Letter to the Editor: Moderator Asks Town Meeting To Be ‘Positive and Constructive’

By Leave a Comment

Town Meeting Members:

In my eight years as Town Moderator I can recall few if any issues that have so aroused the passions of Town Meeting Members as the subject of [today’s] Special Town Meeting. I have taken advice from many people and spent many hours seeking to plan the meeting in order to focus the discussion in the fairest and most civil way possible.

Given the emotions surrounding this issue, I am concerned that the debate could easily deteriorate into accusations and personal attacks. While I will not allow that, I am making a special plea to each of you to keep your remarks positive and constructive. There are opposing opinions, of course, which is the point of a healthy debate, but one can make a strong argument for one’s position while still being respectful of another person and point of view. How we conduct ourselves tomorrow night will be important in allowing us to work together on this and the many important issues facing the town.

I urge your cooperation. Thank you.

Mike Widmer

Moderator

Summer Produce in Abundance at Belmont Farmers Market

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont Farmers Market.
 
The Belmont Farmers Market welcomes August with all of the summer favorites are available in abundance. Corn, peaches, peppers, summer squash, and tomatoes are ripe and perfect for easy summer dinners. 
 
The market is open from 2 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Thursdays throughout the summer and lasting until the final week of October. The market is located in the municipal parking lot at the intersection of Cross Street and Channing Road in Belmont Center.
Schedule of Events:
  • 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.: Tasting by Stone Hearth Pizza located in Belmont Center.
  • 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.: Storytime.
  • 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.: Art at the Market: Local artist Anne Katzeff will be guiding this perennial favorite market activity for artists of all ages and abilities, especially children. Plenty of art materials will be available, and together we will draw or paint whatever captures our imaginations: veggies, fruits, flowers, people, breads, snacks, you name it.
Monthly and Occasional Vendors: Boston Smoked Fish Company, Coastal Vineyards, Couët Farm and Fromagerie, and Seta’s Mediterranean Food,
Weekly Vendors: Boston Smoked Fish Company, C&C Lobsters and Fish, Dick’s Market Garden Farm, Fior D’Italia, Flats Mentor Farm, Foxboro Cheese, Gaouette Farm, Goodies Homemade, Hutchins Farm, Kimball Fruit Farm, Mamadou’s Artisan Bakery, Sfolia Baking Company, Stillman Quality Meats.
 
Food Truck: Jamaica Mi Hungry.

Opinion: Injecting Small ‘d’ Democracy, Decency to Town Meeting Debate

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Rendering from the Belmont Center Reconstruction plan.

Just past 7 p.m. on Monday, July 27, I had the pleasure of sitting next to my neighbor, Gi Yoon-Huang, and her five-year-old daughter at Town Hall. We were there to hear the Belmont Board of Selectmen debate and vote on a proposal that Town Meeting is considering regarding plans for a town lawn in Belmont Center. 

Gi is typical of many of the great folks I’ve met in the past month. She’s a relatively new face in Belmont and someone unfamiliar with the town’s politics. But she is passionate about making Belmont a better and more hospitable town for herself and her young children. For Gi, the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project, which is going on right now, representes her hopes for the town. Specifically: the plans approved by Town Meeting in November, 2014 promised a broad, new lawn in the Center where now there is only a traffic island, surrounded by busy streets and automobile traffic. 

Gi will tell you that she and her family walk regularly to Belmont Center to shop from their home in the Winn Brook neighborhood. She had been looking forward to the addition of a vibrant public green space in the Center. She was shocked and confused when that critical feature of the Belmont Center reconstruction was ditched in the face of last-minute protests.  

So there was Gi and I, in the Selectmen’s Hearing Room on a Monday evening with close to 20 other residents who had the same idea in mind; to express our support for that original design, and for a Town Meeting article that asks the Selectmen to reverse their ill-considered vote on May 28 and embrace the original Belmont Center Reconstruction plans. We gathered there just past 7 p.m. for a vote on that Special Town Meeting article ,which was scheduled to take place at 7:25 p.m. 

