Opinion: Five Facts That Need Examination To Determine Route For Community Path

By 5 Comments

Photo: 2014 map of the proposed community path. (Town of Belmont)

By Jarrod Goentzel and Phil Lawrence, co-founders, Friends of the Belmont Community Path

Dear Belmont Selectmen and Town Leaders on the Community Path Project Committee,

We appreciate the Board of Selectmen efforts to maintain momentum on the Belmont Community Path by making decisions to facilitate the next phase of design. We acknowledge that the 2-1 decision at the Feb. 25 meeting to recommend the route on the south side of the tracks from Brighton Street to Alexander Avenue followed careful deliberation and support from the Community Path Project Committee. Given that significant uncertainties remain for that section, we applaud the Selectmen’s decision to make this recommendation contingent on further due diligence of the southern route and to confirm the viability of Contingent Route number one on the north as a ready alternative. 

This period of due diligence is crucial. Selecting a route that ultimately cannot be designed or built due to insufficient town funding, environmental risk, broad public backlash, or other issues may cause Belmont to miss the federal funding opportunity. The Selectmen’s decision justifiably emphasized the feasibility study and its recommendation, which Pare Corporation did not change at the February 25 meeting based on recent information. The Selectmen also had to rely on personal judgment for issues where the study was incomplete. We suggest that the board to quickly assess additional evidence as it arises given the urgency of the design funding request to Town Meeting in May. 

As part of this due diligence, we review below the evidence regarding five key points discussed on Feb. 25 to identify areas where the feasibility study is incomplete and where the Selectmen’s judgment must be applied. 

1. The feasibility study recommendation is based on a slim 76-75 difference in score between the Recommended Route (South) and Contingent Route #1 (North).

It is important to note that during the Feb. 25 meeting, the score advantage for the southern route was mistakenly reported as 70-63 (which are actually the scores for the E3b and E3a sub-sections, respectively). The difference in composite score, which considers the alignment of all segments along the route as the basis of the route recommendation, is only 76-75. This extremely narrow margin justifies the BOS confirmation regarding the viability of readily switching to Contingent Route number one if due diligence raises concerns with the recommended route.

2. The feasibility study did not consider acquisition and environmental permitting costs for the Purecoat North/Crate Escape location that are required on the southern route for an easement.

The feasibility study only estimated costs for construction, operations, and maintenance, which would almost entirely be covered by federal funds. The study did not consider the costs for right-of-way acquisition or environmental permitting, both of which must be borne by the town. Discussion on Feb. 25 revealed incomplete information regarding the options and associated costs. The Selectmen wisely made their decision contingent on further due diligence.

3. The feasibility study did not assess environmental risks associated with the Purecoat North/Crate Escape location on the southern route.

Excavation for the path poses an extremely high risk for Chapter 21E environmental cleanup at the only location in Belmont tracked by the EPA as a toxic site. Belmont taxpayers deserve clarity on the potential costs and future risks associated with the recommended route and clarity on how the board would fund these incremental costs given the town’s financial constraints. The Selectmen wisely made their decision contingent on further due diligence. 

4. The feasibility study could not consider utilization of the Belmont High School property while under redesign.

The southern route runs through the high school campus, resulting in many positive aspects noted on Feb. 25. However, there are potential opportunity costs in using this property (e.g. lost field space or parking) and operational costs (e.g., security monitoring of a public pathway through the open campus). The Belmont School Committee has not yet taken a vote on this route. The Selectmen wisely incorporated approval by the School Committee as a contingency. 

5. The feasibility study recommendation and the recent Pare Corporation review of recent information ignore persistent public concern with the railroad crossing and state agency preference to avoid the railroad crossing.

