Opinion: Influence MBTA on Waverley By Writing to Gov’t Officials

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Commuter rail leaving Waverley Station.

We last left off with Belmont Board of Selectmen Chair Sami Baghdady offering to the MBTA representatives a design charette with the Selectmen and an appointed  group of residents around the idea of making the Waverley Station handicapped accessible given the overwhelming public sentiments expressed at the “grande charette” held on Nov. 15 at the Beech Street Center.

Despite this apparent public response, I have a lingering notion that it will be of no consequence because the “fix is in” for a new station to be built on Pleasant Street as proposed by the MBTA in 2010 and now again in 2015.

So, I decided to personally tour each station on the Fitchburg line to see first hand what the accessibility status is of each station with the goal of trying to discern why the Waverley Station options under consideration by the MBTA are so extreme. 

(As a reminder,  they are currently simply closing the Waverley Station or building a new station on Pleasant Street, concurrently  closing Waverley and eventually closing the Belmont Station. Here are the results of the survey:)

There are sixteen stops between and including Fitchburg and Belmont

  • One (Kendall Green) has a locked station in disrepair with a rudimentary platform, no handicap access and no parking 
  • One ( Hastings) is a railroad crossing with no station, shelter, platform or parking.              
  • Two (Littleton and South Acton) have the full build out high platforms and handicap access proposed for the “new” Pleasant Street station. Both have extensive parking (300 spots plus) lots, but not garages. 
  • Two (Fitchburg and North Leominister) have “mini-high” platforms with ramps for handicap access and four story parking garages with elevators.
  • Three (West Concord, Brandeis/Roberts, and Waltham)  have “mini-high” platforms with ramps for handicap access, but limited parking
  • Three (Shirley,  Ayer, and Silver Hill)  have a station-like “shelters,” limited parking and rudimentary platforms with no handicap access,
  • Four (Lincoln, Concord, Waverley, Belmont)  have stations and platforms with no handicap access and limited parking

Briefly, we can summarize:

  1. Two of the stops on the Fitchburg line between the Fitchburg and Belmont Stations have the full buildout proposed for the Pleasant Street location or $30 million Waverley and both have 300-plus parking lots that are not possible at either the Pleasant Street or Waverley locations.
  2. Five stations have mini high platforms and ramps for handicap access. 
  3. Four stations including Waverley and Belmont could have mini high platforms and ramps providing handicap access at the platform level.
  4. Five stops are just stops and are unlikely ever to be upgraded to stations.  
Briefly, we can conclude:
  1. Practically speaking,  there are only 11 stops that could be considered for the station upgrade the MBTA is proposing for the Pleasant Street location or Waverley Station.
  2. However, large-scale parking lots or garages are required to justify such stations, and neither Pleasant Street nor Waverley meets this hurdle.
  3. Alternatively, the MBTA could install mini high platforms with ramp access at the platform level at the Lincoln, Concord, Waverley, and Belmont Stations.
  4. Platform access would have to be provided at the Waverley and Belmont Stations, but not at the Lincoln or Concord stations as the platforms are at street level in these locations.  
  5. As a result, 100 percent of the 11 stops between Fitchburg and Belmont would be handicap accessible at the platform level.  

So, what can be done?  

As stated in my opening comments, I’m not optimistic that a governmental response will rule the day on this question.  However, it is given that handicap access is a civil right, not an option and using the above approach we can see that the MBTA could achieve a 100 percent handicap access coverage of the Fitchburg line by simply changing the approach to installing mini high platforms in the four remaining stations and providing platform access for Waverley and Belmont. 
I urge concerned residents to organize a coalition of Watertown, Waltham, and Belmont residents to influence the MBTA to move in this direction by writing your municipal representatives, state representatives, Gov. Baker and Lt. Gov. Polito, Congressional representatives, the MBTA and the Mass AAB. I think it will take, at the least, 2,000 letters to be successful.
Disclaimer:  This is my opinion and I have not discussed the content of this letter with either Sami Baghdady or Mark Paolillo.
Jim Williams, Selectman
Glenn Road
 

Opinion: Invest the Money to Keep Waverley Station Accessible

By 5 Comments

Photo: Waverley MBTA Commuter Rail Station 

By Jim Williams

In September, MBTA General Manager Frank DePaola made a presentation at an open Board of Selectmen meeting concerning handicap accessibility at the Waverley Commuter Rail station. Public comments opposed closing the station and Sami Bagdadhy, chair of the board, stated the Selectmen’s position was that our existing stations should remain open and be handicap accessible. 

