2012 Town Meeting - Withdrawal

Tonight is the first night off from Town meeting, but in many ways, it still feels like it is continuing.  There are a few decisions that seem to have drawn the ire some residents, and there are a lot of words going back and forth on the Arlington List and other local media.  Although the meeting is over, I will take a few lines to explain my votes on these items.

Leaf Blowers:  I voted for having a summer moratorium on gas powered leaf blowers.  There were several reasons put forward regarding noise, exhaust, blown toxins, and the lack of the above in opposition.  I was very turned off by the "this is my town - do it my way" arguments made by a couple of speakers.  In the end, I was drawn to the proposal where the blowers are allowed during the peak leaf and lawn clearing seasons, but not allowed during the summer months, where they are mostly used to clear mowing debris off hard surfaces.  This is also the time of year when windows are likely to be open, exacerbating issues with noise and blown dust.  Using a broom 20 times over the summer in exchange for a more peaceful environment is a fair trade to me.

Football Helmets:  I voted against having the town (as opposed to the schools) pay for football helmets.  The school department had already agreed to pay almost the full amount requested in the initial warrant article.  The substitute motion would have doubled the appropriation with all the money going to one school sport.  On principle, I opposed the article, because I think it is bad policy to start funding specific school costs from the general town budget.  In future, we could be asked to fund lab equipment, art supplies, or any other cost that parents feel is not being appropriately funded by the school department.  I agree with the proponent that this is a serious matter in need of immediate action.  I just don't think this is a matter for the town; it should remain with the schools.

Mass Ave Corridor:  I opposed both articles intended to slow or stop the Mass Ave project.  I thought revoking the eminent domain granted last year was a poor way to try and derail the road project, as it has no direct was of doing that.  All it would do is lead to poorly constructed sidewalks without curb cuts for the elderly and disabled.  I was also taken aback by the assertions that I didn't know what I was doing then, so I should vote differently now.  I knew the facts then, and I know them now, and I will not change that vote.  I was also opposed to putting a non-binding question on the ballot.  As was stated on the floor, if the article passed, the vote would not come up until next spring, and the project could very well be underway by then, rendering such a vote moot at best and disruptive at the worst.  The wording used for these questions need to be carefully and evenly stated.  The proponent's language about trading the historic character by reducing to 3 lanes could easily have read changing the archaic character by increasing the width to a modern five lanes.  Both statements are factually correct depending on your point of view.  However, I hope we can agree that the outcome could be quite different depending on which question you put before the voters.

If anything else was controversial, I have likely blocked it from my mind.  I'm just glad to be home, paying my bills, catching up on life, and looking forward to getting back some sleep.