The feasibility study analysis of the at grade Brighton Street crossing (segment E4a) did not distinguish a northern route crossing of the STREET ALONE from a southern route crossing of the STREET AND RAILROAD. This distinction is important for two reasons:

  • Public opinion: The study assumed double weights for all User Experience criteria based on clear public input. Recent public feedback centered on the difference in User Experience of a railroad crossing. With no distinction in scoring for E4, the feasibility study fails to incorporate persistent public concern with the at-grade railroad crossing.
  • The study assumed any MBTA rejection as a fatal flaw. Although he stopped short of rejecting the railroad crossing during the January 28 meeting, John (Jody) Ray from the MBTA stated: “the MBTA would always prefer that every crossing was a separated crossing, either below or above the tracks.” Michael Trepanier from MassDOT echoed this sentiment, saying “one fatality is always one too many”. With no distinction in scoring for that crossing, the feasibility study fails to incorporate the clear preference for the northern route Brighton Street crossing by the MBTA and MassDOT.

The Board of Selectmen’s judgment should consider that, given the feasibility study’s emphasis on User Experience and MBTA perspective, the composite score for the northern route would have scored higher and been recommended if there had been distinct scoring for the Brighton Street crossing.

The Selectmen recommended the southern route with contingencies regarding unknown right-of-way property issues and school preferences. The 60-day contingency period may not allow for proper due diligence with property owners to determine realistic acquisition costs or reasonable environmental risk assessment. The Board of Selectmen should only proceed with the design of the southern route if they can disseminate sufficient evidence to address the budgetary and environmental risks for Belmont residents and the safety concerns for future users whose federal taxes would build the path. If proper due diligence cannot be completed prior to the Town Meeting in May, then you should not stall momentum on the Belmont Community Path with further delays to gather more information. 

Meanwhile, there is no reason to delay. Evidence indicates that the contingent northern route is not only viable but also preferential when incorporating public and state agency opinion regarding the railroad crossing. With no right-of-way acquisition or potential EPA cleanup, the cost for Belmont is lower. We recommend that you reduce risks, lower costs, and avoid delays by promptly exercising the northern route contingency.

Note: To date, the Friends of the Belmont Community Path has focused on providing information to educate and encourage discourse among Belmont residents. Given the high priority for MassDOT to add this critical link in the Mass Central Rail Trail and use of federal taxpayer funds to build it, we plan to invite engagement with the wider community in advocating for a safe, off-road path.

Opinion: Working To Keep Teens Safe Over The Holidays

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Keeping teens healthy over the recess.

By: Lisa Gibalerio, Prevention Specialist, and Laura Kurman, Program Director

Wayside Youth & Family Support Network

With the holiday season underway and the opening of retail marijuana shops in Massachusetts, adults are urged to pay close attention to teenagers’ behavior concerning alcohol and other drugs in the days and months ahead.  The Belmont Wellness Coalition is working collaboratively with many partners across town to reduce underage use of alcohol and other drugs. Please be part of the solution and do what you can to reduce youth access to alcohol as well as marijuana products.

As we know, teen alcohol use can lead to unsafe behaviors that put our kids’ health and safety at risk. If we work together, we can help to ensure that our kids stay healthy and safe!  (By the way, for each year that a teen does not use alcohol, the odds of lifelong dependence decrease by 15 percent.)

Retail recreational marijuana shops are opening around the state. In Belmont, although there are no licenses or special permit applications at this time, the town could approve up to two retail marijuana establishments within certain zoned areas. While shops in Belmont would not be allowed to sell marijuana to people under the age of 25, teens may nevertheless find ways to access these products.

The Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), administered several years ago in Belmont, revealed that approximately one-third of teens reported that they are drinking.  Most are getting alcohol from older siblings, older friends, or home.  In many instances, students said, their parents do not know they drink, or do not know how much they drink.

Often, due to their developing brains, when teens drink, they tend to drink too much. Teens who drink put themselves at risk for alcohol poisoning, car crashes, injuries, violence, or unprotected/unwanted sex, and, if they are athletes subject to the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) regulations, they may lose the privilege to participate in sports.

As a parent or guardian, you can and do make a difference!

