The Fall Town Meeting Warrant is taking shape and articles are being formulated. A draft of the warrant can be found at this link. This is not the official warrant and is provided here for information only. The warrant will not be official until voted by the Select Board and published by the Town Clerk.What are your thoughts?
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
50 comments:
You have got to be kidding!!!!! There are 3 articles pertaining to the community park. Article C asking for $154,980.00 + $1000.00 for legal fees and associated costs. Article 2D asking for $143,000.00 + $1000.00 fees. Article I asking for $396,000.00 for playground equipment, lights,etc. For a grand total of $430,980.00 +$2,000.00 for legal fees. Is there any more phases for this park? Also article D is asking for $133,000.00 to restore Russells Mills library. You people are going to bury the town of Dartmouth. Why not wait for the economy to improve before you waste any more of OUR money? Now I can see why Greg Lynam resigned. By the way why not name the park "The Million Dollar Park".
In the future there will be more layoffs and service cuts but I guess the town of Dartmouth can boast that we have a million dollar park, a million dollar and school with FDK and preschool in S.D.
Could someone let us know exactly what the total is for all the renovations done to Cushman so far including the elevator, the million dollar park, plus any other monies involved with this project? And how much more will the town be asking for in the future. I hope that every one in town calls their town meeting members to vote NO! Unfortunately TM always seems to vote yes to every article that comes before them.
have you noticed....all seperated articles suggest no chance for override
The cost of the new playground in South Dartmouth is completely out of control. Why not go for more? Should we add Jacuzzis for the locals to relax in? Maybe add valet parking? How about caviar and wine? Yikes!
Re: the community park. First, the money that is requested for the park is coming from the CPC - this money is separate from the town's general revenues. So, while our taxes pay for this, it does not affect the town's FY11 budget. Rather, it comes from the CPC money which MUST be used (by statue) for open space, historical preservation or community recreation.
Second, the 396,000 is an authorization to spend that amount; this is necessary to apply for a state PARC grant. However, none of this will be appropriated from the town's general revenues. As noted above, some will coming from the CPC to offset our matching requirement and some will come from a state grant. However, in order to get the grant, we must have the authorization to spend that much. The FinCom is working to get language inserted into that article in indicate that these monies many not be spent unless we receive the grant.
I'm really tired of the repeated requests for funding when it is all related to the same project. It really feels like an unethical bait and switch tactic.
I fear that town meeting members will approve subsequent requests because they might feel that they are "in for a penny, in for a pound" at this point. I hope that does not happen during this town meeting!
Shannon, can you tell us please if the CPC has any outstanding debts it needs to pay?
If it does have a debt(s) that it needs to pay off, why doesn't it use its money to do so?
Also can you tell us the amount(s) of the debt(s)?
Thank you.
Including fy2011 debt, CPA has a current principal and interest grand total debt of $2.35million. If fy11 has been paid, you can knock off about $338k from that amount. Fy2009 was when they reached their peak of indebtedness with a principal and interest payment of $351k. Since then, and going forward the debt payment decreases with every year until fy2025 when it is all paid off. The CPC has no plans to do more bonding in the near future.
These figures may not be absolutely perfect but for blogs sake you can say that the CPC is around $2mil+ in debt.
These are the answers to two out of three of your questions. You will need to ask the CPC why they don't use the money to pay off the debt.
Everywhere you look discretionary spending is reduced. Businesses are closing. Many commercial properties remained unoccupied. There is a serious question of a deficit next year. And here we are spending nearly 1 million dollars of taxpayer money on a new playground that be used by relatively few people in the Dartmouth Street area. You just can't make this stuff up!
Shannon, Suppose we don't get the grant money, then what? Granted that this comes from CPC money it still comes from the tax payers.
Last I heard was that the CPC has outstanding debts. Could some one please answer Sept. 16 question. This is when we miss Greg Lynam. He tells it like it is.
It's time to throw in the towel. I've been trying to get attention focused on the inequality that exist between North and South Dartmouth, but no one is paying attention.
Once again, the South end of town get's the Cushman school up and running, a new playground/park/ and hundreds of thousands of tax payers money to construct and rebuild the building and new playground, all for the South Dartmouth kids/parents. North end of town continues to fight the traffic, pollution, old Gidley school building just wasting away. This is a fight that can not be won. So long...good bye.....I've thrown in the towel just like Greg Lynham.
