However, a Sandwich chapter of Anonymous Anonymous might be more useful. There would be a twelve step program for those given to making up "facts" and posting them anonymously. When they run out of arguments they resort to insults and empty advice like "think differently" without offering any suggestions. Maybe if they have an answer they would consider sharing it with us mortals.
The Truth Maker would respond to the above post in regards to the owner of the sign On Quakermeeting House Road. Indeed it is a Fireman and also the same one that was involved with the discussion in the disposal of Bio Fuels in a septic system here in Sandwich a few years back. Apparently he has connections to a Bio Fuel Company located in town. He sure spent a lot of money to have that sign made up for what ever reason.
Freedom of speach is a great thing and under the constitution we all have the right to express ourselves, no matter what any one else may believe.
The CCT reported that the owner of the sign apparently didn't pay the real estate taxes he complains about. He also started a bio-fuel business that turns used cooking oil to bio-diesel -- while working at the Fire Department. AND, when a bank foreclosed on another of his properties, they found "somebody" had destroyed the septic system by filling it with used cooking oil. (Sandwich PD was unable to determine the identity of the vandal!!)
The "No Station" crowd could use a better poster child!
The last entry suggests that the taxpayers in town are the “NO station” crowd. And, it attempts to paint all of us with a pretty broad and ugly brush.
I’d prefer to think of myself as a member of the “NOT THIS station” crowd.
How about an alternative proposal with a little less space, a little less equipment, a few less bells and whistles and for less money? What might that look like? Despite Selectmen Jim Pierce’s inputs and objections voiced on this blog, less expensive options and plans – plans that current plan proponents consider less than ideal - must in fact exist.
Several Sandwich police and fire officers have commented to me about what they perceive to be “silly wish list items” (and rooms) that “will rarely if ever get used” and they’ve suggested that this proposal includes more than one “nice to have and not must have” item. Other residents, who I consider equally informed and judicious, have shared serious and reasonable objections with me. A lot of good, caring, engaged, informed and responsible taxpayers find the current proposal seriously deficient and objectionable.
Much like the last $25 million dollar capital repair proposal, taxpayers are being told that their choice is everything or nothing, take it or leave it.
That’s a stark choice. And, if folks think that the “everything” proposal cost too much and imposes too big a burden on already struggling young families and fixed-income retirees then No becomes the only option.
But, I don’t think this NO vote means NO station; I am pretty sure that the collective sentiment in town today is: NOT THIS station.
Excellent point.
Say "no" and see what alternatives suddenly appear.
Bob and Bob, the Truth Maker, many anonymous contributors and I all appear to agree on one thing. It's time to "move the question".
Proposition 2.5 requires a 2/3 vote of the executive body to put a debt exclusion on the warrant and ballot. Two-thirds of 5 equals 4. My fear is that two of my colleagues will chose to kick this down the road one more time.
I repeat, let's stop second guessing the voters and ask. Once the ayes and nays are counted, we move on.
Mr. Pierce,
Once again you choose to ignore the question(s). Whether anonymous or named, why do you refuse to answer the very specific questions/observations that have been asked regarding the PSC as proposed. Folks have been very upfront on this blog site about what is not needed with the proposed PSC and why many consider it the 'tajmahal"
Mr. Simmons, maybe a new "thread" could be started with as many of the specific questions regarding the proposed PSC,that have been mentioned previously, could be copied to the new "thread", and then Mr. Pierce could answer them.
Just a thought.
Mr. Guerin I agree with your last post as well.
I don't say no to a new PSC. Just NO to the PSC as proposed!
The Truth Maker would say
AMEN to Mr. Jim
Frankly, I just don’t get it - probably because I am at times both hard headed and thick headed.
When the $25 million dollar, take it or leave it, capital repair proposal was offered to taxpayers by our government, people rightfully asked: what’s your Plan B?
No alternative plan was offered. It was, as I’ve written previously, a take it or leave it proposition. Not surprisingly, voters said “no thanks.”
Today, numerous taxpayers have repeatedly asked proponents of the Public Safety Complex: What’s Plan B?
So far, no alternative plan has been offered. Once again, government has decided that the best course of action is to tell taxpayers: My way or the highway.
I’ll say it again. It’s remarkable to me that our leaders laud Town Meeting’s wisdom and the ability of taxpayers to decide matters of great import but refuse to provide real choice and alternative solutions to the real decision makers (us taxpayers).
