You got to hand it to the Hate Blogs. They see a conspiracy behind every rock. And if they don't see one, they just make it up.
Their latest repetition is the Town acquisition of the Barnstable Water Company. BostonBugsy and KapeKog can't attack the fact that the company is now in public ownership, for even they must admit it is the best thing that has happened locally in years. The local water districts in Barnstable and those in other towns have hailed the move to public ownership. So did the Hyannis Civic Association, the Hyannis Chamber of Commerce, the Main Street group, and many others. The Water Division now has an oversight committee made up of Hyannis residents and businesses. We all know and respect them.
So the only other thing the Hate Blogs can attack is the cost. The Town bought the Barnstable Water Company and its holdings for $11 million dollars. Connecticut Water Company had bought it for $6 million 5 years before.
The Hate Blogs say that the Town paid too much. The Hate Blogs even went to the Cape Cod Times crying that the Town paid too much. So the Cape Cod Times fell for the trap and contacted not one but two, independent water company experts to evaluate the purchase price. Both concluded that the town did its due diligence and paid a reasonable price for the company. The Cape Cod Times must still be smarting for falling for the Hate Blogs misinformation.
The Hate Blogs mantra is that anything associated with Barnstable is bad. Its an old record with no credibility. Maybe someday Muppy will move to the Cape and learn what is really going on here. And maybe someday KapeKog will get over his bitterness for losing so many elections.
And now our water company is owned by our citizens, not some out of state corporation. A group of our neighbors review the operations regularly. We now make our own decisions.
We thank our Town Council for their leadership in acquiring our water source!
What do you think?
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Veteran's Friend: Sid Chase
It's Memorial Day weekend. Hopefully, most of us will take at least a moment to think of our Veterans, past and present. But what about the guy who helps Veterans every day of the year, Sid Chase.
Sid (Larry) Chase is the Veteran's Agent for most of the Towns on Cape Cod. And he has been so for years. Sid has quietly, but incredibly effectively, helped tens of thousands of Veterans over the years. Whether it is an issue regarding health care or employment or benefits, Sid Chase has been there for every Veteran in need.
Sid Chase is a friend to all Veterans. He is a remarkable man who has dedicated his life serving our Veterans. During this Memorial Day Weekend, let's remember our Veterans. And let's also remember and thank the incredible team who serves our Veterans all year long under the leadership of Sid Chase!
Sid (Larry) Chase is the Veteran's Agent for most of the Towns on Cape Cod. And he has been so for years. Sid has quietly, but incredibly effectively, helped tens of thousands of Veterans over the years. Whether it is an issue regarding health care or employment or benefits, Sid Chase has been there for every Veteran in need.
Sid Chase is a friend to all Veterans. He is a remarkable man who has dedicated his life serving our Veterans. During this Memorial Day Weekend, let's remember our Veterans. And let's also remember and thank the incredible team who serves our Veterans all year long under the leadership of Sid Chase!
The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling.
The sky is falling. The sky is falling. That is the mantra of the local hate blogs. Their standard line is the town does everything wrong and they have all the answers. They, of course, are the BostonBlogster and CapeKog.
So the latest salvo deals with the airport, yet again. The Hate Blogs are force fed a story line from the competitor of a business entity who wants a lease at the airport to conduct the same type of operation that the dime dropping complainer has. Isn't competition great? Stop the competition under the guise of environmental protection.
But you see, as long as the story line is "bash the town" the hate blogs will go along with anyone. Even a competitor who is trying to stop another business from opening up shop to do the same thing the dime dropper is doing.
So this time it's about environmental protection. Kinda strange that the "johnny come lately" environmentalists weren't tooting their horns before. Did any of you see any of these wizards at an airport commission meeting in the past trying to stop other operations, like say, the dime-dropper himself?
The truth is that the town bought the Hyannis Water Company from a Connecticut outfit. A Water Committee of Hyannis residents and businesses were formed to work to put a plan to improve the water system. According to the Town Council, The Board is working to put into place performance standards to protect the water. President Janet Joakim said that the Water Committee is working with the Town's Water Quality Advisory Committee and other experts to put standards into place for ALL business activities in the area, not just the latest business to come along.
So the issue isn't about zoning or leases. It is about putting into place a set of regulations or standards that require that water sources are protected.
The Water Committee should be applauded for their leadership in finally putting into place what should have been there years ago.
I am glad our citizens group is working hard to get the protections we need. I am also glad we own our water source.
Of course, you won't see that on the hate blogs. They would rather partner with a business who wants to stop competition. Have you seen any of the hate blogs demand actions against the company who is trying to stop another company from trying to do the same thing he is dong?