Sept. 19: Unfortunately, while you care what happens to North Dartmouth, others in ND may be apathetic, so SD strikes while the iron is hot. That may well be what they count on: apathy; lack of ND voters at the poll; a sense of giving up, thus giving in.
Needless to say, there are many willing to trample on the rights and well-being of others, whether for personal reasons or not. ND is a good example of just that.
The CPC members, appointed by the selectmen, are out of control. These members are the same members you'll find listed as DNRT members. Nothing more then land grabbing, money spending liberals with special interest. Their true motive is saving the land owners from paying taxes and shrink the towns taxable properties.
Once upon a time, long before the adoption of wet land town by-laws and state wet lands act, “money people” purchased large parcels of land. These large land investments had one purpose, making money by selling to future developers. The wet land by-laws put a stop to the selling of property for development. The same large parcels of land, once known as taxable property, were donated to the DNRT, for tax relieve. In most cases, the land was purchased by the town. I meant tax payers money.
As a result of DNRT fund raising, membership donations, and town donated tax money, large parcels of once taxable property are now open to the public. That's right, CPC money is town tax money.
Barry has provided some good information about the CPC debt levels, and he's right about asking the CPC why they don't use current revenues to pay off debt although I believe that state law requires them to spend a certain portion of their revenue on projects each year.
To the question of what happens if we don't get the grant - that's why we're working on changing the language of the article to ensure that we're not on the line for the money if the grant does not come through.
Finally, this project was proposed in multiple phases on purpose. The first phase was to prepare the site for the playground - this was necessary to apply for the grant. This allows town meeting to have multiple chances to weigh in on this project - rather than one chance on a lot of money. From the start, it was made clear to the CPC and FinCom that there would be multiple requests for funding - hence phase 1 last go around and phase 2 this go around.
Barry's points are well taken. Paying down our debt and eliminating future interest payments are in the taxpayer’s best interest. Why are we not pursuing that?
to sept 19 8:47 - how does voting trample upon the rights and well-being of anyone? So I should sit home and not vote so I don't violate some other lazy person's rights and well being? This north/south stuff is hilarious.
to sept 16 2:25 - there is no bait and switch. try and pay attention-the community park was fully explained as a multi-step project.
In fairness to the CPC, I think they have set themselves on the track towards a more conservative bottom line. Provided that they don't do any bonding for five years, their debt payment in 2016 will be down to $216k. As with all aspects of state funding the state match is the wild card with CPA funding. They can match anywhere from 5-100% of the town's surcharge receipts.
In 2010 CPA surcharge receipts were $523k with total revenues of $713k. The 2010 debt payment was 48% of total revenues. This is too high in my opinion which is why I asked for a fiscal policy to be created for CPA spending at spring town meeting and when I served on the CPC.
I believe the law that Shannon referred to was that debt cannot exceed surcharge receipts but don't quote me, I'ld have to look that up.
I am in total disagreement with "AS I SEE IT" about both CPC members and the DNRT in general. These are good people and a great organization. Someday I'll post about how conserving land "lowers" taxes.
For now though I am a little tired of people who don't show up to CPC hearings while I am there trying to steer them to the fiscally responsible path. Only after the fact, do they complain about the funding approved and sometimes about the way I vote myself.
I thought I would copy and paste some of my early thoughts about the warrant articles here. I doubt they will make it onto the fincom recommendation sheet in raw form. Speaking of recommendations, why is the Select Board giving them. They are supposed to be our executive leaders and sponsoring articles. FinCom is supposed to be the independant review committeeTown Meeting.
Handicap article Q: Doubling handicap parking fines:
The real purpose of this article is to create a new budget line item in order to spend money for American Disabilities Act compliance. The money would be used for things such as printing educational pamphlets. Wouldn’t it be preferable to spend money available for ADA compliance on capital needs like park equipment and handicap ramps?
We already have processes to comply with ADA. One needs only to look at the Cushman Community Park Article on this warrant to see the $300k plus price tag for ADA compliant playground equipment. ADA compliancy issues are most often dealt with through Capital Improvement Planning. The purpose of creating our Handicap Accessibility Committee was to simply identify ADA needs and it should remain as such.
If you vote for this, there will be an extra line item created in the Schedule A Budget that, according to a memo of understanding, will be funded by this revenue increase. Once it is created, it will be just another several thousand dollars lost amongst the multi-million dollar budget. The time to oppose this is now.