As it would turn out, we had some waiting to do.  

In no hurry to address the Special Town Meeting article, the Selectmen began with a discussion about changes to the victualar’s license for Moozy’s, the ice cream store. Residents were there to voice their concerns and that ran long. The clock struck 7:40 p.m. and I had to leave. Gi and around a dozen more residents waited … and waited … and waited. 

With a room full of residents waiting for their vote on the Special Town Meeting article, the three selectmen instead convened an executive session just after 8 p.m. and met alone for a full hour. Gi and her five-year-old daughter sat patiently and quietly in the front row of the Selectmen’s Room as the clock struck 9 p.m., and then 9:15 p.m.

The Selectmen returned at 9:20 p.m.and finally took up the Belmont Center agenda. A different board might have noted the hour and the young girl with her determined mom in the front row and taken pity. Instead, in full view of Gi and her daughter, the selectmen spoke uninterrupted for another 20 minutes, voicing their discontent over voters’ decision to ask for a special Town Meeting. 

“The decision makers have the authority,” Selectmen Chair Sami Baghdady said, “This is not the way government works,” apparently confusing democracy with another form of government. 

The selectmen also expressed bewilderment over the discord their last minute changes created. A project that should be uniting Belmont was, instead, dividing, Selectman Mark Paolillo correctly observed. 

Paradoxically, they then engaged in the exact behavior that has caused such rancor, refusing to take comments from the assembled residents and repeatedly denying requests by Gi and other supporters of the Town Meeting motion an opportunity to speak to them directly. 

In the end, just one resident had the temerity to stand the Selectmen down that Monday evening. Joanne Birge, an attorney and a new resident, stood patiently at the mic, refusing to sit down, until the Selectmen permitted her to address them. Speaking calmly and eloquently, Joanne talked about the importance of a more pedestrian-friendly Belmont Center to her as a senior and the key role that the town green plays in making the Center more welcoming to elderly Belmontonians, as well as the young. It was a message – but not the only message – that the selectmen needed to hear. 

There is so much to disappoint in the selectmen’s actions with regard to Belmont Center that it is hard to know where to begin. For me, the biggest disappointment has been this Board’s willingness to stifle the voices of Belmont residents, voters and even Town Meeting members who do not agree with them. By shutting down dissent, the thinking goes, you can force a consensus. But we all know that’s false.  

Thursday’s Special Town Meeting will offer a welcome change of venue and, hopefully, a change of tone, too. For more than 200 years, Town Meetings have been the embodiment of “little d” democracy. I look forward to hearing the voices and opinions of those for and against the original design and the town lawn. In the end, I hope that we can send a strong and unified message to the Selectmen, and that they receive that message with open hearts and open minds, in the best tradition of Belmont politics. 

Paul Roberts

Cross Street, Precinct 8 Town Meeting Member

Planning Board Extends Cushing Village Permit, Hopes for Resolution

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Cushing Village.

Like the tardy student who always needs more time to complete a school project, the partnership seeking to build the troubled Cushing Village multi-use project was provided an additional month for the town to review and vote on a $80-million financing package submitted days ago.

The Belmont Planning Board approved the extension unanimously at its Tuesday, Aug. 4 meeting held at Town Hall, adding an extra 30 days to the Special Permit approved two years ago on Aug. 19, 2013.

The necessity for his committee to add-on a month to the permit’s expiration date “was not to benefit the developer as it is to benefit the Board of Selectmen,” said Michael Battista, Planning Board chair speaking of Cushing Village’s development partners Smith Legacy Partners and Cambridge-based Urban Spaces.

The newly-formed partnership is seeking to construct a three-building complex comprising 115 apartments, about 36,000 square feet of retail/commercial space and a garage complex with 230 parking spaces. It would be Belmont’s biggest commercial/housing project in decades.

Within the past few days submitted a large and complicated package of finance documents that needs to be analyzed by Aug. 19.

“Shame on them,” Battista said of Smith Legacy and Urban Spaces. “They had two years to get it together and, at the 11th hour, they send the selectmen this voluminous package that needs to be waded through, town counsel must review and due diligence performed on the financing,” said Battista.