Here are some tips to reduce teen drinking and use of marijuana:

  • Keep alcohol in a secure location, preferably in locked cabinets. Even if you trust your teen, their friends may be tempted by what’s available in your home.
  • If you are hosting a party, do not leave unsupervised alcohol around where it is accessible to underage guests. Tell other relatives not to serve alcohol to your child under the age of 21 as well.
  • Let your child know what you expect. Tell your teen that adults may be drinking during the holidays, but under no circumstances is he/she allowed to drink alcohol.
  • If your child is attending a party, check on the details. Find out if there will be parental supervision, and be sure no alcohol will be available at the parties that your teen will be attending.  Wait up to greet your child when he/she/they arrives home at curfew time.
  • Never serve alcohol to anyone under 21, and don’t allow children to serve alcohol to others. It is illegal to serve or provide alcohol to underage youth, or to allow them to drink alcohol in your home or on other property you control.  See Social Host Liability Law: http://www.mass.gov/essexda/prevention-and-intervention/juvenile-prevention/social-host-liability.html
  • Do not to leave your teenagers home alone if you go out of town. Word gets out quickly and a drinking party can develop – sometimes without your child’s consent.
  • Do not relax your family rules with your own teens during the holidays. It can be difficult to return to previous expectations.

The Belmont Wellness Coalition welcomes your input!  Please consider joining us as we work to keep our kids safe and healthy – it really does take a village!

The BWC, along with Wayside Multi-Service Center, wishes you a peaceful, safe, and happy holiday season.

If I can be of support to you or your teens, please contact me at: Lisa_Gibalerio@WaysideYouth.org

Editorial: Vote Yes On 4; An Investment In Our Shared Future

By 1 Comment

Photo: An outward expression of our investment in the future of our community, our children and the nation.

A no vote on Question 4 Tuesday to approve a $213 million debt authorization for a new 7th-12th-grade school building is not a rejection of a tax increase but an admission Belmont’s collective futures are not worth the investment.

The numbers and facts concerning the design, cost, and history of the proposed high school (here and here) has been public for several months. Town Meeting spent $1.75 million in a feasibility study that breaks down the project to the cost of the final nut and bolt. The changes in taxes have been calculated by the town treasurer. The school district has forecast a continued increase in students enrolling in the six public schools that requires a large building project. Those are the facts. 

But Tuesday’s vote is more than a series of self-interested personal decisions; it is an opportunity to show how this community views the most important function for all municipal government, educating its children.

Marking the ballot “no” on Tuesday may feel penny wise but it is indeed pound foolish to the extreme. A negative response is not simply a rejection of the future, its a clarion call for the slow decay of the outstanding education system it took nearly five decades to create. 

My standard response to people who ask why people live here is “You don’t move to Belmont for the roads. You come for the schools.” What prospective homeowner would knowingly bring their children into a community that won’t make a commitment to education? Home values will likely begin lag behind surrounding cities and towns which have decided to make education a priority. 

Rejecting a decade of work by committed volunteers and professionals will require Town Meeting to vote over a decade on three ever increasing large debt exclusion measures to house the skyrocketing number of students entering the district for the next decade and extending the life of a fifty-year-old school building that has no business being renovated. How likely will a future Town Meeting be willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on putting lipstick on a pig?

If any of the three debt questions – totaling $50 million more than the debt exclusion being considered Tuesday – is rejected, the outcome would be jammed packed classrooms that will swiftly bring the school district’s accreditation into question. It’s truly an unimaginable conclusion to   

Tuesday’s vote is also an opportunity for Belmont to recommit itself to the great American uniter of public education which has increasingly come under attack by reactionary forces who believe “government schools” – a new pejorative created by the right – are wasteful, run by overpaid bureaucrats who spew progressive messages rather than “real” learning. They call for education to be run as a publicly funded business with vouchers, charter and private schools replacing our shared heritage.