Of course not. This isn't really about protecting water. It's about bashing the Town.
Again.
What do you think?
So the latest salvo deals with the airport, yet again. The Hate Blogs are force fed a story line from the competitor of a business entity who wants a lease at the airport to conduct the same type of operation that the dime dropping complainer has. Isn't competition great? Stop the competition under the guise of environmental protection.
But you see, as long as the story line is "bash the town" the hate blogs will go along with anyone. Even a competitor who is trying to stop another business from opening up shop to do the same thing the dime dropper is doing.
So this time it's about environmental protection. Kinda strange that the "johnny come lately" environmentalists weren't tooting their horns before. Did any of you see any of these wizards at an airport commission meeting in the past trying to stop other operations, like say, the dime-dropper himself?
The truth is that the town bought the Hyannis Water Company from a Connecticut outfit. A Water Committee of Hyannis residents and businesses were formed to work to put a plan to improve the water system. According to the Town Council, The Board is working to put into place performance standards to protect the water. President Janet Joakim said that the Water Committee is working with the Town's Water Quality Advisory Committee and other experts to put standards into place for ALL business activities in the area, not just the latest business to come along.
So the issue isn't about zoning or leases. It is about putting into place a set of regulations or standards that require that water sources are protected.
The Water Committee should be applauded for their leadership in finally putting into place what should have been there years ago.
I am glad our citizens group is working hard to get the protections we need. I am also glad we own our water source.
Of course, you won't see that on the hate blogs. They would rather partner with a business who wants to stop competition. Have you seen any of the hate blogs demand actions against the company who is trying to stop another company from trying to do the same thing he is dong?
Of course not. This isn't really about protecting water. It's about bashing the Town.
Again.
What do you think?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
We needed a Vacation
The last five days have been great. We did a lot and we did nothing. We fished (stripers and scup); we hit a few yard sales on the Lower Cape; we checked out the new Movie Theater in Buzzards Bay; we walked on Sandy Neck; we biked to Dennis.
Good old R and R. I didn't read a paper or watch T.V. I didn't blog or read blogs. And we came back last night.
Nothing has changed. We haven't missed a beat. Our TV programs are the same. The national news reports we are at war. The President still thinks it is a good idea. The opponents still don't.
The Red Sox are busy playing. The local Hate Blogs are still bashing and attacking.
It begs the question, could we go on vacation for a year, and still come back to the same 'ol, same 'ol?
What do you think?
Good old R and R. I didn't read a paper or watch T.V. I didn't blog or read blogs. And we came back last night.
Nothing has changed. We haven't missed a beat. Our TV programs are the same. The national news reports we are at war. The President still thinks it is a good idea. The opponents still don't.
The Red Sox are busy playing. The local Hate Blogs are still bashing and attacking.
It begs the question, could we go on vacation for a year, and still come back to the same 'ol, same 'ol?
What do you think?
Friday, May 18, 2007
Cape Wind Debate: Process and Location are the Problem
The present Cape Wind debate continues as tempers flare almost daily by proponents and opponents alike. This has been, and continues to be, a contentious and divisive issue. That's too bad. Almost all of us know, like and respect citizens on both sides of this issue.
The problem is that this was NEVER seen by the developer as a local issue. The present (as modified) proposal to place a bunch of windmills in Nantucket Sound on Horseshoe Shoal was not conceived or developed by Cape Codders. It was never supported by our local officials and it did not go through a legitimate local process before it started the lengthy state and federal permitting process.
It was, and is, a proposal designed to maximize corporate profits for a handful of folks. It does place these structures in a pristine and unique part of our world, Nantucket Sound.
To the credit of proponents, it also is a step forward in our collective desire to use wind power and to reach our goal of a clean environment and reduction of energy dependence. It's just the wrong location. And this would have been very clear to all if there had been a real local public decision-making process. The location was chosen by the developer, not the community. Doesn't make him a bad guy. It just is what it is.
And it never was a real local process. Cape Codders were not respected in this process. And it might be the right location for corporate profits, but not the right location for every other reason.
The solution? Choose an alternative location after a real and respectful local process and let both sides win this battle.
It won't happen because both sides are dug in too deep. It's all or nothing in this game of winner takes all.
It's too bad that this couldn't have been done right. The first time.
But greed is a great way to ruin the Cape. It truly is too bad!
Can this be salvaged? What do you think?
The problem is that this was NEVER seen by the developer as a local issue. The present (as modified) proposal to place a bunch of windmills in Nantucket Sound on Horseshoe Shoal was not conceived or developed by Cape Codders. It was never supported by our local officials and it did not go through a legitimate local process before it started the lengthy state and federal permitting process.