“Plus they had the thing on the news that effects the deal,” he said, speaking of Urban Space’s CEO Paul Ognibene arrest for soliciting sex at work on Craigslist back in July.

Demonstrating the project’s financial feasibility was one of the main requirements the Selectmen placed on the Cushing Village developer to allow the sale of the municipal parking lot at Williston and Trapelo Road. The price tag for the lot adjacent to Starbucks is $850,000.

“[The selectmen] are now doing their due diligence and the expiration date looming, I didn’t what the [three member board] have to feel like if they don’t make a decision, the permit will expire on Aug. 19,” he said.

“It would have been a real shame for the permit, which took a year and a half to craft, to expire when everything is at the doors step,” said Battista, adding the project should move forward, “hopefully sooner than later.”

Opinion: An Unfair Re-Do, Part Two

By 3 Comments

Photo: 

This is the second half of an opinion article by Kevin Cunningham. The first half was published on Tuesday, Aug. 4.

“The traffic problem is solved”

It’s worth pointing out one other line of revisionist argument that is creeping into the discussion, this time on what to many is the most critical issue; the problem of traffic.

At the precinct meeting in September where the board laid out the general outlines of what would be voted in November, the very first comment from the public was a tempered lament that the proposed Belmont Center proposal did not in fact address the most visible problem of the Center; the tremendous traffic issue. Yes, the proposed project beautified the Center, but it left unsettled the commuter problem.

In response, Glenn Clancy, director of Belmont’s Community Development Office, noted that many efforts had been made to consider various options to address the issue, but he had to concede that traffic would still be an issue. Thus even from the outset it was understood that the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project did not solve the most significant problem the Center had: the massive traffic. Indeed, this was the grounds for many to not support it at Town Meeting, “You’re spending lots of money, but you’re not even solving the chief problem?”

Of course, the Center plan does address some of the traffic issues in a variety of ways: it does introduce traffic calming and makes certain intersections more rational, so the safety will be greatly improved. That is certainly a worthy and important goal. Nevertheless, the plan does not eliminate or reduce the traffic itself. Indeed, it eliminated some of the relief valves for traffic, in favor of safety. That’s understandable, but the traffic will still build up.

Thus, when the board voted on the revisions in May, it was not merely trying to address the parking issues of the elderly. It was even more significantly attempting to strike a compromise that did something to mitigate the unresolved traffic issue. It is an important issue, it affects all of us, and it is unfortunate that is it difficult to resolve. But the board took a stab at giving a balanced response to the issue.

Today, you will hear that the Center plan actually does address the traffic issue fully. If you dig under the rhetoric for this, however, you will basically see the following argument: “The Center redesign takes a major thoroughfare, which up to now has been shared by motorists and pedestrians, and reorients it toward pedestrians; drivers will consequently learn to stay away from this route because it will be even less favorable to them than before. Problem solved.”

This logic – “build it and they will not come” – may or may not be rational. But it certainly has not been established to be a majority opinion, nor even an idea that Town Meeting knew when it voted on funding the project. Rather, people understood, and were explicitly told, that the traffic problem was not solved by the proposed plan. To assert now that it was solved all along, and that everyone agrees with the logic and consequences of the traffic suppression approach, is simply unfounded.

“They are suppressing democracy”

One last point bears noting. The most recent line of argument that might be proffered by proponents of the new action, a line that will be emotionally convincing to many citizens but is still untrue, is that the board has now added insult to injury by pushing away properly organized groups of citizens and stifled their free expression. The board, it is claimed, has muzzled the citizens, called the cops on them, and perversely not listened to reason when it ought to have.

The board has done nothing of the kind. People intruded in venues that were not appropriate for raising their points, and the elected body properly said they were out of order. Now, there is indeed a problem in town about lack of venues in which to raise process points. But that doesn’t justify packing a hall with an intense and angry group of people and insist, against procedure, your right to be heard.

It is worth noting that, just because someone feels oppressed, it does not automatically follow that there is an actually an oppressor, especially an evil oppressor that is persistently acting to thwart their good intentions.

