Special Town Meeting - Fall 2020 - Night Two

Welcome back.  Try to stay awake.  At the outset, the Moderator noted that at the blistering pace from Monday night, we will be complete after 18 sessions.  We must do better.  The Moderator made sure we understood what actually qualifies as a Point of Order, which will hopefully cut back on superfluous comments.

We started back on Article 5 regarding restrictions on new fossil fuel infrastructure.  The vast majority of speakers were in favor.  As a practicing architect, I spoke about how my consulting mechanical engineers have switched to heat pump systems to avoid installing new equipment that are reliable on fossil fuels.  Given the typical 30 lifespan of mechanical equipment, reduction of emissions will be pushed out past 2050.  That is too long.  There was a voice in opposition, discussing how homeowners should be allowed to make their own decision regarding how they want to heat their home.  The question was called, debate was ended, and the motion passed with 93% support.  Yeah!

This brought up Article 6, the creation of a Police Civilian Advisory Board study committee.  Two amendments were proposed and seconded, both reducing the space for the police department on the committee.  The Chief spoke about the efforts the department is taking to establish a review board independently.  There were comments encouraging holding off on the study committee until the Police Department's committee has a chance.  There was support for the article and the amendments.  There was concern about how the discussion might influence department morale.  An early motion to terminate debate was proposed, which I opposed.  The motion passed 182-58, so debate was ended.  I do not agree with reducing the police department's impact on this committee, as the committee needs the members of the department to feel that their concerns were also taken into consideration.  I voted against both amendments, but they both passed 162-77 (Kelleher) and 148-90 (Dray).  I do support the main motion, and although I do not agree with the amendments, I believe we are better off with an imperfect study committee than without any study committee.  I am hopeful that the concerns of the Police Department will not be ignored, and that the committee can come up with a proposal that is acceptable to everyone.  The final vote was 205-36 in favor.

Article 7 is a revision to the bylaws regarding Envision Arlington (formerly Vision 2020), including updates to terminology.  After the article was introduced, the first speaker requested to terminate debate.  I think it is bad form not to allow some debate when there is a speaker list, so I vote no.  Debate was terminated 231-10, and the final vote passed 242-3.

Article 8 is a proposal to establish a Municipal Affordable Housing Trust Fund for the town.  This fund would be administered by a local board who would disperse funds in support of affordable housing projects in town.  This one has four proposed amendments.  One would prevent the trust from investing in 40B projects (G3).  I think this would unduly restrict the administration of the trust, so I oppose it.  I also oppose the proposed amendment that would prevent local experts who live in other jurisdictions from serving on the trust (G2).  The two amendments regarding the income threshold for consideration by the trust are more difficult.  One could possible raise the threshold (K), and the other would lower the threshold (G1).  It is tempting to leave the original language alone, but I think it is better to err on the side of supporting only projects with lower income thresholds.  After a couple of speakers, the question was called, 182-52.  In the amendments, I voted yes for G1 (failed 66-166), no on G2 (failed 56-179), no on G3 (failed 51-172), and no on K (passed 170-53).  I got 50% on that portion of the voting.  I voted to approve the amended motion, and it passed 221-13.

We then quickly adjourned for the night.  This was a much better session.  In general, although there seemed to be a steady stream of voting issues, they were ably handled in the background during the voting period.  There were only a couple of superfluous points of order.  We were able to move quickly from topic to topic.  I was a little disappointed at how quickly debate was terminated on several items.  It is hard to be a deliberative body when we are not allowing debate to occur.  Maybe we will be more chatty on Monday.