Article F: Pay raise money:
If Town Meeting would like to close their eyes and stick their heads in the sand when it comes to knowing what is going on with negotiated pay increases, voting for this is the way to do it. Instead, the raises should be negotiated first. Only then should the money be requested for its specific purpose and authorized by Town Meeting for its specific use.
ARTICLE B: Health Care negotiating:
This would support negotiating possible compensation increases that have not been properly projected going out into the future. With the shift towards HMO’s, it may seem like a win-win situation in which we all save money for this year but the true costs for the future will not translate into savings for the taxpayer if current expense trends continue. An expense projection analysis should accompany this article so that Town Meeting can understand the possible expense ramifications. At the very least the FinCom should be presented with one before recommending the article. It may very well be o.k. to negotiate a change in health care compensation percentages but we should ALL understand the value of this increased compensation to our employees, including the employees who may receive the additional compensation. Increasing employee compensation without understanding the consequences to future budgets has already proven to be a dangerous road to travel.
CPA Amendments:
If Town Meeting votes no, there will be deficits of $109,871 in historic Stone Barn funding and $104,795 in open space Community Park funding. Do I understand correctly that the Dartmouth Community Park funding has already disbursed more than the CPA Open Space Reserve has in it? If CPA monies are required to be in separate fund accounts, shouldn’t the check have bounced? If the check didn’t bounce, where did the money come from? Are these monies separated by paper accounting only and not by actual accounts? As I look at “Fiscal10 Budget & Proposals” sheet of the CPA quarterly Reports, the Stone Barn Farm and Dartmouth Community Park are not listed as having had separate project accounts set up as of June 30,2010. The projects were approved by Town Meeting on June 1st, 2010 and the money was immediately available thereafter.
I would assume that if TM votes no on the Stone Barn, then Audubon would receive $109,871 less in overall funding. What happens if the Community Park amendment is not approved? We cannot just assume that these articles will pass.
Article D: Russells Mills Library
The major problem with this property is the presence of an underground heating oil tank. The seeped heating oil, if there is any, could easily be excavated and incinerated. It is not, after all, radioactive nuclear waste. The cost to make this property ready to sell will eat up about half of its assessed value and is at least double what it should cost to remedy the situation.
Unfortunately there are people who pose as environmentalists and use the cause to hold people and properties hostage. This property is one such example. We have no choice but to pay the “ransom”. Is it any wonder why so many people choose to do work without permits?
I just wonder why Dartmouth residents don't get angry over some of this irresponsible spending in the face of the debt CPC has, and why the Town Meeting doesn't put a stop to it. I know the CPC has to spend a certain amount of money on projects, but do you suppose some of the money it does have could go to paying a little more on their debt obligation each time a payment is made, or is that against any law somewhere?
Like Shannon stated, the CPC is reguired by state law to spend a certain amount of money on projects, but just where does the rest of the money go? Why not put it into paying off their debt sooner?
I would think, and maybe I am wrong, but if the CPC could pay off its debt sooner, than the money that it gets right off the top of the taxes we pay would ALL go back to US, the Town residents, for what WE need.
If I am wrong with that assumption, please let me know.
Also, are there many others who feel the CPC debt should be paid off before incurring further debts? How can we get the message to Town Meeting, or do most people not care?
That's the apathy some people count on.
Barry Walker said the CPC is approximately 2 million in debt. He is telling us that the town tax payers are 2 million in debt. Some where, some how, some one has their head stuck up inside their butt and I call for the selectmen to bring the CPC appointed members, before the select board meeting, for an explanation of this debt. Folks, we are talking about our tax money. Debt is the cause of our national problems and has been for many years. It's the reason for the housing crash and Dartmouth is spending more money on CPC projects then what it has in tax payers money. Do you need a slap in the face before figuring out what is really happening. Bring the money spenders before the select board for a complete explanation of all debt and expenditures.
I'm not asking, I'm instructing our Dartmouth select board chairman to call for an OPEN selectmen meeting with the CPC members......NOW!
Apparently anonymous has forgotten the new park on Old Fall River Rd which is HUGE compared to the cushman school park.
Also forgotten are the hundreds of acres aquired by DNRT in the north part of town.
Perhaps the tens of thousands of dollars used to redo the overpass on Faunce Corner Rd has eluded his keen eye.