But for communities that take pride in and nurture public schools, the benefits are boundless. Belmont ranks in the top percentile of public schools in a state which leads the country in the quality of schools. While the nation as a whole meanders with lackluster rankings in the core curriculum, Belmont students are on par with the top-ranked education provided in the schools of Europe and Asia. The education our students receive from first-rate teachers and educators provides a world of future options that children from too many communities lack.

And one important component to keeping the stellar standard the Belmont schools have created is for its residents to commit the financial resources in teaching, activities and, yes, modern facilities. There are no other options.

Public education binds us as Americans, it is in our common ethos that an enlightened young is the best path to preserving our country for generations to come.

The time is not to look inward with provincial expectations, but to approve a building project that will become an outward expression of our investment in the future of our community, our children and the nation.

Vote Yes on 4.

Opinion: The Closing Argument For A New 7-12 School In Belmont [VIDEO]

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Image from the video supporting the debt exclusion for a new 7-12 School.

By Ellen Schreiber and Sara Masucci

Why vote YES on #4?

A YES vote on Question #4 would provide the funding to replace Belmont High School with a new middle and high school – “two schools in one” – to serve grades 7-12.

A YES vote would solve the must-fix problem with overcrowding throughout Belmont’s schools – with one project, in five years, with the least disruption to students and residents.

A YES vote comes with an $80 million state grant that goes away if we do not use it now – and it can only be used for this project. Otherwise, we would likely wait 10+ years for another opportunity for state money.

A YES vote is the least expensive and best solution to the problems in our schools. The alternative is a series of piecemeal projects that will cost more for Belmont taxpayers, create 10+ years of disruption, and result in a much worse solution.

1. We get more and pay less.

High schools are expensive, complicated projects. And in Boston’s construction market, costs are rising 4% every year. If we wait one year, this school will cost another $12 million. Wait two years, and we are in for another $24 million. Wait three years, another $37 million. And so on.

We can’t afford to wait.

And there isn’t a cheaper solution. The state requires that we make prudent responsible decisions or we lose the state grant. This is just what a basic, 21st century high school costs. Want benchmarks? Arlington and Waltham are both planning new schools, but theirs will cost more than ours – over $300 million – for fewer students.

There is no good alternative.

If we vote no, Belmont taxpayers will spend more on a series of projects that do a poor job of patching the problems. We are voting on $213 million for the 7-12 school. The alternative is $247 million for an educational result that does not solve all of the problems.

Financially, the 7-12 school is the most responsible choice.

2. The Problem is Real and Urgent.

In 2012, Belmont High School’s accreditation was put on warning by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, calling it a “crisis” that our building “does not support the delivery of programs.” 

And that was before enrollment really spiked. Our schools are now bursting at the seams. We have added over 700 students in the last 7 years, and that tidal wave is rising through the system and will hit the high school in a few years.

There is no space.

We have “repurposed” every possible space in the buildings – converting closets into classrooms, tutoring students in lobbies, and using hallways as overflow space for classroom projects.

We have added temporary modular classrooms, but they cannot serve our long-term needs.

We have expanded class sizes, but it has gone beyond the tipping point and is impacting the education we provide to Belmont’s children.

The problems in our schools must be fixed. Now.

3. It’s The Right Thing to Do.

In Belmont, we care about our schools. They are a source of pride. Generations of Belmont children have been well-educated and gone on to happy and productive lives.

It’s who we are.

There are a lot of towns next to Boston and Cambridge, but few have what we have in Belmont. This is a great town with a strong sense of community, first-rate local businesses, friendly neighbors … and excellent schools.

Belmont is a great town today because of the decisions of generations who came before us. Now it is our turn to make an investment for future generations.

The choice is clear. Please vote YES on Question #4 on November 6.

Ellen Schreiber and Sara Masucci are leaders of the YES for Belmont committee.

Opinion: Rules Of A Safer Road For Vehicles And Cyclists

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Sharing the road safely.
By Will Brownsberger, State Senator

When I cycled across the country in 2011, I saw a lot of roadkill. I was constantly aware that all it would take was one mistake by me or by one of those caffeinated guys in big rigs and I’d look about the same.