Subsequently, a proposed MBTA design charrette was expanded to an open public meeting now scheduled for Nov. 16 at the Beech Street Center, 266 Beech St. Then, in late October,  the MBTA informed the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board of three possible outcomes including making Waverley accessible; closing Waverley; or leaving Waverley open and investing the $30 million estimated to make Waverley compliant with applicable State and Federal accessibility regulations into a system-wide project that would impact a significantly  larger number of customers with disabilities. 

I am standing to support alternative three above for the following reasons:

  1. The proposal of a third alternative defeats the logical fallacy (bifurcation) that only making the Waverley handicap accessible or closing it are the possible remedies when, in fact, there is in reality a range of options.
  2. The previous strategy of building a third station in Belmont and closing the existing two has objectively and overwhelmingly the least favorable cost/benefits profile of any possible solution.
  3. The Fitchburg line has been in existence for more than 125 years and was and still is integral to the economic development and well-being of Belmont.

So what can be done? First, get informed and write letters to the elected, appointed, or employed officials responsible starting with Gov. Charlie Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito. This can make a difference. 

Second, attend the Nov. 16 meeting and let your voice be heard loud and clear. For the MBTA, I recommend working with Belmont’s Economic Development Committee and  Community Path Implementation Committee in addition to the Belmont Disability Access Commission in developing responsible solutions for this important initiative. For the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board,  I recommend exploring with the MBTA the acceptable alternatives that will impact the largest number customers with disabilities. 

In closing, I want to remind everyone listening: The railroad belongs to us; The State and Federal funding involved is our money; We get the government we deserve.  

Jim Williams, Selectman

Glenn Road

This communication is compliant with the State’s Open Access laws as I have not discussed its contents with either Baghdady or fellow Selectman Mark Paolillo.

Opinion: A Privately Funded Rink the Fiscally-Responsible Choice

By 1 Comment

By Ellen Schreiber

I’ve read several columns and postings about the new Belmont Youth Hockey skating rink proposal that are missing key information.

As a member of the Warrant Committee, charged with analyzing the town budget, I believe a new, privately funded rink is the only fiscally responsible choice for Belmont. (Note: The Warrant Committee has not reviewed the proposal. As an individual, I attended the School Committee discussion.)                                                        

Here is the information I heard at the rink presentation that is missing from the public debate. 

1. Privately Funded: Building a new rink would be entirely privately funded by generous citizens. No budget impact. No tax increase. This money is not available for other town projects and would not take away from other town priorities.

2. Rink failure: Engineering analysis confirmed that the only remaining compressor and piping are on the verge of failing. Systemic failure cannot be cheaply fixed and is at the bottom of the town’s capital spending priority list. 

3. Budget Impact: When the rink breaks, the school budget will incur more than $200,000 annually to rent ice time for Belmont High School hockey teams. Practically, there are no rinks in communities surrounding Belmont with available after school hours, so that $200,000 recurring budget item would likely yield practice times as late as 10 p.m.

4. Business Plan: Donors would loan the money to build the rink and absorb 100 percent of the risk, not the town. Rentals would fund loan repayment, which is well understood because Belmont Youth Hockey currently pays market rent for 75 percent of the ice time, which would continue.

5. Budget Savings: The Belmont budget would no longer be responsible for rink operations, maintenance or repairs; new rink operations will fund them.

6. Ownership: The rink is a school-owned facility, and the new site would remain school-owned property.

7. New High School: The rink would move to the western edge of school property. This removes a physical barrier in the middle of school land, which creates more options for BHS site planning.

8. Timing: This project could be completed in two years, long before a new high school could be built. It would not get in the way.

9. No Loss of Fields: The old rink site would be converted into new, better fields to replace the old softball and practice fields, with no net loss of fields. Community Preservation Act money could fund the field conversion. CPA funds must be used for recreation, open space, affordable housing or historic preservation and cannot be used for schools, libraries, or police stations.

10. BHS Hockey Teams: Rink failure would be devastating to the high school program – rental costs are high, rink time is scarce, and practices would be late-night. With a new rink, BHS teams would continue to get first-choice ice times for free.