It was, and is, a proposal designed to maximize corporate profits for a handful of folks. It does place these structures in a pristine and unique part of our world, Nantucket Sound.
To the credit of proponents, it also is a step forward in our collective desire to use wind power and to reach our goal of a clean environment and reduction of energy dependence. It's just the wrong location. And this would have been very clear to all if there had been a real local public decision-making process. The location was chosen by the developer, not the community. Doesn't make him a bad guy. It just is what it is.
And it never was a real local process. Cape Codders were not respected in this process. And it might be the right location for corporate profits, but not the right location for every other reason.
The solution? Choose an alternative location after a real and respectful local process and let both sides win this battle.
It won't happen because both sides are dug in too deep. It's all or nothing in this game of winner takes all.
It's too bad that this couldn't have been done right. The first time.
But greed is a great way to ruin the Cape. It truly is too bad!
Can this be salvaged? What do you think?
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Problem With The Hate Blogs
Two of the local Blogs really have a problem. They're rank amateurs who don't care about accuracy. Three quick examples demonstrate why they have no credibility in this community.
CASE #1
The ancient blogger at CapeKog writes about the structure erected on a parcel owned by Councilor Jim Crocker across the street from Craigville Beach. The blog reports of a scandal, a zoning violation, a threatening strategy being employed by the dastardly Town Councilor to force the Town to let him develop the property.
Oh really?
He is sponsoring a fundraiser for the mentally challenged and is not charging the non profit a dime, you knucklehead!
CASE #2
Muffy from Boston reports that the Barnstable Municipal Airport is allowing a building to be built and that the Airport is claiming a use exemption because they are a Town entity. The Muffster claims that the Water supply in Hyannis will therefore be polluted.
Oh really?
Isn't this the business that the Cape Cod Commission and the Airport just placed MUCH more stringent requirements on the business than the underlying groundwater protection district? Can we say, "do your homework"?
CASE #3
Back to the ancient blogger from Centerville. Said blogger reports that the dastardly Dr. Mosby from the Airport has been found guilty of domestic violence.
Oh really?
The truth is that Dr. Mosby WAS NOT found guilty at all. The Blogger keeps repeating the factual error clearly impugning the person's reputation and integrity. Sounds like a law suit waiting to happen. The Blogger knows it is not true and is intentionally harming a person's reputation KNOWING it is not true.
You want the truth. Obviously Muffy and the Old Man can't handle the truth! They rarely employ it.
What do you think?
CASE #1
The ancient blogger at CapeKog writes about the structure erected on a parcel owned by Councilor Jim Crocker across the street from Craigville Beach. The blog reports of a scandal, a zoning violation, a threatening strategy being employed by the dastardly Town Councilor to force the Town to let him develop the property.
Oh really?
He is sponsoring a fundraiser for the mentally challenged and is not charging the non profit a dime, you knucklehead!
CASE #2
Muffy from Boston reports that the Barnstable Municipal Airport is allowing a building to be built and that the Airport is claiming a use exemption because they are a Town entity. The Muffster claims that the Water supply in Hyannis will therefore be polluted.
Oh really?
Isn't this the business that the Cape Cod Commission and the Airport just placed MUCH more stringent requirements on the business than the underlying groundwater protection district? Can we say, "do your homework"?
CASE #3
Back to the ancient blogger from Centerville. Said blogger reports that the dastardly Dr. Mosby from the Airport has been found guilty of domestic violence.
Oh really?
The truth is that Dr. Mosby WAS NOT found guilty at all. The Blogger keeps repeating the factual error clearly impugning the person's reputation and integrity. Sounds like a law suit waiting to happen. The Blogger knows it is not true and is intentionally harming a person's reputation KNOWING it is not true.
You want the truth. Obviously Muffy and the Old Man can't handle the truth! They rarely employ it.
What do you think?
Monday, May 14, 2007
Non Binding Question A Good Idea
Just ask.
That is what the Council Review Committee is asking the Town Council to do in the form of a November non-binding ballot question.
The purpose of the non-binding ballot question would be to get a sense of support/opposition of the Review Committee's proposal to have a smaller Town Council with both precinct based and at-large representation.
The Barnstable Patriot reported that the possibility of placing a non-binding question on the ballot is presently being considered by our Town Council.
The ballot question would give valuable insights to a new Charter Commission this Fall. Why not ask our citizens how the feel about a hybrid mix of precinct based and at-large Councilors? If we said a strong no, the Charter Commission would not have to waste valuable time on this model. If we said a strong yes, the Commission might spend less time on the status quo, and spend more time on this model and the all at-large model.