On the open road, I developed a profound gratitude towards the tens of thousands of drivers who did not hit me.

The Senate just approved a safety package that would require a clearance of at least three feet for vehicles passing vulnerable road users like highway workers, cyclists and pedestrians. It would add an additional foot of required clearance for every ten miles per hour of speed.

The package also would mandate side guards on big trucks used by or for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We cannot regulate trucks in interstate commerce, but the measure is a start towards reducing the gruesome slide-under accidents that are all too common on urban roads.

The bill includes several other modest measures: better reporting on accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians, lower speed limits on state roads in thickly settled areas (governed by local choice) and a requirement that cyclists have rear red lights (in addition to the already-required white front light and rear red reflector).

The package should help reduce road injuries and I’m hopeful it will also pass the House.

The most important thing we could do to improve safety for everyone is to reduce distracted driving. I’ve now voted twice now to ban hand-held cell phone use by drivers, but so far that legislation has not made it to the Governor’s desk.

An idea we should keep studying is automated enforcement — red light and speed cameras. Cameras raise privacy concerns. In other states, municipalities have abused cameras to generate revenue. Automated enforcement hasn’t gained traction in Massachusetts, but I’m hopeful that, perhaps in the next session, we can develop an approach that works.

I often hear from annoyed drivers and frightened pedestrians calling for licensing of cyclists and registration of bikes. Their complaints are legitimate: Cyclists tend to continue or swerve when they should simply stop. Starting on a bike can be hard work for tired legs. Because stopping means starting, subconsciously cyclists hate to stop.

Still, I’m opposed to cyclist licensing. It wouldn’t be cost-effective. We license drivers and register motor vehicles because of the enormous damage they can do — motor vehicles are vastly heavier and faster than bicycles. Cyclists often annoy drivers. They often frighten pedestrians. They very occasionally harm pedestrians, but they do a minuscule fraction of the annual damage that motor vehicles do.

There is a conversation that we need to keep having with and among cyclists about road behavior. In 2008, I helped pass legislation to make it easier to ticket cyclists. Unfortunately, the truth is that urban police rarely have the time to ticket motorists, much less cyclists.  So, it’s more about education.

Cycling and walking are healthy, exhilarating and good for the environment. I will continue to work to protect cyclists and pedestrians, but also to encourage cyclists to ride responsibly.

Opinion: Solar Power The Best And Brightest Use For Incinerator Site

By 3 Comments

Photo:

By Martin Plass

We as the town have to decide soon on the future use of the incinerator site. The Board of Selectmen discussed this in their meeting on Thursday, June 7 and there will be a meeting for public input on June 18 at 8 p.m. at Town Hall. I urge the public to attend and voice their input and concerns.

One thing that concerns me is the temptation to find a commercial usage for the property that will maximize the income for the town instead of using the opportunity to enhance the beautiful natural conservation lands that surround the incinerator site. We as the town are already working on improvements to Rock Meadow with an agricultural consultant. With the McLean Barn upgrades being considered on the south end and the incinerator site on the north end of Rock Meadow we can further develop this area into a beautiful park and recreation land that integrates into the Western Greenway with Lone Tree Hill and Habitat to the East and Beaver Brook to the West. (By the way: I would love to see the McLean Barn turn into a café or beer garden, maybe with artist lofts spaces and a visitor information center that could provide some income to the town and would be a great place to enjoy a refreshment after a walk).

One proposal that has come up is to use the incinerator site for an anaerobic digester that would turn organic waste (food leftovers, etc.) into methane gas that would be burned on site and generate electricity (think Deer Island). I am concerned about this usage and worry that it could seriously interrupt the natural beauty of the area by bringing undesirable odors, noise from the generator, exhausts from burning methane, and heavy truck traffic to the site. While the prospect of making money with such a plant and providing renewable energy to Belmont is tempting, we need to make sure that such a use is in harmony with the areas around it and has none of these negative side effects. For the same reason, I am opposed to developing any parcels for housing. This would convert natural recreational space into private restricted space, something that could not be reversed.