11. Belmont Youth Hockey: BYHA is leading this project to create a modern, reliable rink to serve better the town. They would receive no financial consideration and would continue to pay market rates for rental.

I’ve done a lot of fundraising. I’ve led a lot of volunteer projects. This level of private contribution is rare. Belmont is lucky to have donors and volunteers willing to make this happen.

I believe that Belmont should move forward with this opportunity as soon as the necessary details can be worked out.

Ellen Schreiber is a Town Meeting Member, a member of the Warrant Committee, secretary of the Underwood Pool Building Committee, co-chair of the Joey’s Park rebuild and hockey mom.

Opinion: Well Worth the WAIT After Playing at Belmont’s Parks, Fields

By Leave a Comment

Dear Belmont Residents:

We are all in our neighborhood parks, sports fields and athletic facilities at one time or another, either participating or enthusiastically coaching or cheering from the sidelines. All too often, in the flurry to head out to the next engagement, our parks, fields and facilities are left in a bit of a mess.  

Here is a simple mnemonic device for coaches, instructors, parents and athletes to address this situation before the field is deserted. It’s called WAIT, and it breaks down as follows:  

W – Waterbottle: Double check that you have your water bottle (recyclable or preferably reusable)

A – Athletic Gear: Look around!  Do you (and your teammates) have your sweatshirt, goalie gloves, cleats or helmet?  What about cones, balls, bats and sticks? 

I – Itty Bitty Pieces of Trash: OK, this really means all trash. But, a thorough scan for the little stuff – stray bottle caps, the ripped off corners of granola bars wrappers, the lone orange rind, gum wrappers and wads of athletic tape – makes a difference. 

T – Thank your coaches: Or instructors, or teachers, or lifeguards, or drivers or leaders, whether they are volunteers or professionals. They are out there because of you, and a little acknowledgement and appreciation goes a long way.  

Please take a moment to share this with your team, your teammates or your families. Think about the impact if we all could WAIT before heading home!

Donna Ruvolo

Choate Road

Opinion: No Short Cuts on the Cut Through

By 4 Comments

Photo: Paul Roberts (right) speaking at the Special Town Meeting in August.

Six weeks after Belmont’s Town Meeting urged the Board of Selectmen to adhere to the original design for a pedestrian friendly lawn in Belmont Center, it has, instead, unveiled yet another plan to transform a haggard and little used traffic island in front of the downtown Belmont Savings Bank, the third such design since May. The Board will formally present its new plan to the public on Monday, Sept. 28.  If you care about the running of our “Town of Homes,” you should plan on attending. 

The latest design, dubbed the “Belmont Center Green Space Enhancement Concept” does not accede to Town Meeting’s request, made at an Aug. 6 Special Town Meeting at which a motion was adopted that urged the Board to restore directly the original design for the Town Center. I stand with the majority of Town Meeting members in believing that the original plan – “Plan A” – is the best path forward to realizing the vision for a 21st century Town Center that puts pedestrians on an equal footing with automobiles and motorists. 

As for the Selectmen’s new design, I’ll say this: it is more attractive than both the cut through road that exists today and the “Plan B” design that the Selectmen adopted in their May Meeting. The compromise vision includes a narrower, brick-paved roadway with parallel parking spaces and pavers. But, it falls far well short of Plan A, which created a real space for residents in the Town Center to congregate without having to negotiate street crossings and automobile traffic. In short: the latest design is a step in that direction – but only a step. 

That’s why I will encourage the Selectmen, on Monday, to look at this “Enhancement Concept,” appreciate its strengths, thank the citizens who worked hard on realizing the compromise, including Town Meeting members Bonnie Friedman, Ralph Jones and Andy Rojas and then kindly return to Plan A. 

However, if (as I suspect) the Board is intent on pursuing its own vision for the Town Center, then they need to do what they did not do in May, namely: to step back and allow the Belmont community to consider their plan and ways to improve it. To do otherwise, by stifling public comment on the plan at their meeting, or by introducing and formally adopting a redesign would be a huge mistake. It would also be a sad reprise of the Board’s ill-considered May 28 meeting, at which they used a citizens’ petition as justification for unceremoniously ditching the blueprint for the Town Center redesign in favor of a never-before-seen “Plan B.“ That, despite that fact that construction on the Town Center had begun. 