Either way, the Commission would get a good sense of how we feel about the hybrid option. Since we are going to the polls anyway, there is no harm in asking how WE feel about the Review Committee's recommendation.
Why not ask?
What do you think?
That is what the Council Review Committee is asking the Town Council to do in the form of a November non-binding ballot question.
The purpose of the non-binding ballot question would be to get a sense of support/opposition of the Review Committee's proposal to have a smaller Town Council with both precinct based and at-large representation.
The Barnstable Patriot reported that the possibility of placing a non-binding question on the ballot is presently being considered by our Town Council.
The ballot question would give valuable insights to a new Charter Commission this Fall. Why not ask our citizens how the feel about a hybrid mix of precinct based and at-large Councilors? If we said a strong no, the Charter Commission would not have to waste valuable time on this model. If we said a strong yes, the Commission might spend less time on the status quo, and spend more time on this model and the all at-large model.
Either way, the Commission would get a good sense of how we feel about the hybrid option. Since we are going to the polls anyway, there is no harm in asking how WE feel about the Review Committee's recommendation.
Why not ask?
What do you think?
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Is Spring Finally Here?
Have you noticed that Spring has finally arrived? The bulbs and grass and leaves and birds have arrived. The mild weather is back. And so are the tourists.
I had my first inquiry yesterday as I walked on Main Street, "Excuse me, could you tell me where the Kennedy Compound is?".
Summer must be right around the corner.
When we have one, Spring can be glorious. Not that we get to enjoy it on Cape Cod all that often. Most years seem to bring us right from Winter to Summer.
But every so often, God gives us a gift. A glorious Spring. It reminds us that life is full of potential. That we have the rest of the year to enjoy this wonderful place called Cape Cod.
Blogs are, all too often, filled with hate and demagoguery and nastiness. The jottings are written by people who get so wrapped up in the fight, that they forget what their fighting for. It seems that they are not positive, happy, fulfilled people. Some even seem bitter. What a shame.
But for the rest of us, let's enjoy our Spring. Go out and smell the flowers. Spend some time with the kids. Take a walk. Plant some flowers.
Enjoy life!
I had my first inquiry yesterday as I walked on Main Street, "Excuse me, could you tell me where the Kennedy Compound is?".
Summer must be right around the corner.
When we have one, Spring can be glorious. Not that we get to enjoy it on Cape Cod all that often. Most years seem to bring us right from Winter to Summer.
But every so often, God gives us a gift. A glorious Spring. It reminds us that life is full of potential. That we have the rest of the year to enjoy this wonderful place called Cape Cod.
Blogs are, all too often, filled with hate and demagoguery and nastiness. The jottings are written by people who get so wrapped up in the fight, that they forget what their fighting for. It seems that they are not positive, happy, fulfilled people. Some even seem bitter. What a shame.
But for the rest of us, let's enjoy our Spring. Go out and smell the flowers. Spend some time with the kids. Take a walk. Plant some flowers.
Enjoy life!
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Can a Problem Be Solved in One Week?
The answer is an obvious YES. If the parties want it to happen, it will.
Oh, you could go the litigious route and spend three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in Court. I know at least two (one non-resident) Hate Bloggers who would think that is just fine. But the BarnstableBlogger doesn't. And I would bet that you don't either.
How do we solve this problem?
All it takes is a good plan and a ton of good will. Not the kind that dies by idle threats and chest stomping and law suits. But the kind that says to Barnstable and Yarmouth residents, hey, we're in this together. Let's work together and take a win.
So what is the Plan?
1. The Town of Barnstable supports the appointment of 2 Yarmouth residents to serve on the Airport Commission.
2. The Commission and Town Council representatives immediately meet with Airline officials to negotiate an understanding that flights don't start at the crack of dawn.
3. The Commission implements a real noise monitoring and abatement Program with the help, advice and guidance of Yarmouth officials.
That's it. That's all it takes. Free advice and consultation from yours truly. I could have probably charged and received $100,000. as a consultant but for a limited time only, the plan is yours. For free.
I am going fishing. Happy Negotiating to You!
What do you think?
Oh, you could go the litigious route and spend three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in Court. I know at least two (one non-resident) Hate Bloggers who would think that is just fine. But the BarnstableBlogger doesn't. And I would bet that you don't either.
How do we solve this problem?
All it takes is a good plan and a ton of good will. Not the kind that dies by idle threats and chest stomping and law suits. But the kind that says to Barnstable and Yarmouth residents, hey, we're in this together. Let's work together and take a win.