Instead, I can see a community-owned solar array as a possible compromise usage which would generate some income for the town and fit with our climate action goals. Solar would not produce any noise, traffic, smells or other negative effects on the site and could be set-up to allow vegetation underneath and secondary use in combination with it. I like the proposal from one interest group that combines a community solar array with a bike park, a skateboard park, some DPW containers and a boardwalk for nature viewing as well as parking to serve as an additional access point to Rock Meadow and the Western Greenway.

I hope to see many Belmontians turn up for the June 18th meeting and look forward to seeing other proposed uses. To me, the overriding criteria should be to use the site to enhance our recreational nature areas for the enjoyment of the entire community.

Martin Plass lives on Stanley Road and is a Town Meeting Member representing Precinct 3

Opinion: Let’s Do The Right Thing; Vote ‘Yes’ On Town Meeting Article 23

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont Police Headquarters

Have you visited the Belmont police station lately? Or dropped recyclables off at the Department of Public Works yard? Have you noticed the condition of those buildings? Have you tried to climb the 21 stairs to meet with Police Chief Richard McLaughlin? Do you know that our plow drivers have no place to eat or rest after eighteen hours of plowing snow? Have you experienced a sewer back-up in your basement? Do you know that DPW workers have no place to shower or change clothes after wading through raw sewage? Do you know that the female police officers who work in our neighborhoods and schools have only tiny locker space crammed into a bathroom?

Many professional evaluations over the years have determined that the police station and DPW facility are in far worse condition than any other town buildings. The time is now to finally meet the urgent needs of our employees by providing safe, accessible, gender appropriate working space.

The November 2017 Special Town Meeting authorized a building committee to address both the police and DPW. The committee has been working all out since December to present schematic designs to Town Meeting on May 30th.

The proposed solution for the DPW facility has two-prongs. In the short-term, renovate a small section of the DPW main building and add modular units which will house locker rooms, shower and laundry space, room for training and quiet rest and a small amount of office space. Renovations to the existing space will provide a more suitable kitchen and break room space and additional restrooms. This first phase will provide greatly improved working conditions for about $1.2 million. Long-term, the Town must pledge to construct a totally new facility on the existing site within ten years.

The solution for the police station is a brilliant design to renovate and add to the existing building on Concord Avenue. This will meet the department’s needs indefinitely. This extraordinary proposal includes additional construction on the back of the station as well as a sally port on the Pleasant Street side. The completed addition and renovation will provide new locker room space for both genders, new holding cells, safe and secure entry and booking space for prisoners, an elevator and second stair, evidence storage, meeting space and more. The proposed design respects the historic features of the building, provides an accessible entrance and additional parking. The permanent solution can be accomplished for between $6.2 and $7.5 million, which is a quarter of the cost of a new facility.

This proposal can be paid for out of the operating budget and will not require a debt exclusion. The advantage of this funding approach is that the work can begin immediately and will not interfere with either the library or high school plans for debt exclusions. The plan is the result of tremendous creativity by the building committee, the architect and owner’s project manager, the Town Administrator, and the Town Treasurer as well as the enthusiastic support of police and DPW personnel.

This proposal is a significant step forward for the Police and DPW who have languished in substandard working conditions for decades. As a town, we depend on our police department to keep us safe. We depend on our DPW to plow the snow, keep clean water flowing to our homes, and maintain our playgrounds.

Please urge your Town Meeting Members to vote YES on Article 23. It is the right thing to do.

DPW/Belmont Police Department Building Committee
Kathleen Cowing, Secretary
Roy Epstein
Anthony Ferrante, Vice-Chair
Anne Marie Mahoney, Chair
Stephen Rosales
Judith Ananian Sarno, Treasurer
William Shea
Michael Smith

Opinion: Criminal Justice Reform Lightens Up On The Little Guy

By Leave a Comment

Last week, the legislature sent a broad reform of the criminal justice system to Gov. Baker with a unanimous vote in the Massachusetts State Senate and a near-unanimous vote in the House of Representatives.