The justification for allowing time for consideration is simple: there are many questions that must be answered about the new design. We see an artist’s rendering of the new plan, and it looks nice – but it is just a picture. The Town needs to know if this byway will it work once constructed. And that’s a much bigger question.  Among the questions, I pose to the Board are these: has a qualified engineering firm reviewed the new plans and deemed them compliant with state and federal guidelines for safety? How will the town control access to this narrow roadway to ensure pedestrian safety? Will there be limits on thru traffic for particular times of day? If so, what hours will the road be accessible? How will the town prevent motorists from using the cut through during off hours? What will the posted speed limit be? Will there be limits on vehicle size over this road? How many and what kinds of parking will be placed on the cut-through? How will traffic in and out of the Belmont Savings Bank garage be managed to ensure pedestrian safety? 

There are many other questions that might be asked, as well, and the Board of Selectmen needs to be open to hearing them. It should provide adequate time – measured in weeks, not days –for the community to make sense of their proposal and to ask for modifications to the design where needed. Only then can Belmont be sure the roadway constructed will be both safe and practical in a heavily used and congested town center. 

The unfortunate truth is that our Selectmen were presented with the opportunity to achieve a new and grander vision for Belmont Center in this redesign – a vision that would position us for the America of the next 50 years, not the last 50 years. In the face of that opportunity, however, the Board blinked. Rather than gaze steadily into the future, they opted to look backward and cling to what felt familiar. As a community, we’re still trying to pick up the pieces from that and recover a modest share of what might have been. The Selectmen can use their position, their authority and what good will they have left to help achieve that. 

That work starts Monday evening. I’ll see you there.

Paul Roberts is a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 8 and the editor of Blogging Belmont. 

Opinion: Time to Reset When Belmont Schools Start The Day

By 8 Comments

Photo: Sleep deprivation among adolescents is a chronic problem across the country and here in Belmont.

By Andrea Prestwich and Steve Saar, Belmont Start School Later

For one Belmont High School senior, the beginning of the school year – which starts today, Wednesday, Sept. 2 – is a double edge sword; the excitement of their final year in the public schools is dampened in trying to stay awake to enjoy the moment. 

“It’s really difficult to maintain your focus in class when you don’t get enough sleep. Belmont High School is a great school with high standards, but it’s difficult to keep up when you’re chronically tired,” the senior said, who manages to sleep seven hours on a “good” night.

Our daughter is another example. She is a 12-year-old Chenery Middle School student who says she feels “heavy, slow, grumpy and lethargic” on most school mornings.

What’s wrong with these kids? As it turns out, NOTHING! Many – if not most – middle and high school students in Belmont struggle with chronic sleepiness as they are forced out of bed at 6:30 a.m. or earlier to get to school.

Numerous scientific studies have shown that as kids hit puberty their sleep rhythms change. They naturally fall asleep later and get up later. Asking a teen to get up at 6:30 a.m. is like asking an adult to get up at 4 a.m.; they are deep into their natural sleep cycle. Studies also show adolescents need eight-and-a-half to nine-and-a-half hours of sleep each night.

Depriving kids of sleep at such a crucial period of their development can lead to serious long-term health consequences, including:

  • increased risks of obesity
  • diabetes
  • hypertension
  • stroke
  • depression
  • anxiety
  • substance abuse
  • Accidents while driving.

Sleep deprivation among adolescents is a chronic problem across the country, linked to poor impulse control and self-regulation – sleepy kids make bad decisions – impairments in attention and memory and deficits in abstract thinking.

Student athletes are especially impacted by sleep deprivation. A study highlighted by the American Academy of Pediatrics showed that “athletes who slept eight or more hours each night were 68 percent less likely to be injured than athletes who regularly slept less.”

The scale of the problem has been recognized by the Center for Disease Control, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the Society for Pediatric Nurses, the National Association of School Nurses, and the National Sleep Foundation, all endorsing later school start time, with middle and high schools opening no earlier than 8:30 a.m.

So, with just about every professional medical organization in the country endorsing later school start times, why does Belmont begin the Chenery day at 7:55 a.m. and Belmont High at 7:35 a.m?

Sometimes the reason is economics. Many schools set start times decades ago to save transportation costs by running the same busses in three cycles for the high school, middle school and elementary school. Starting schools early also leaves more time in the afternoon for athletics and other after-school activities.