But all this obscures the key point. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the board is now stifling free speech. What has that to do with the Belmont Center decision? That decision was made last Spring, not this summer. The oppression being asserted now could not possibly have influenced the vote in Spring. It didn’t exist then. Certainly many people feel like their voices are being suppressed now, but it is not logically connected to the vote in May.

Now, some will argue that it is relevant, because they believe it shows some ongoing pattern of the Selectmen to skirt democracy. But here again, the proper followup to such an observation is to make the case to the proper authorities and get censure of the Board, not to create an elaborate proxy in the form of a Town Meeting vote on A versus B.

A fair vote is now impossible

In fact, this all inescapably clouds the vote at Town Meeting. Are we voting on A versus B, or instead indirectly defending Town Meeting’s prerogative? Or is all this really a referendum about whether the Board of Selectmen proceeded improperly, or, even further afield, whether they are proceeding oppressively now? What exactly is this vote about?

Unfortunately, this use of the vote as an unstated proxy for the latter cases, or for the earlier accusations of collusion, renders it now impossible for the Town Meeting vote to be conducted fairly. Nevermind that the actual intent of the vote is unclear. In any town where the publicity about a legal case has been too much filled with unsubstantiated rumors and accusations, our legal system has taken the prudent course of moving the trial to another district. The jury, we realize, could not help but be biased, even if they maintained and believed otherwise. We all know there is wisdom in that.

Town Meeting is in such a case now: we believe we can be fair, but too much has been said, too much emotional baggage is now being carried, so it is not actually possible to be free of it. Even if all the facts were reported accurately in Town Meeting, we are no longer in a position to view them with an unbiased eye. Too much has happened.

An unfair do-over

Where does all this leave us?

If you review the changing history of the case for the Belmont Center action, you will see only one constant: the proponents were unsatisfied with the results of a certain decision, and they want it changed.

It is entirely understandable that the proponents of the new action were disappointed by the Board vote. There are always those who don’t like the way some vote or other turns out. But to convert this into a moral crusade, vilifying fellow citizens and uncivilly interrupting the public business of elected officials as a means to reverse a perfectly legal decision, is entirely uncalled for, and has even made it impossible for them to get the result they want in an unbiased way. They may get the result, but it would not be fairly obtained.

The truth in this case is simple: the current campaign is simply an unfair attempt at a re-do of a vote that was properly made, a vote that was made with input from citizens and deliberation by thoughtful elected officials, and a vote that is not Town Meeting’s province to make in the first place nor in its jurisdiction to overturn. In support of this inappropriate re-do, proponents have put forth a variety of arguments, some unconvincing as best, some libelous, and many simply false, as to why it is appropriate to hold a new vote on the topic. But Town Meeting has no authority, moral or legal, to instruct the board on this matter, and all the hullaballoo is simply an unfair attempt to change history.

A do-over is improper, if it were even possible to conduct fairly – which it is not – and therefore should not proceed.

Kevin Cunningham

Town Meeting Member, Precinct 4

Belmont Gallery of Art Celebrating Tenth Anniversary with Retrospective

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The Belmont Gallery of Art. 

In July 2005, the Belmont Gallery of Art opened its doors to the public for the first tinmevc                                                                                                   exhibiting in the past decade more than 60 unique, compelling, inspirational shows and serving as a catalyst for raising the visibility and importance of the arts and artists here in Belmont and elsewhere. 

To mark its milestone anniversary, the BGA will stage a special 10 Year Retrospective Show, “10!” in September 2015, to honor the work of the many artists who made the gallery’s first ten years such a wonderful success. The exhibit will feature one work from each participating artist.

If your work has been shown in the BGA any time in the last ten years, we invite you to submit new work for inclusion in the anniversary show. We invite the Belmont Gallery of Art’s supporters to join us in celebrating the first ten years of what’s become one of Belmont’s most important cultural assets.

Please visit the BGA’s website at www.belmontgallery.org for more detailed info and art submission guidelines.

