The Fall Town Meeting Warrant is available at this link. If you have any questions about the article, let me know. You can leave ...
...them in comments or email me at pokanoketlax@hotmail.com. As always let us know what you think.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Fall Town Meeting Warrant
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Bill, is there a requirement that calls for the CPC to spend its money in any given timeframe? I can't imagine anyone willingly depleting finances just because the money is there, without consideration of future needs. It's admirable to want to preserve, conserve, and be altruistic, but maybe this is just not the best time, unfortunate as that may be for these acquisitions and projects.
I hope TM will keep this in mind when voting acceptance or rejection.
You should have added one more option under your CPC vote question: None of the above.
There is no requirement to spend the money in any particular year. Dartmouth has tried to keep reserves enough to pay off the obligations within a year. This year there are a few large projects and more projects than usual. While all these seem worthy of consideration, I wish that the CPC had chosen between them and not all
Id have a few questions on some of the items on the CPC question.
The preservation group for the AkinHouse stated they need 50,000 for emergency repairs, so why asking for 195,000. CPC already gave 185,000 3 years ago. The former State police barracks purchase. What is this building going to be used for ? This is the first I heard of this. Will it be a town building or will the town get property tax from it? whats the plan? (350,000 is quite low).
As for the park on Russells Mills, great idea. The rest, im not 100% sold without additional info.
This is a futile, not-even-for-consideration thought, given the state of our local economy, not to mention that of the nation, but if there is, has been, or would be assistance on the state or federal level for any of these projects, maybe it would be wise to wait for it, if it ever happens, I know. But Dartmouth can't afford extra money at this time, either, even if this money is already in the CPC funds. Our "rainy day" is now. Good someone has money! If it were mine, I wouldn't be too eager to spend it, especially not all at once!
The CPC should have whittled down the number of projects it endorsed this year. Perhaps FinCom will recommend that not all projects be funded. I hope so. There are $1.8mil in requests. Last year revenues for CPC totaled $1.1mil. This year the state is lowering the match amount. I am not sure what fy"09 revenues will be but it is a good bet that revenues will be less than last year. While they do have a good reserve fund(over $1 mil),they also have $351,000 debt scheduled for fy09.
I believe that the Community Preservation Act passed in Dartmouth mostly because people wanted to support preservation of open space and the rural character of town. Therefore, I believe that the Cornell Farm should be priority number one.
I am against the Pasky access acquisition for the following reasons. We will lose tax revenue even though it will be argued that we won't because the owners are cutting a lot off the property. If the house is sold to a private party the owners will still be able to cut the lot out and we would receive taxes from both properties, not just the extra lot. The way the economy is going, we may need to worry more about community housing for the destitute than recreation opportunities. Also, the town owns probably about a mile of Pasky frontage just a stone's throw from this property already. This is the Dartmouth Water Supply land on Chase rd. It has not been vetted as to whether we could get public access to the Pasky from there. There are rules about the public not being allowed near the wells but is there enough land to allow public access without getting too close to the wells? That is my $325,000 question.
The other article on the warrant that I am against is the Lincoln Park article. As the presenter to the Select Board said, "this is a good way to finance a project that the town wants." Over 200 apartments and more big box stores and chain restaraunts are not what I envision as the best project in Dartmouth's future. There are studies saying that these types of developments end up costing more than they bring in with tax revenues. We need development like the industrial park is doing, not projects like this one.
To Barry said... Granted you are entitled to your opinion but shouldn't you ask your $325,000 Pasky question if someone (Town, Select Board member)has done any sort of calculation to whether the Town would be loosing any revenue. If the property you questioned being sold by the landowner has a decent size house put on it the revenue for that lot will be much greater in taxes, I bet, than they are paying now for it. This would make up for the portion the Town would like to preserve. I believe this acquisition for safety reasons would be beneficial. I would hope this would help in protecting the wells further. One less septic to pollute the river and groundwater. I might be mistaken but CPC monies cannot fund paying someone's salary or be put in the general fund. As Mr. Trimble stated (well put)"I wish that the CPC had chosen between them and not all". I do believe this acquistion fits all the criteria for CPC. Why would the Cornell Farm be priority number one. If you are looking at taxes, I bet you could get more in taxes with property like Cornell farm than the Pasky project. Again, these are just my views and opinions as I see them on these projects.