The current schedule would make sense if adolescents had a “sleep mode” button, but sadly, evolution has not seen fit to equip them with one. You just can’t put teens to bed at 9:30 p.m. and expect them to go to sleep immediately and wake bright and early at 6 a.m. as the schedule is contrary to their natural sleep rhythms.

If you put teens to bed at 9:30 p.m. they will toss and turn until 11 p.m. when they will finally start to feel drowsy. The adage “early to bed and early to rise” doesn’t apply to adolescents; they are creatures of the night!

So why not change Belmont to a healthier, later schedule? First, there’s a widespread belief that if schools start later kids will stay up later. This is not true. A landmark study looked at 18,000 high school students in Minneapolis before and after the district’s school start time changed from 7:15 a.m. to 8:40 a.m. The main conclusion was that high school students slept an hour longer on average when their school started later. They went to bed at the same time as before the time change and slept longer. 

Athletics is another consideration. Currently, schools in the Middlesex League have early starting times. If Belmont were to shift to a healthier, later schedule, our athletes would be out of sync with the rest of the league. Practice times would also have to change, possibly causing a ripple effect and impacting youth groups who use the same facilities.

Other barriers to a later schedule include the need to re-think before- and after-school programs and the impact on some kids with part-time jobs. 

There are certainly obstacles to shifting Belmont High and the Chenery to start later but none is insurmountable. For example, bus schedules could be reversed so that Winn Brook starts first at around 7:45 a.m., then the High School just after 8:30 a.m., Wellington, and Chenery later. Elementary school kids are usually up with the larks, bouncing on their beds – they have sleep rhythms naturally suited to an earlier start. 

Start School Later has local chapters across Massachusetts working for later start times, and we are working with Massachusetts legislators. Hopefully, Belmont will join other districts as they shift times.

Even though there are difficulties in changing school start times, it is not acceptable for our kids to be sleep deprived, any more than it is acceptable for them to go without food or any other life necessity. And sleep is a necessity of life. Our kids should start the school day well fed and rested. The current start times make this impossible.

School districts around the country have shifted to healthier schedules with very positive results: kids are more alert and less grumpy, there are lower rates of tardiness and fewer missed school days. They arrive at school ready to learn.

We ask Belmont School Superintendent John Phelan and the Belmont School Committee follow the recommendations and shift Belmont schools to healthier schedules.

 

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

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

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

Letter to the Editor: Don’t Change Center Plan for Residents Like Me

By Leave a Comment

To the editor:

I moved to Belmont two years ago when I was in my late 60s. I chose a location where I could easily walk or drive into town. Coming to town frequently, and staying for a while, is one of the things I plan to do to stay connected as I grow older.     

Thus far, spending time in town has meant either walking along the sidewalks or ducking into one of the stores. When I first walked around town, I was drawn to the green space in front of the bank.  However, I rarely saw anyone sitting there and quickly understood why. The green space beckoned, but I wasn’t inclined to cross a busy street to get to the small patch of green only to sit and watch cars whizzing by on all sides.  

That’s why I was delighted when I saw the original reconstruction plan for Belmont Center. The plan created a green space that was actually usable. I thought it would be a wonderful spot for people of all ages to gather, and a perfect focal point for special town events. I envisioned taking my young grandsons to get ice-cream cones and, instead of hanging out on the crammed sidewalk in front of the store, walking over to the green to enjoy them; or buying a sandwich and meeting a friend for lunch on the green; or just sitting there reading a book. I pictured special occasions with everyone in town, from the youngest child to the oldest elder, gathered on the green enjoying the newly created space. 

I feel compelled to write this – my first ever letter to an editor – because I’ve read that the reconstruction plan as modified by the selectmen, with its cut-through and parallel parking spaces in front of the bank, was adopted in deference to the elderly. Although I appreciate the concern expressed for seniors, I question whether the cut-through plan is what the majority of the elderly in town would actually choose. I, for one, am deeply disappointed that a safe and inviting gathering place has been abandoned in favor of a few parking spaces of questionable convenience relative to the original plan. Moreover, even if I thought those spaces would serve the purpose intended, I would not want the entire town to lose its carefully planned green to make them available to me.   

Joanne Birge

Common Street