Key Dates for the “10!”show.
  • Deadline for submission: Aug. 31.
  • Announcement to artists of works selected: Sept. 4.
  • Drop-of of selected works at the BGA: Thurs., Sept. 17 and Sun., Sept. 20.

Belmont Under Severe Thunderstorm Watch ’til 8 p.m. Tuesday

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Thunderstorms on the way.

Belmont, along with most of eastern Massachusetts, is under a severe thunderstorm watch until 8 p.m., Tuesday, Aug. 4.

The National Weather Service issued the warning at 12:20 p.m., advising residents to be prepared for the potential for the development of thunderstorms which may produce large hail or damaging winds.

When a watch is issued, people should go about your normal activities, but keep an eye to the sky and an ear to the National Weather Service’s weather radio or local radio and television stations for further updates and possible warnings.

In addition, a tornado warning has been issued for an area just to the west of Route 3 near Chelmsford for 2:30 p.m. 

Opinion: An Unfair Re-Do, Part One

By 6 Comments

Photo: Town Meeting.

If I were to come to you on some Belmont street with a petition in my hands protesting the results of the April override election, saying it was unfairly run, that it didn’t make financial sense, and what’s more that I didn’t realize it was such an important election so I didn’t bother to vote, you would laugh in my face.

You would tell me, “That election is over. You don’t get to re-do it just because you didn’t like the results.” Indeed, a number of people did have issues with the results of the election and the way the campaigns were run, and that response was more or less exactly what was said to them after the election: “It’s done; you don’t get to have a do-over on Town Meeting floor.”

Yet that it exactly what the proponents of the recent Special Town Meeting motion are asking for, a do-over of a decision that was rendered with complete propriety by the appropriate elected body acting in what they believe was the best interests of the town. Moreover, these proponents are asking that one town body, Town Meeting, vote to override the decision of another elected body, the Board, with dubious legal grounding and applying arguments that simply are not valid.

The reasons the proponents have put forth have varied depending on when they were protesting.

Collusion

First it was: “the vote by the Board was undertaken in collusion, and a certain elderly citizen was improperly influencing them.” This line of argument is now established as “fact” in the minds of many citizens, even though not a single shred of evidence has ever been put forward on the topic. Seriously, where’s the evidence? If there is any real evidence and not mere rumor-mongering, please publish it!

Many citizens were asked to sign a petition assuming this story, and who wouldn’t want to right a prodigious wrong? The problem was, the story simply wasn’t true. Later, something was said about the corrupting influence of backyard barbecues, but I confess to not understanding this line of reasoning. Are elected officials not supposed to mix with any citizens at all, under any circumstances, lest it have the appearance of influence peddling?

A secret sparsely-attended meeting 

Later, when the “old lady corrupted the Board” story became less politically acceptable – though the argument is still making the rounds and is believed by many – the argument changed to “the meeting was not advertised sufficiently, it was basically a secret meeting.” This argument, even if it had merit – it does not since the meeting was posted to all Town Meeting members – would be insufficient to invalidate the results of the Board’s vote in any case. The Board was under no obligation to hold any public meeting to get input. Even so, they held a meeting, and it was properly advertised. 

A variation of this argument was that the meeting was “sparsely attended” so it was invalid. First of all, it was not sparsely attended. The Beech Street Center is not a small venue, and many people filled the seats. In any case, it was the board’s decision to make, so attendance is not the issue. This was not a majoritarian vote: even if 90 percent of the people there expressed a certain opinion, it was by no means incumbent on the board to vote that way, even morally. A room can be packed with supporters of an opinion, but so what? Yes, town elections are based on sheer majority, however obtained. But the board’s decision is not based on mere poll numbers. We would be ashamed of them if they did not think for themselves, weigh alternate perspectives – especially minority views – and take into account subtleties that mass campaigning is incapable of. That is their duty as representatives of the whole town, and they performed it.