The bill is about lightening up on the little guy – the person who has made some mistakes but wants to turn a corner and live right.  If possible, we want to lift that person up instead of locking them up.  And we want to cut away the web of bureaucratic entanglements that make it hard for them to get back on their feet.

For the most dangerous offenders though, the focus has to be on public protection and the bill also gives police and prosecutors a number of useful new tools.

Last fall, both branches produced and approved comprehensive criminal justice packages that examined the system from front to back.  The bills that each branch produced differed from each other in approach and in hundreds of details.

A bi-partisan, bi-cameral conference committee including three members from the House and three from the Senate (two Democrats and one Republican from each branch) spent the last four months sorting through all the pieces. We considered and discussed each piece individually and we hope we succeeded in re-assembling a balanced bill, each piece of which actually works. We hope and believe that the final bill is really a better bill than either branch started with.

On the same day that the legislature approved the results of our conference negotiations, it also voted through a bill that speaks specifically to the challenges of in-prison rehabilitation programming and the re-entry process. That bill, which grew out of negotiations in the 2015-6 session, complements the larger package.

Much of the conversation in the press over the past few years has been about a few hot-button issues, especially mandatory minimums for drug offenders. The package does knock out some of the mandatories that currently apply even to little guys who are not selling opiates. 

But people serving drug mandatory minimums account for a relatively small portion of incarceration (10 or 15 percent) at the state level and the need for reform goes beyond the problem of high incarceration rates.  The criminal justice system is a sprawling bureaucracy. As a case moves through the system, dozens of decisions get made and offenders ultimately have to work very hard to meet the sometimes-conflicting requirements of officials who control their lives.

We have passed a bill that makes responsible changes in every stage of the system to reduce the burdens that the system places on people and their families. At the same time, we have passed a bill that, in many respects, makes the public safer.

Most issues in criminal justice involve hard judgment calls and many are deeply controversial. They are the kind of difficult issues that many seek to avoid. I’m very grateful to the leadership of the House and Senate for giving us the green light to move a big bill forward. And I’m grateful to every single member of the House and the Senate for stepping up to the plate to offer creative ideas and to cast difficult votes on many complex issues.

I’ve published complete details on the package at willbrownsberger.com and will also be very happy to answer questions or hear concerns at William.brownsberger@masenate.gov or 617-722-1280.

Will Brownsberger

State Senator, Second Suffolk and Middlesex

Opinion: Belmont’s #MeToo Problem

By 23 Comments

 

By Wendy Murphy

In the throes of relentless news stories about the #MeToo movement, Larry Nassar’s sexual victimization of more than 250 girls, and widespread abuse of women by celebrities, businessmen, lawmakers, etc, it seemed an appropriate time to examine the status of females in Belmont. So I asked several young people to comment because they are in the midst of developing core ideas about what it means to be female in Belmont and beyond.

Here’s the gist of what I heard.

1. The boys treat the girls as if they get to decide who deserves their attention based on who is willing to do sexual things.

2. The girls who kiss up to boys are the ones boys pay attention to.

3. The boys basically rank the girls as good or bad based on how willing they are to do what they want. Girls who stand up for themselves are called bitchy, and ugly.

4. I think girls should start ranking boys, and telling the boys they’re not worth anything unless they do whatever we tell them to do – so we can show them how it feels to be treated like a servant.

5. This starts in Middle School but nobody ever talks about it – teachers and principals know it happens but they never talk about it as a bad thing.

6. It was great that the high school had a community gathering when a racist Instagram message was sent last year, but how come they never do anything like that when boys call girls sluts, or bitches, or worse?