So what is the Plan?
1. The Town of Barnstable supports the appointment of 2 Yarmouth residents to serve on the Airport Commission.
2. The Commission and Town Council representatives immediately meet with Airline officials to negotiate an understanding that flights don't start at the crack of dawn.
3. The Commission implements a real noise monitoring and abatement Program with the help, advice and guidance of Yarmouth officials.
That's it. That's all it takes. Free advice and consultation from yours truly. I could have probably charged and received $100,000. as a consultant but for a limited time only, the plan is yours. For free.
I am going fishing. Happy Negotiating to You!
What do you think?
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Yarmouth Taxpayer: The Solution or the Problem
What a shame. The BarnstableBlogger has written several posts recently about the Barnstable Airport and the conflict between Barnstable and Yarmouth. BB has supported at least one Yarmouth member ( if not more) on the Airport Commission and I have asked for greater responsiveness by the B.A.C. to Yarmouth's concerns. I have also asked for clarity so that I can better understand the Yarmouth position.
We had a visit recently from someone named the "Yarmouth Taxpayer". I thanked YT for visiting and appreciated his/her comments. I had hope to hear from YT again.
This afternoon a visitor sent me a copy of a blog from the Yarmouth Taxpayer. If this is not one in the same, I apologize to both.
But the YT blog criticized the Yarmouth Board of Selectmen for their desire for a diplomatic solution. What a shame. (YT must be a guy!)
The Yarmouth Taxpayer stated, "Spearing heading the fight on the noise issues was Selectwoman McAuliffe. Now the big change, talk out the problems at the airport? I ask, why the change? Talk is all the Airport Commission does with NO Action. The Residents/ Taxpayers in West Yarmouth have been suffering for years and Selectwoman McAuliffe along with Selectmen Jerry Sullivan, who is in with the airport, are now saying we must try to sit down and talk? This is a major step backwards."
So it appears that our friend YT is spearheading a litigation strategy. What a waste of time and Yarmouth Taxpayer money. It leads one to wonder whether, like the hate blogs, YT is more interested in the fight than the solution.
We welcome YT to our forum to discuss this issue. You may find that there is more agreement than disagreement. But, then again, solving the problem might not be as much fun.
Which strategy makes sense to you? YT's court fight, which will take years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? Or the Board of Selectmen's strategy of open communication?
For what it is worth, I'll put my money on the Selectmen!
We had a visit recently from someone named the "Yarmouth Taxpayer". I thanked YT for visiting and appreciated his/her comments. I had hope to hear from YT again.
This afternoon a visitor sent me a copy of a blog from the Yarmouth Taxpayer. If this is not one in the same, I apologize to both.
But the YT blog criticized the Yarmouth Board of Selectmen for their desire for a diplomatic solution. What a shame. (YT must be a guy!)
The Yarmouth Taxpayer stated, "Spearing heading the fight on the noise issues was Selectwoman McAuliffe. Now the big change, talk out the problems at the airport? I ask, why the change? Talk is all the Airport Commission does with NO Action. The Residents/ Taxpayers in West Yarmouth have been suffering for years and Selectwoman McAuliffe along with Selectmen Jerry Sullivan, who is in with the airport, are now saying we must try to sit down and talk? This is a major step backwards."
So it appears that our friend YT is spearheading a litigation strategy. What a waste of time and Yarmouth Taxpayer money. It leads one to wonder whether, like the hate blogs, YT is more interested in the fight than the solution.
We welcome YT to our forum to discuss this issue. You may find that there is more agreement than disagreement. But, then again, solving the problem might not be as much fun.
Which strategy makes sense to you? YT's court fight, which will take years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? Or the Board of Selectmen's strategy of open communication?
For what it is worth, I'll put my money on the Selectmen!
Nantucket and Cape Air must be good neighbors, too
Early morning flights by Cape Air for anything other than emergencies are just plain unacceptable. Our friends on Nantucket should not expect persons in Barnstable or Yarmouth to loose sleep so that Nantucket residents can get their newspaper or their tradesperson a tad bit earlier in the day.
Respect for Cape Codders should be the price you pay for choosing to live on an island. And Cape Air needs to be a better corporate citizen. It would be great to hear from a Cape Air representative to better understand why they couldn't start the work day later.
We can be better neighbors, can't we? What do you think?
Respect for Cape Codders should be the price you pay for choosing to live on an island. And Cape Air needs to be a better corporate citizen. It would be great to hear from a Cape Air representative to better understand why they couldn't start the work day later.
We can be better neighbors, can't we? What do you think?