Or the multimillion dollar proposal to move Tucker Rd, allowing residents in the North to have less congestion and smoother flowing traffic.
Maybe he forgets the BOS recommened and placed on the ballot a proposal for a new Library in the north end of town. You didn't get it because too many sat on their asses and did not vote.
The list goes on and on, stop pretending that ND is the stepchild of Dartmouth. Everyone is in this together.
to: September 21, 2010 10:21 AM
As much as I disdain thinking and/or discussing our fractured community, I disdain even more listening to SD people try and justify the massively disproportionate town spending in SD. Complaining about the park in ND? Aren't there 2 parks now in SD? The overpass on Faunce Corner Road? Isn't a huge part of that traffic from out of towners? Don't we refuse to give beach stickers to out of towners to use the beach at Round Hill? Where is the high school located? Didn't we re-open the Cushman school AGAIN? Where is the Police department? How many fire stations in SD? Keep your specious arguments to yourself please.
Perhaps the tens of thousands of dollars used to redo the overpass on Faunce Corner Rd has eluded his keen eye.
Hey bubble head Ma Highway paid for the overpass reconstruction, not the Town.
STUPID IS WHAT STUPID DOES....
Massachusetts Community Preservation Act, a home rule act adopted by Dartmouth town meeting members, must be repealed by town meeting members.
The appointed community preservation committee members are spending tax dollars as they see fit, with no oversight from the select board executive administrator, or town financial manager.
Not so fast; ( DPW ) Dartmouth department of public works is an appointed board. The selectmen can not dictate policy, as it relates to actions taken by the DPW board members, but the selectmen have control over DPW expenditures.
Although the CPC members, along with the DPW members, serve at the pleasure of the select board, the select board can take action to control DPW spending, but the selectmen can not control CPC spending.
CPC funding is approved by the town meeting members. Only at the time of reappointment to the CPC or DPW can the selectmen take action, by not reappointing.
Now please tell me, how stupid is this formula?
Article F: "pay raise money" has been changed to reflect the actual expenditures. Now town meeting can decide whether or not to approve them.
To see if the Town will vote to implement the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the Town and the Dartmouth Town Employees Associations and DPW Laborers Union and fund a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for the non-union employees by appropriating the following FY 2011 sums:
1) $60,448.10 for the Dartmouth Town Employees Association from the tax levy
2) $73,433.85 for the DPW Laborers Union with $34,188.68 of this sum from the tax levy, $17,014.76 from Sewer Enterprise Fund Retained Earnings, $13,219.97 from Water Enterprise Fund Retained Earnings, and $9,020.43 from Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Retained Earnings
3) $23,839.23 for the non-union employees with $19,320.72 of this sum from the tax levy, $1,770.53 from Senior Social Day Care Program Receipts, and $2,747.98 from Waterways Enterprise Fund Retained Earnings
and to authorize the Town Accountant to make the necessary adjustments within Schedule A as voted in Article 10 of the June 1, 2010 Spring Annual Town Meeting; or take any action relative thereto.
Actually, the Select Board has no control over any spending at all. The Town Meeting is the only body that can authorize spending. If the Town Meeting provide a Reserve Fund and they do, the Finance Committee can authorize expenditures from that account. The Select Board have some influence on the proposed budget that the Executive Administrator draws up, but that budget is finalized with the Finance Committee and department heads before being recommended to Town Meeting for adoption. Select Board members must attend Finance Committee meetings to find out what the final budget proposal is going to be.
As I have pointed out before, a sticker is required to park at the regional park in North Dartmouth, but none will be required at the park next to Cushman. I think the Park Commissioners need to either require a sticker at the Cushman park or remove the requirement to have one in North Dartmouth.
Concerning CPC debt, I tried to raise that at the spring Town Meeting but could not get a straight answer. In my opinion, the Town Meeting needs to ask the CPC for an accounting of their current obligations, expenditures and revenues before taking action on any CPC articles. That has been done in the past but is not any longer. You can find the CPC statue at this link The CPC must ask the Town Meeting to expend or set aside for future spending at least 10% of their revenue for each of three purposes, open space, historic resources and community housing (see section 6 of the statute) 5% can be appropriated for operating the CPC. The remainder, 65%, goes to unreserved CPC funds. There is no requirement to spend any amount in a certain year. I think what Dartmouth is missing is a plan for expending CPC funds. Projects are brought forward each year and some get funded. This is nice and there are things that get done that might not otherwise. But what if we had a plan to build senior affordable housing near the COA and Bullard clinic? We need to start putting away money to do that. What about putting money aside for a park and not starting until we had the funds? Why not have a priority list of projects that the community would like done and then save up enough to do it. I would like to see the CPC help finish the basketball complex on Slocum Road. But if we proceed nilly-willy, there will only be enough for small projects.