7. Sexism is such a huge issue at the high school and when we try to talk about it, it isn’t respected.

They (and some parents) also talked about other things they see as unfair:

1. The cheerleaders suffered many concussions last fall, but nobody made an issue about it. There are so many stories about football players suffering head trauma. How come cheerleaders’ head trauma gets no attention.

2. Female athletes were asked by the Boosters to help with a fundraising drive, even though the money was primarily intended for the press box and the press box is used almost exclusively for football. Girls are happy to help other school teams but they already see excess favoritism directed at football.

3. Female athletes were recently made to store their gym bags on the second floor, while male athletes were allowed to keep their bags with them on the first floor.

4. Male athletes who play hockey and football have their names on individual signs on Concord Avenue, but there are no individual signs for female athletes of any sport.

5. Cheerleaders are unofficially required to bake cookies for football players before the games.

6. When female athletes are on the turf at the same time as the football players, they often get pushed back to 25 percent of the field space.

7. Diversity week programming at the high school at the end of January ignored sex/gender as a category worthy of attention. There were events on race, LGBT, Armenian Genocide, and even a “medium” who talked about feeling the presence of dead people, but no program was dedicated to issues important to girls, such as sex discrimination, dating abuse, and harassment. [Belmont could face state and federal civil rights investigations, or lawsuits for money damages, for subjecting sex/gender to different treatment in this or any other context.]

Belmont is hardly the only community that isn’t getting sex/gender right. But we claim to be ahead of the pack on social issues. We became a welcoming community on behalf of immigrants, and we have a very active group against racism. We also expect young people to volunteer for community service projects. Why are issues related to women and girls invisible? They suffer far more abuse because they are female than does any other class of people suffer abuse because of who they are in society.

Belmont should aggressively be teaching students about women’s oppression and the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Most people don’t even know that women are not yet equal under the United States Constitution. This is the result of a failed education system. Thirty-six states have ratified the ERA. Nevada ratified in 2017. When two more states ratify, women’s full equality will be established once and for all. Until then, females will continue to be abused with impunity no matter how many #MeToo movements we have, because equality – not hashtags – will prevent disproportionate harm against the underclass.

Between now and when equality finally happens, Belmont and all communities should make every effort to teach young people that sex discrimination, including harassment and all forms of abuse, is the same type of civil rights violation as race discrimination, and none of it is welcome here.

A copy of this was shared with Belmont High School Principal Dan Richards and John Phelan, superintendent of the Belmont School District. I met and communicated with both men about some of these issues, and I asked them if they wanted to respond before publication. I offered to include any such response in this piece. Richards indicated a willingness to meet with me, again, in an effort to address the issues, and he offered to speak with guidance counselors and others to obtain information from them about their views on the issues raised.

Murphy is a former child abuse and sex crimes prosecutor who teaches at New England Law/Boston. Wendy specializes in the representation of crime victims, women, and children. She also writes and lectures widely on victims’ rights and criminal justice policy. She also serves on the Belmont High School Parent Teacher Student Organization and Advisory Council and is co-President of the  Belmont Woman’s Club. 

Anyone who wants to share information or concerns can contact Murphy anonymously at: Wmurphy@nesl.edu

Letter to the Editor: A Quieter Leaf Blower and Community

By 5 Comments

Dear folks,
 
There’s something I’d love to give thanks for next year at this time – a world, or at least a town, without leaf blowers. I actually forbid our landscaper a few years ago from using one after a spring when one of his workers blew down hundreds of our daffodils. Now he uses a rake on the lawn and a broom on the driveway; and the leaves that fall on the garden stay there to turn into mulch. He doesn’t complain, actually, and he didn’t raise his rates.
 
I was inspired to find this website by a letter in last Sunday’s Globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2017/11/19/that-sound-you-hear-push-for-quieter-leaf-blowing-solutions/VCTX5eJlmBawTBVfY0Up8I/story.html
Here’s the organization’s site: https://www.quietcommunities.org/
Wishing you all a happy Thanksgiving,
 
Sue Bass
Concord Avenue