No, the proper question is whether they got good feedback, both in the meeting and out. As someone who attended the meeting, I can say that the attendees expressed a variety of opinions that covered many aspects of the issue. But here’s the important point: even if we disagree about whether they got good advice, that would not invalidate their decision, or their right to make the decision. We can all cite instances of elections, for example, where the electorate was woefully under-informed on the key issues, but we don’t throw out the results for all that. 

Town Meeting’s vote should be respected

Indeed, on the majoritarian point: a more recent argument suggests that, on principle, the Board should not have diverted from the majority vote of Town Meeting on the green space.

First of all, Town Meeting did not vote on the design, it voted on the money. Secondly, members of Town Meeting raised the issues about the green space at the very same meeting, concerns that were not negated before the vote but in fact corroborated. 

Thus, the Board was alerted by Town Meeting itself that this was an issue that needed resolution, and the Town Meeting vote was undertaken with the understanding that issues had been raised and were as yet unresolved. It is not unreasonable to assume that at least some people voted yes to the money on the presumption that the issues would be addressed. To assume the opposite – that every “yes” vote meant the green space issue was settled – doesn’t make sense. Town Meeting as a body voted yes to the money, and Town Meeting in its public deliberations noted the green space/access road as an issue. If anything, the Board was morally obliged to follow up, and they did; to do otherwise would have been to ignore the feedback from Town Meeting.

“We were misinformed about the meeting’s agenda”

Another argument claims that the announcement of the May meeting did not properly spell out the purpose of the meeting, and that many people were thus led to believe it was just a status meeting. Some even assert this was done on purpose to obscure the intent of the meeting.

All this just means that some people don’t bother to read their email. Here is the full letter to Town Meeting by the Board:

“The Board of Selectmen has scheduled a meeting on May 28th at 6:30 p.m. at the Beech Street Center to provide residents with an update on the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project. As part of this update, the Board will receive information on the current design and possible design alternatives of the “Green Space” located in front of the Belmont Savings Bank. This will be an opportunity for residents to provide feedback to the Board of Selectmen on this component of the project.”

Seems pretty clear.

“We agreed on a new Town Green”

Regarding the “Green Space” by the way: while I can imagine that the Traffic Advisory Committee and people in favor of reconstruction understood that the changes to the “Green Space” were actually part of a reconceptualization of that area as something of a second “Town Green” – an inviting centerpiece for a rejuvenated Center, as it were – that concept was never explicitly treated in either the September precinct meeting nor the November Town Meeting. The transcript bears this out. In other words, even in the most intense discussions of the green space, it was always discussed as an enhancement or restriction of green space, not as a change in the nature of the delta.

This is important because the proponents of the current Town Meeting case argue that it voted a certain vision of the Center. But if there was any vision explicitly stated in Town Meeting, it was only about an increase of square footage of green space. 

No doubt some members held the other vision, but that vision was simply not present explicitly in the discussions, so it’s not accurate to assert that we all voted with a new “Town Green” in mind.

Note: Part Two will be published on Wednesday, Aug. 5.

Kevin Cunningham

Town Meeting Member, Precinct 4

Complete List of Streets on 2015 Repaving Calendar

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Elm Street, one of the 17 roads that will be repaired this year.

Seventeen streets and road made the 2015 Pavement Management list after the Belmont Board of Selectmen accepted a $1.99 million bid from E.H. Perkins Construction last week. Due to the low bid, about $400,000 lower than the estimated price tag, allowed four additional streets (in bold) to be added to the list, 

The roadways that will soon have a new layer of pavement include: 

  • Charles Street (from Slade to Orchard)
  • Edward Street (from Orchard to Waverley)
  • Holt Street (from Lexington to 25 feet east of Knowles)
  • Orchard Street (from Common to Beech)
  • Richmond Road (from Prospect to Lawrence)
  • Somerset Street (from Pleasant to Shady Brook)
  • Warwick Road (from Common to Carleton)
  • Wellington Lane (from Concord to Somerset)
  • Winthrop Road (from Common to Charles)
  • Garden Street (from Washington to Long)
  • Concord Avenue (eastbound from Common to Cottage, and westbound from Cottage to Common)
  • Hastings Road (from Common to Brettwood)
  • Elm Street (from School to Payson)
  • Cottage Street (School to Concord)
  • Emerson Street (Concord to Louise)
  • Bradley Road (Gordon to Pearson)
  • Shean Road (Waverley to Gordon)