Monday, May 7, 2007
So You Want To Close the Airport?
I wrote recently about the relationship between Barnstable and Yarmouth regarding the Airport. Several years ago, Yarmouth suggested that they should have a seat and a vote at the table at the Airport Commission. They were right. Yarmouth deserves a vote on the Airport Commission. But the Town Council saw it differently and voted against the proposal. That was unfortunate.
But after the vote, Yarmouth seemingly changed its collective mind and have not asked for reconsideration. Instead, they supposedly are discussing the matter with an Attorney to review their legal options. Legal options for what?
To the average Barnstable resident, the Yarmouth position is confusing and unclear. How can objective Barnstable residents decide if they support the Yarmouth position if they can't figure out what it is?
Do they still want membership on the Airport Commission?
Do they want to close the Airport, as was suggested by one who visited recently?
Or are they demanding greater rules and regulations to lessen the impact of the Airport on Yarmouth residents?
I don't know what their position is. Do you?
But after the vote, Yarmouth seemingly changed its collective mind and have not asked for reconsideration. Instead, they supposedly are discussing the matter with an Attorney to review their legal options. Legal options for what?
To the average Barnstable resident, the Yarmouth position is confusing and unclear. How can objective Barnstable residents decide if they support the Yarmouth position if they can't figure out what it is?
Do they still want membership on the Airport Commission?
Do they want to close the Airport, as was suggested by one who visited recently?
Or are they demanding greater rules and regulations to lessen the impact of the Airport on Yarmouth residents?
I don't know what their position is. Do you?
Saturday, May 5, 2007
New Dogs in Town
The old landscape is changing. After several years of trash and hate blogging by a non-resident and a senile and out-of-touch hermit, we are seeing a transformation. Try out http://www.hyannisnews.com/ for some really good and up to date news in the Hyannis area. Town Council president Janet Joakim has begun a new blog at http://www.janetjoakim.org that has some really good local political commentary. And yours truly is enjoying an increase in readership every day. So we join the fine work of folks like Cape Cod Today in discussing relevent issues that impact us all.
So why not give the new kids on the block a look-see. The old boys have had their say. Now it is time for the rest of us to play.
So why not give the new kids on the block a look-see. The old boys have had their say. Now it is time for the rest of us to play.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Barnstable Airport: Is it Time For A Change?
There has been an on-going debate over the past decade and a half about the relationship between the Barnstable Airport and our citizens. (And the citizens of adjoining towns). There has also has been an on-going debate about the relationship between our town management and Town Council and the Airport Commission and Airport Staff.
Presently, the Town Council appoints an Airport Commission which has the responsibility of oversight and the setting of policy at the Airport. The Airport Commission appoints an Airport Manager who runs the Airport on a day to day basis. The Airport has been controversial over the years in the kind of way that many airports are controversial. Some people don't like the noise associated with an airport. The Airport also been historically plagued with bad management decisions and controversial staff.
This is not a bash the Airport piece. In their usual fashion, the hate-bloggers always discuss this issue by offering personal attacks and racist commentary, instead of offering an objective review of the situation with a goal of improving the situation.
But it is appropriate to ask several questions about the operations and the future of the Airport as follows:
1. Is the Airport a plus for our community and have they been receptive and sensitive to community concerns?
2. Is the Airport run well?
3. Should the Airport operations be separate from the day to day operations of the Town under the authority of the Town Manager?
4. Is the Airport openly and effectively dealing with the concerns of our neighbors in Yarmouth?
5. While most would agree that a face lift is needed at the Airport, should we support a multi-million dollar expansion of this facility?
6. Has the Airport Commission responsibly dealt with major policy issues in a timely way?
7. Should the future of Airport operations be part of the overall Charter discussion in Barnstable?
The Barnstable Airport. Is it Time For A Change?
What do you think?
Presently, the Town Council appoints an Airport Commission which has the responsibility of oversight and the setting of policy at the Airport. The Airport Commission appoints an Airport Manager who runs the Airport on a day to day basis. The Airport has been controversial over the years in the kind of way that many airports are controversial. Some people don't like the noise associated with an airport. The Airport also been historically plagued with bad management decisions and controversial staff.
This is not a bash the Airport piece. In their usual fashion, the hate-bloggers always discuss this issue by offering personal attacks and racist commentary, instead of offering an objective review of the situation with a goal of improving the situation.
But it is appropriate to ask several questions about the operations and the future of the Airport as follows:
1. Is the Airport a plus for our community and have they been receptive and sensitive to community concerns?
2. Is the Airport run well?
3. Should the Airport operations be separate from the day to day operations of the Town under the authority of the Town Manager?