There has got to be at least 2 maybe 3 alternative safety complex designs and plans and budgets. For sure, what’s been proposed was not the lowest cost alternative considered.
I really have no idea why Sandwich taxpayers, who are by everyone’s admission the final decision makers, can’t be given two or three well-reasoned, carefully crafted, workable and serviceable alternative choices.
Bob G, I absolutely agree with you on $25M repair bill. Just one minor correction, we didn't ask for $25M. But we did jumble a bunch of unrelated things. I voted to put that on the warrant, not because I expected it to pass. I wanted to get the answer from the voters rather than guessing.
Later we asked separately for the school green repairs, the library HVAC and to add $125K to preventive maintenance. The voters came through on all three.
I sort of agree with you on the PSC. But, I'd take a different approach. The first question I asked myself was; where should Sandwich be 10-15 years from now. By then there will be 25,000 of us. Demographers say 35-40% of us will be over 60.
The ultimate public safety solution is probably 3 new fully-manned stations. Headquarters should probably be south of Rt6 where all the people are. A minimum of 12 more EMT/fire-fighters will be needed. Why 12? That's the minimum to man a station with 3 guys 168 hours a week.
How do we get there from here? It's the same answer as; how do you eat a steer: one steak or hamburger at a time. If, big word "if", one accepts that in 20 years Sandwich will have 3 new stations and more personnel, then how big a bite are the taxpayers willing to take out of that cow and when. And, the price of beef ain't going down.
For me, the idea is to get from here to what Sandwich will eventually need a step at a time. We have to be sure we don't do anything that precludes getting there. If the taxpayers reject the steak, then we'll come up with a suitable hamburger.
We could go back to the future and ask for a $1.2M override to man E.Sandwich. We could combine that with renovating E.Sandwich. The current study concluded "the lot is too small and we have to tear it down and start over to meet code." So, it would probably be easier to build a new substation to serve E.Sandwich, maybe on some other nearby town land.
I remain convinced we should ask the voters. If their collective input says, no steak now. Then we move on.
Bud knows how little support there is for this thing. He can stamp his feet and belittle the electorate like a petulant child all he wants. It is a bad plan and he knows it. For those of you who took a tour of your police and fire stations did you happen to pay attention to who was giving the tours? The chiefs. To ensure only the information they wanted to present was offered. Ever been to an open house at a school without the teachers? Did you also notice that your taxes went up .99 cents per thousand? What did you get for that raise in taxation? Much like the two $30 MILLION dollar buildings will provide....nothing.
The Truth Maker would like to comment in regards to why a specific Selectmen[Mr. Frank} in regards to why he continues to use the same speach, in regards to not supporting allowing the tax payers here in Sandwich to have the question brought before the people for a vote.
Understanding you have continued to use the same reasoning, even after it has been explained to you and you fail to comprehend the answers to the questions you ask???
In almost 5 years time since you have been a selectmen you have not made any effort to make any physical changes to the proposal to build a new safety complex.
You have managed to use the same wording every time as to the reasoning why you feel we the people of Sandwich cannot make one in a prudent manner.
Mr. Frank it is time to let go of the broken clock and allow the taxpayers the ability to vote yes or no on this project that in dollars has resulted in over one Million dollars along with countless studies, administrative hours being expended so far on this project, which you were the leading proponant against this project the first time around/
You never seem to have any problem spending our money on studies, but have one when the study verifies the needs and you balk at allowing us simple folks from actually voting to see if the town will except the bill to pass it.
The right thing to do at this time is to pass your concerns onto town meeting floor, but let it get there. No more grandstanding,no more dictoral attitude, just allow the project to be voted on.
If you were sincere about Economic Development , surley you must know that this project would become the foundation upon which economic development will become once it is built, here in Sandwich,
It is time to fish or cut bait or another phrase come to mind and you can quess what it will be.
I do hope you respond here. Oh I forgot you do not like your fellow selectmen to fill in every one here and in the paper. At Least that was stated in the recent Broadsider. The Truth Never hurts, it just delays things when it is not.
Did the State of the State speech last night by the Governor improve or lower the support of this PSC? This would make an excellent poll question
Yeah, let us vote. Particularly when the fire chief admitted to a question that Grundman asked explaining this response time ruse could be cured with manning existing East Sandwich Station 2. You know, the $740,00 annual manpower cost the selectman shot down after Barbara Lewis started and passed a peoples petition. As it now turns out to be 1/40th the cost of this new idea? Let us vote all right
Post a Comment