The DNRT is not a government body. Their holdings are private and not town lands and their accounts are not a responsibility of the town.
Maybe because no one has challenged the CPC or, if they have, they have had little support from Town Meeting.
It is all well and good to be environmentalists, conservationists, and the like, but, let's be realistic: if there is a debt to be paid, why are we not insisting that more money go toward paying it off?
Is it true that we (TM) can abolish the CPC so that no further projects can be funded out of CPC moneies, thus forcing the CPC (n name only, now) to pay off its debt?
We don't have tp be do-gooders all the time, nor at all, for that matter. We should have our tax monies (and the CPC money IS OUR TAX MONEY) going for something that will benefit the town, for example, as Bill mentioned, affordable senior housing (Where are the baby boomers? Wake up! This is your future at stake here, if you want to continue living in Dartmouth. For all intensive purposes, there are more of us out there than any other age group, I believe. Why will no one act as our voice?)
What if we emailed CPC members, demanding an accounting of their finances? Maybe those of us who are concerned about CPC's irresponsible spending should do just that.
What I don't understand is why we can't have a nice beach in North Dartmouth. Why should all the beaches be located in South Dartmouth. Who made those decisions? All those power brokers in South Dartmouth that's who. It's not fair.
Why can't the powers to be make a plan to re-locate rt 195? Who's great idea was it to put that where it is? Rt 6 was fine when I was growing up-who needs 6 lanes anyway? Is anyone listening?
Bill,
The park on Old Fall River Rd is about 1/2 mile from the road with plenty of parking. It is easy to enforce sticker rules with the layout of the park.
How do you intend to enforce a sticker requirement for a park that is accessible with a short walk from Dartmouth St? It isn't feasable.
Bill, thank you for explaining CPC funding and how it functions. As it relates to DNRT not being accountable to our town is another subject for debate. Dartmouth town meeting members have approved many( money) articles to fund DNRT land purchase. This funding comes from the towns general funding account/ taxes. The state also provided funding to DNRT for land purchases. This is also money generated through taxation.
I agree that land obtained through DNRT is land not to be developed for housing that could have end up costing the town monies for additional schools, police, and other town services. I'm looking at this DNRT land grabbing as taxable land, that can not be sold or developed. The land owners are relieved from the taxable properties. DNRT is a none governmental agency that owns land that is not taxable. We have an organization in town ( DNRT ) that raise monies, receives town/state tax funding, receives land gifts, the prior property owners no longer pay tax on this property.
As the result of DNRT land ownership, how much tax money has Dartmouth lost??
If the DNRT is not accountable to our town leaders, why is it that every time the DNRT wants to take ownership of taxable land, they appear before the selectmen and ask for approval for the land taking??
I have a problem with too many deer.
I'm a person who lives in South Dartmouth, and I've become concerned with the large number of deer that feed on my plants and shrubs. My grandchild was bitten by a blood sucking tick, caused a reddish round rash on the leg. A blood test revealed the tick is infected with Lyme disease. My property abuts DNRT property. Prior to DNRT taking over the property ownership, the deer population was kept in check by deer hunters. DNRT has (no hunting signs) posted on it's property. This act has stopped many deer hunters from entering the wooded area, causing an increase in the deer population. I've contacted the state department of wildlife and fisheries and they informed me that nothing can be done. A special permit to kill the animal is not allowed, unless I have crop damage. Yard plants and shrubs are not considered crops. I've contacted DNRT but they explained that hunting is not allowed on their properties. I've tried all types of measures to discourage the deer from entering my property. Bagging human hair, special sprays that do not work. I had the yard fenced but the deer jump over it. Last fall, I activated the spot lights and released our dog hoping to scare the deer, but a large buck deer with huge horns, chased the dog back into the house. Desperate in Dartmouth!!
Deer in SOuth Dartmouth? That's a problem? Here in North Dartmouth I have to worry about coyotes. They chase my cats and there is nothing I can do about it, I can't hunt them or trap them so I have to put up with it. You've got it lucky in South Dartmouth.
