2013 Town Meeting - Night Two

As Dana Carvey said, "Hmmm... isn't that special."  Tonight was the Special Town Meeting in the middle of the Annual Town Meeting.  We undertake this maneuver because the decisions of Town Meeting can only go into effect after the Attorney General's office has reviewed and accepted the results.  The Annual won't be complete for a few more weeks, and there will be a lot to review.  Having a Special early allows us to quickly send those results to the AG's office for approval, which means that they can go into effect much sooner.

We started the evening with the AHS Madrigal Singers presenting the national anthem.  They were fantastic, and they entertained us with several other songs as well.  If you are unfamiliar with the caliber of musical performance at the high school, you really owe it to yourself to check it out.

First up tonight was everyone's favorite topic ... leaf blowers!  It appears that the compromise committee that was put into effect after last fall's special meeting was sharply divided between the landscaping representatives and the restriction proponents.  My opinion from reading the proposal and listening to the presentations was that the "compromise" was very heavily weighted towards the opponents of the restrictions.  As one member pointed out, going from 150 days without blowers to only 15 isn't meeting in the middle.

I rose to ask a few questions.  The moderator clarified that the committee wasn't going to be presenting a report, only the recommended vote.  I felt a real report would have been more helpful in understanding how the committee came to the recommendations it made.  The chair of the compromise committee indicated that the final votes were 7-3 on all proposed sections with three members not present for the final votes.  My main questions were how the article would be applied to the residents and how it was going to be enforced.  The way it was written, there is ban on blower use from mid-June to mid-October, with exceptions for Monday through Saturday (i.e. - only Sundays in the summer and early fall are banned).  In addition, only one blower can be used on small lots, breaks must be observed, debris cannot leave the yard, minimal power settings should be used, and starting next summer, the maximum sound level for commercial blowers must be lower than 74 dB.  However, the final section states that "The restrictions set forth herein shall not apply to homeowners..."  My question for Town Council was, since only the hours, lot size, and breaks are referred to as "restrictions", are they the only items that don't apply to residents, or do the others not apply as well.  Her opinion was that nothing applies to residents.  I was assured that the debris issue was included elsewhere in the bylaws, so that would still be in effect.  However, residents will still be allowed to use the maximum power settings into the late evening.  I don't agree with that interpretation, but such it is.  I was also advised that the Board of Health and the Police Department were responsible for enforcement.  Complaints should first be brought to the attention of the blower, but the next call might need to be to the police.

There was a proposed amendment and a substitute motion.  The substitute was to postpone enactment for a year and constitute a new committee without commercial interest being an integral part of the makeup of the committee.  While this was tempting, I voted against it because it would not allow the existing summer restrictions to come into effect.  My constituents who have contacted me over the previous two years have almost all requested the summer restrictions remain in place.  The substitute motion was not adopted.  The amendment was to replace "gasoline-powered leaf blowers" with "leaf blowers with internal combustion engines".  This was proposed because there are other fuels that can be used, specifically propane.  I after hearing the discussion, I chose to vote against the change, because it sounds like the propane would actually be better than the gasoline.  However, this amendment passed.

The final vote, despite my opposition, was to adopt the amended "compromise" language.  I encourage all residents to be on their best behavior as this goes into effect, be civil when dealing with disagreements, and really look to the police as a last resort.  If anyone wants to volunteer to be the test case for residents using the maximum power setting, be my guest.

The next article was a proposed appropriation of $25K to build a "semi-permanent" structure near the Uncle Sam statue to be used as a visitor center.  Most speakers liked the notion, but some were concerned about the siting, the maintenance, the possibility that another town department would procure the building and more it elsewhere, and the possibility of "tagging".  My opinion has always been that the only way to deal with a bad person with a spray can was to have a good person with a spray can.  This, however, was not recommended.  (Neither was a good person with a leaf blower...)  In the end, I voted with the majority in approving the funds.  I hope it can lead to increased tourism and more revenue for our businesses.

The last article of the evening was a proposed ban on small PET water bottle sales.  The Board of Selectmen had rejected the original proposal by the Arlington SAVE club at their hearing on the article.  An amended version of the proposal was presented before Town Meeting as a substitute motion.  (A possible second substitute was not presented.)  The revised language included a provision allowing for the sale of bottled water at special events with prior approval from the BoS.  This was something I had requested at the Selectman's hearing on behalf of the Friends of Robbins Farm Park.  (I am the events coordinator, and it is really important the we have water available for our public events.)  The proponents had a great presentation, the manager of Stop n' Shop spoke in opposition to the proposal, and all the speakers following also spoke in opposition.  In the end, I voted against the substitute motion, because I don't believe it's implementation would have accomplished the reduction in PET bottles that was the intent of the article.  The motion was not substituted, and the Selectman's recommendation of no action was accepted.  We quickly adjourned.