4. Is the Airport openly and effectively dealing with the concerns of our neighbors in Yarmouth?
5. While most would agree that a face lift is needed at the Airport, should we support a multi-million dollar expansion of this facility?
6. Has the Airport Commission responsibly dealt with major policy issues in a timely way?
7. Should the future of Airport operations be part of the overall Charter discussion in Barnstable?
The Barnstable Airport. Is it Time For A Change?
What do you think?
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
The Law Regarding Charter Commissions
The BarnstableBlogger has been asked several questions regarding how the Charter Commission would be elected and what the timetable would be for study. I have included several sections of the Massachusetts General Laws, available on the State's Website, that I thought might be helpful. The timetable envisioned starts with an election, as described below, in November, 2007.
CHAPTER 43B. HOME RULE PROCEDURES
Chapter 43B: Section 6. Charter commission; number of members; election
Section 6. A charter commission shall consist of nine registered voters of the city or town elected at large and by official ballot, without party or political designation, at an election held in accordance with this chapter. The names of the candidates nominated in accordance with section five shall be placed on such ballot in alphabetical order, preceded by an instruction to the effect that a voter may vote for not more than nine persons as charter commission members whether or not he favors the election of a charter commission.
The question of electing a commission to adopt or revise the charter shall be placed on such ballot in the form prescribed by the constitution.
If a majority of the votes cast upon the question of adopting or revising the charter is in the affirmative, the nine candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected.
If a majority of the votes cast upon the question is in the affirmative, the city or town clerk shall notify the director of housing and community development of such affirmative vote and said director shall notify such commission of the dates for submission of their reports and the available date or dates that such report can be placed on its ballots.
CHAPTER 43B. HOME RULE PROCEDURES
Chapter 43B: Section 9. Hearings before charter commission; reports of commission
Section 9.
(a) Within forty-five days after its election, the charter commission shall hold a public hearing.
(b) Within sixteen months after its election, the charter commission shall prepare a preliminary report including the text of the charter or charter revision which the commission intends shall be submitted to the voters and any explanatory information the commission deems desirable, shall cause such report to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the city or town, shall provide sufficient copies of the preliminary report to the city or town clerk to permit its distribution to each registered voter requesting the same, and shall furnish two copies to the attorney general and two copies to the department of housing and community development. Within four weeks after such publication, the commission shall hold one or more public hearings upon the report. Within four weeks after his receipt of the report, the attorney general shall furnish the commission with a written opinion setting forth any conflict between the proposed charter or charter revision and the constitution and laws of the commonwealth. A copy of the opinion shall at the same time be furnished to the department of housing and community development.
(c) Within eighteen months after its election, the charter commission shall submit to the city council or board of selectmen its final report, which shall include the full text and an explanation of the proposed new charter or charter revision, such comments as the commission deems desirable, an indication of the major differences between the current and proposed charters, and a statement of not more than one thousand words by the commission minority, if any, provided such statement is filed with the chairman of the commission within forty-eight hours after the commission’s vote approving such report. A copy of said final report shall also be submitted to the department of housing and community development and to the attorney general.
(d) All public hearings before a charter commission shall be held within the city or town at such time and place as may be specified in a notice published at least ten days prior to the hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in the city or town, but hearings may be adjourned from time to time without further published notice.
CHAPTER 43B. HOME RULE PROCEDURES
Chapter 43B: Section 6. Charter commission; number of members; election
Section 6. A charter commission shall consist of nine registered voters of the city or town elected at large and by official ballot, without party or political designation, at an election held in accordance with this chapter. The names of the candidates nominated in accordance with section five shall be placed on such ballot in alphabetical order, preceded by an instruction to the effect that a voter may vote for not more than nine persons as charter commission members whether or not he favors the election of a charter commission.
The question of electing a commission to adopt or revise the charter shall be placed on such ballot in the form prescribed by the constitution.
If a majority of the votes cast upon the question of adopting or revising the charter is in the affirmative, the nine candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected.
If a majority of the votes cast upon the question is in the affirmative, the city or town clerk shall notify the director of housing and community development of such affirmative vote and said director shall notify such commission of the dates for submission of their reports and the available date or dates that such report can be placed on its ballots.
CHAPTER 43B. HOME RULE PROCEDURES
Chapter 43B: Section 9. Hearings before charter commission; reports of commission
Section 9.
(a) Within forty-five days after its election, the charter commission shall hold a public hearing.