Why do people move to suburban/rural areas if they don't want to live with insects and wild animals? They want to move here then do nothing but bitch about how it's not like the city. Maybe you should have thought about these things BEFORE you built another house in prime habitat for God's creatures.
Yes, you can get rid of coyotes. This is how it can be done, but keep in mind that coyote's are smart animals and run in packs. You need to purchase a pellet gun that will shoot a 177 caliber pellet. Second thing to do is attach a scope to the pellet gun. All pellet guns are air discharged and make little noise. This pellet gun will take out any coyote that is shot in the head or take a gut shot and it will run off and die in the woods. The second item is a motion detector. Do not allow the motion detector to set off any outside lights. The motion detector must be set up to activate a light signal inside your house. This will alert you to the outside movement. You want the motion detector to activate the inside light only. Install outside lights away from the motion detector with one red light and one yellow light. Combined together the lights will not disturb the coyote(s) but will illuminate the area so that you can see and shoot the coyote and not your neighbors dog. The outside lights must be activated from inside the house by the use of a one way switch to the outside lighting system. Good luck!! If you so desire, purchase a small calling signal devise from a sporting store that can be activated and project the sound of a domestic cat or distressed small animal, such as a rabbit. This will alert the coyote and it won't be long before the motion detector is activated. JUST ONE THING TO REMEMBER......make sure it's a coyote and not your neighbors dog or cat. Keep all guns away from children. Have the gun inside a locked location, with a trigger lock attached.
Most taxidermist will pay up to 50 dollars for each coyote.
Deer and coyotes? How about the SB? Last night, yet again, I watched Mr. Trimble and Mr. Michaud preach fiscal conservatism and financial reality. Both very ably representing the taxpayer in this economy. I watched the "know it all" Ms. Stone continue to throw the town under the bus with her outrageous moonbat liberal spending philosophy. It seems she spends endless hours preparing to justify spending the town into bankruptcy at the benefit of her constituents in South Dartmouth. I watched Mr. McDonald contribute nothing again. Does he even prepare for these meetings? I honestly can't tell the difference when he is in attendance or not in attendance. Mr. Watson remains confused and verbose. At least he appears somewhat prepared. Having said that, he again contributes nothing and, if anything, lengthens the meetings for no benefit whatsoever.
Bill,
I think that as the draft warrant evolves into a final version, we need to keep the dialogue going. There are some important policy issues that will be decided by how Town Meeting votes.
I also think that the Select Board's attempt to undermine FinCom's role as the advisory board to Town Meeting last night was pretty pathetic. Anyone who has observed the way that FinCom disects and debates each article, then gives an INDPEPENDANT recommendation, would surely agree. This should really be the last time you do this.
The executive branch(SB)should be embracing their leadership role by sponsoring articles. Instead they are just making an attempt to confuse Town Meeting members about the structure of our government by blurring the lines of the seperation of power.
Problem with too many deer.
What you have is several deer that need to be turned into venison stew. Buy a cross bow and learn to shoot an arrow into a dummy deer until you become good enough to arrow a deer through the heart. Erect a cammo tent and waite until a deer is within 15 to twenty yards before shooting. The deer will drop within a few yards and you get all the venison. If you don't know how to dress out a deer, call someone who knows. Hopefully you have a garage to hang this deer and don't get any blood on the cement floor. If you are smart, DON”T TELL ANYONE.
Wow-thanks anonymous for all the advice on coyotes. I am not as hopeless as I was before. I'll need to take some shooting lessons I think as I have never fired a gun before and I'm sure I could not hit a coyote without practice.
Never thought of the taxidermy angle either-if I get good maybe I could make a few extra bucks and help rid North Dartmouth of its coyotes. Then I could head to South Dartmouth and take care of the deer problem. Could be my contribution to bringing the north and south together again!
I voted for Gracie in the last election. However, the comment made above about McDonald not contributing anything is wrong. I've watched the Select Board meeting and he has offered comments and made some valid points in between getting stepped on by the other members.
It appears that McDonald only speaks when he has a point to make or to offer his perspective on an issue and not speak on every single item on the agenda like other members on the board.
So far, he has my respect and I may even help him on his re-election bid, if he decides to run again.
Coyote's are part human.