This Week: Special Town Meeting Thursday, Magic on Monday, Lollipops for Breakfast

By Leave a Comment

On the government side of “This Week”:

  • The Belmont Planning Board will be meeting at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 4 at Town Hall to discuss several special permits for work on individual properties and, interestingly, a one-year extension of the special permit perviously granted to the applicant of the Cushing Village development. Hmmmm. 
  • The Conservation Commission is meeting at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 4 at Town Hall to go over a request of the Harvard Running Club for a cross country meet at Rock Meadow on Sept. 26 and discuss possible projects in which funds could be obtained through an Community Preservation Committee grant.
  • The Net Metering Working Group will be meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday, Aug. 4 and Aug 5 at 7 p.m. in Town Hall as it hammers away reviewing the financial model to assist a solar tariff design.
  • Special Town Meeting takes on Thursday, Aug 6, at 7 p.m. in the air conditioned comfort of the Chenery Middle School auditorium. The meeting was called by the Board of Selectmen as a result of a citizens’ petition submitted by Paul Roberts (Precinct 8) and Bonnie Friedman (Precinct 3).

• It’s illusion and singing on the front lawn of the Belmont-Watertown Methodist Church as the church sponsors the 15th annual Magic and Song on the Lawn on Monday, Aug. 3 at 7 p.m. Head lighting the night will be magician Mike Bent’s “Abrakidabra” Magic Show and children’s singer Paul Sedgwick. It’s free and lots of fun.

• Pre-School Story Time at the Benton Library, Belmont’s independent and volunteer run library, on Tuesday, Aug. 4 at 10:30 a.m. Stories and crafts for children age 3 to 5. Parents or caregivers must attend. Siblings may attend with adults. Registration is not required. The Benton Library is located at the intersection of Oakley and Old Middlesex. 

• Children Movies will be screened in the Belmont Public Library’s Assembly Room at 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, Aug. 4. Bring your lunch and a blanket to eat picnic-style as you watch Big Hero Six.

• The Beech Street Center presents The Ambassadors – Joseph Vincent and Joseph Andrea – who will bring the music of the Big Band-era to the Center on Tuesday, Aug. 4, at 1:15 p.m. Vincent was a finalist in a world piano-accordion competition. Joseph Andrea is a multi-instrumentalist and WW II veteran who, at the end of the war, was asked to form a seven-piece dance band to entertain wounded G.I.s, enlisted men, and officers. He played in various symphonies including the Boston Civic Symphony and the New England Symphony.

• This week’s screen of the “Chillin’ with Villains, Marvel movie” series is the latest version of the “Amazing Spiderman” (the one with Emma Stone and the English guy made in 2012) Tuesday, Aug. 4, from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m., in the Assembly Room of the Belmont Public Library. 

• At the Belmont Public Library’s “Superhero Extravaganza” for kindergarteners and elementary school students, kids can test their superhero skills with games, crafts and more as they develop their own superhero alter ego on Wednesday, Aug. 5 at 2 p.m. Superhero costumes encouraged.

• The John Baboian Ensemble with vocalist Sandi Bedrosian will bring jazz standards and original tunes to the Payson Park Music Festival on Wednesday, Aug. 5, at 6:30 p.m. (note the earlier start time in August). 

• On Thursday, Aug. 6 at 10:30 a.m., Bonnie Duncan presents “Lollipops for Breakfast” in which Sylvia will discover a magical world on her quest to have lollipops for breakfast. This is a silly puppet adventure created and performed by Duncan. For all ages (including you adults)

• Join the Belmont Public Library for a pre-release book presentation with Daniel Korschun and Grant Welker, authors of “We Are Market Basket: The story of the unlikely grassroots movement that saved a beloved business” on Thursday, Aug. 6, from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Assembly Room. The presentation will be followed by Q&A and discussion. Refreshments will be served.