(b) Within sixteen months after its election, the charter commission shall prepare a preliminary report including the text of the charter or charter revision which the commission intends shall be submitted to the voters and any explanatory information the commission deems desirable, shall cause such report to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the city or town, shall provide sufficient copies of the preliminary report to the city or town clerk to permit its distribution to each registered voter requesting the same, and shall furnish two copies to the attorney general and two copies to the department of housing and community development. Within four weeks after such publication, the commission shall hold one or more public hearings upon the report. Within four weeks after his receipt of the report, the attorney general shall furnish the commission with a written opinion setting forth any conflict between the proposed charter or charter revision and the constitution and laws of the commonwealth. A copy of the opinion shall at the same time be furnished to the department of housing and community development.
(c) Within eighteen months after its election, the charter commission shall submit to the city council or board of selectmen its final report, which shall include the full text and an explanation of the proposed new charter or charter revision, such comments as the commission deems desirable, an indication of the major differences between the current and proposed charters, and a statement of not more than one thousand words by the commission minority, if any, provided such statement is filed with the chairman of the commission within forty-eight hours after the commission’s vote approving such report. A copy of said final report shall also be submitted to the department of housing and community development and to the attorney general.
(d) All public hearings before a charter commission shall be held within the city or town at such time and place as may be specified in a notice published at least ten days prior to the hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in the city or town, but hearings may be adjourned from time to time without further published notice.
And we're Fighting Because?
Isn't it funny? The hate bloggers have spent the last two years bashing everyone in sight. They bashed Henry Farnham when he was Council Prsesident. Now, in the most juvenile and vicious way, they are bashing Janet Joakim. They have bashed Councilor James Crocker. They have bashed Councilor James Munafo. They have bashed Councilor Harold Tobey. Heck, the have attacked every Councilor presently serving. They have bashed the Town Manager. They have bashed the Asst. Town Manager. They have bashed our Town lawyer. The have bashed the head of the Public Works Department. At one time or another, they have bashed everyone who works for our Town or Fire Districts.
And why, you may ask, have the hate-bloggers been viciously and personally attacking so many people for so long? In what must be the most ridiculous and cynical strategy ever devised, the WANT to make our Town look bad. Nothing is ever good enough. Nothing is ever good. Period.
And why, you may ask again? Their strategy is that if they can make the present system look bad, then residents will support change. The problem is that our citizens aren't that dumb. Actually, they're pretty smart. We don't like unfairness. We don't like Bullies. We don't like personal attacks. Never did. Never will. The residents of Barnstable will support change if they believe that there is a better structure of government to meet our needs. They will not change because of beliefs based on personal attacks on individuals.
And the fallacy of their strategy is that they're fighting the wrong fight. They assume that people associated with the present system are against change. Oh, really?
Didn't one Councilor lead the effort to get the signatures? Didn't one Councilor Chair a Committee that supports a reform to at least some at large representation? Haven't other Councilors supported the establishment of a Charter Commission and publicly endorse change? Has Town management fought either the Charter Commission or the right of residents to change its government? Why are they bashing dedicated staff who do a great job for us? Because they want the town to look bad.
How cynical and destructive. As we have said before, It isn't a winning strategy.
And one begins to wonder whether the haters are more interested in the fight than they are in the results. Their strategy is ill conceived and ego-driven.
And we're fighting because?
What do you think?
And why, you may ask, have the hate-bloggers been viciously and personally attacking so many people for so long? In what must be the most ridiculous and cynical strategy ever devised, the WANT to make our Town look bad. Nothing is ever good enough. Nothing is ever good. Period.
And why, you may ask again? Their strategy is that if they can make the present system look bad, then residents will support change. The problem is that our citizens aren't that dumb. Actually, they're pretty smart. We don't like unfairness. We don't like Bullies. We don't like personal attacks. Never did. Never will. The residents of Barnstable will support change if they believe that there is a better structure of government to meet our needs. They will not change because of beliefs based on personal attacks on individuals.
And the fallacy of their strategy is that they're fighting the wrong fight. They assume that people associated with the present system are against change. Oh, really?
Didn't one Councilor lead the effort to get the signatures? Didn't one Councilor Chair a Committee that supports a reform to at least some at large representation? Haven't other Councilors supported the establishment of a Charter Commission and publicly endorse change? Has Town management fought either the Charter Commission or the right of residents to change its government? Why are they bashing dedicated staff who do a great job for us? Because they want the town to look bad.
How cynical and destructive. As we have said before, It isn't a winning strategy.
And one begins to wonder whether the haters are more interested in the fight than they are in the results. Their strategy is ill conceived and ego-driven.
And we're fighting because?
What do you think?