Just to confirm, the Cornell Farm is already under ch 61A so I don't believe there is any tax loss associated with this project.
I thought I explained above why my opinion is that we would lose tax revenue with the Pasky project. I did listen to town officials who support this project and their reasoning about the tax issue. The reasoning behind those who view this project as not losing revenue is faulty in my humble opinion. Revenue is not the only reason I am against this project. See my post above.
Also, I assume your reference to safety is about people being able to get canoes into the river. The steep bank that they encounter now requires a degree of physical ability that may stop some people from engaging in paddling the lower Pasky. This may be a good thing because just before the mill pond at the bottom of the river is a set of rapids that can be rather dangerous. I have had to break out the fiberglass repair kit more than once because of them. If you can't get your canoe down the steep bank on Russells Mills road, then you should not be paddling the lower Pasky.
All this being said, if we could get access to the river through the water dept. property, I would be all for it. There are just more CPC proposals this year than we can afford.
Barry, I'm not familiar with this area, but from what I hear and read, is this property currently allowed for use by the public? If someone has an accident trying to get a canoe in, or just falls, who would be liable? Who's liable now? I would assume once it becomes town property, the town would be responsible? Unless there is a safe way of getting onto the property and into the river, aren't we opening ourselves up for trouble that we know could happen simply because it is not the most safe spot to enjoy canoeing?
The town currently owns a small piece of property near the Pasky bridge on Russells Mills rd. This is the steep riverbank access I referred to. Many people use it to paddle the river down to the Mill Pond at Russells Mills Village. I would say that your liability concerns are well-founded. My point is that the proposed property purchase would allow much easier access and could possibly create even more liability by making it easier for less athletically inclined people to encounter the rapids on that lower stretch of river. If this article passes, I hope the first thing they do is post a warning. People who don't take responsibility for their own decisions will sue. When you approach those rapids, it is your decision to turn around or proceed downstream. Paddling this river is like a right of passage for many youths in town. So is jumping off Little River Bridge. I enjoy seeing young people engage in these activities although Little River is posted(probably for liablity reasons.) People who sue when they get hurt doing things they choose to do ruin it for the rest of us. There was a time when kids were allowed to skate on pretty much any pond in town but that has changed because of liability.
If the town already owns this bit of property, it must also be liable for anything that happens if there is no posting, I would think. So, already there could be problems if someone were hurt. You would think if the town knows people are using this site, it would post the hazards to cover itself??
Is this the area by Davoll's?
it is not near Davoll's. as you head from the recycle station to Gulf rd intersection, there is a White house with blue trim on the left with a for sale sign, this is the proposed site. A little further down on the right, just as the road turns, there is a spot to park next to the railing of bridge, which is the current put in. A warning sign is a good idea, but i would be curious to know if there is truly a liability concern as legally this may be like riding a horse, basically done at your own risk. i have paddled most of the river, including the lower section and see it as a seasonal paddle but i don't know what others would do. i think this would be a great opportunity, and provide access for all in town, they could add a horseshoe pit and bench, barbecue grill for a reasonable cost.
I wonder how DNRT, MA Adoubon handle situation were they allow people onto their properties and if someone was to get hurt. I've never signed a waiver to walk on their trails. The Towns parks area off of Old Fall River Rd, the area near Davoll's, and also near the boat ramp. What would happen if someone got hurt there? Has DNRT, MA Adoubon, or the Town ever experienced any liabilities because of allowing people access to use their properties?
I wonder how DNRT, MA Adoubon handle situation were they allow people onto their properties and someone was to get hurt. The Towns parks area off of Old Fall River Rd, the area near Davoll's, and also near the boat ramp. What would happen their if someone got hurt. Does anyone know if the Town, DNRT etc has had any liabilities because of any of their properties.
I just watched our exec administrator on cable T.V. talking about the town meeting warrant articles. He was giving misinformation left and right. He misquoted the acreage of both CPC land acquisition proposals. Talk about incompetance.
Post a Comment