Saturday night, while traveling along Reed Road, a rather large dog ran out in front of my pick up truck and I ran it over. Do to the narrow road way and lined with large oak trees, I didn't swerve away from the dog. I heard a yellep, as the dog rattled beneath my truck. I slowly pulled over to the road side, retrieved my flash light, and walked over to the animal. I didn't notice a dog tag, but pulled the dead animal to the side of the road. Once at home, I contacted my brotherinlaw and went back to the area, but the dead dog had been moved. My brotherinlaw told me to back into a small lane way, not too far from the dead animal and shut off the truck lights. We waited several minutes before hearing a yelp or the sound of an animal(s). It wasn't too long before we could hear the sounds and movement of brush or leaves but it was some movement in the area of the dead dog. I activated the truck lights and noticed several coyotes surrounding the dead animal in the attempt at moving it further into the woods. My brotherinlaw identified the dogs as coyote's. This time they did not run off, but stood their ground. I started the truck and drove off. Later that night we had contacted several friends and we all gather to make a return to the same location, but the dead animal was gone. Once again we backed into the same woods road and waited for the coyotes to return. The only sound we heard was the sound of howling. It was the sound of coyotes crying in the woods. The dead dog must have been a coyote and not a dog. According to my brotherinlaw, the coyote's would have eaten a dog, but not one of their own.
Shooting is not a favorite of most people, so allow me to encourage you to disregard my advise. It is the most extreme action, but very successful. In Massachusetts, the laws are too strict and costly for the recreational shooter and ammunition is just about impossible to purchase without a certified state of Massachusetts license that will cost the average person 200 dollars.
It was not my intention to make or cause discomfort as it relates to shooting a coyote or helping North/South Dartmouth come together. My intention was to be of help.
Coyote population is increasing and not too long from now the town will be looking into ways of eliminating or reducing the population. The best method is steel traps, but Massachusetts passed the cruelty traps illegal. Coyote's have no predator except man/woman. These fur animals will continue to bring litters of pups for time and eternity....forever. One female coyote will deliver 15 new pups each year and the food supply is becoming less and less. The wild cotton tailed rabbit is just about extinct and cats are their favorite replacement. Out door dogs “large or small” are on the menu but most dog owners are keeping their animals indoor. Unlike the domesticated house dog, coyote's run in packs of ten or twelve. They are controlled by the alpha male, who is the leader of the pack. The younger coyote chase a small deer until it becomes so tired that it is unable to continue the run, it's at this time when the larger males join in the run and kill it's pray. After the large dominate coyote has had it's fill the smaller coyote's can eat the left overs. In South Dartmouth the coyote have plenty of deer to feed off. At night, when you can hear the hollowing sounds of the coyote, just give thought to the deer and it's attempt to escape a dreadful death by coyote's.
Fin com, select board, and town meeting members are all VOLUNTEERS who dedicate their time and energy to the town. They recommend or vote on items that will, in their opinion, benefit our town and their own interests. These are opinions! It would be nice if they all did their homework before hand, but that is not always the case. Still, this is our form of government at the present time. I think we have outgrown the town meeting and perhaps it will take another long ten years before Dartmouth is ready to give up town meeting and have a business manager or mayor.
The word out on the street is that the Dartmouth police union is supporting Joe Michaud for state rep.
That's a good one! If Joe Michaud gets voted state rep. he won't be able to bother the Dartmouth police or town employees anymore. hahaha
No wonder they are supporting Joe!
A government of and by the people doesn't mean a government of and by the government employees. Oh wait, if Obama has his way, we'll all be government employees.
Oh wait, if Obama has his way, we'll all be government employees.
Well, if Bush and his boys (now virtually invisible) had their way we would have shipped all our jobs overseas with companies getting tax credits for doing so. Not to worry, our social security retirement funds would have been privatized into the stock market where they would have lost enough money to bankrupt the system. Short term memory issue?
I read an interesting book titled “Term Limits.”
Although the book was written several years ago, the writer must have had insight into the future, as it relates to our countries deficit spending.
Allow me to be on the record as advocating non-violence. This book allows the reader some wiggle room, as to Washington politicians that have become dishonest, corrupt, and violators of Americas constitutional rights. Not all Washington politicians are self serving. The book, suggest that killing is a means of correcting a uncontrollable political system that is no longer serving “We The People.”
I accept the conclusion given by the author. Two groups of Americans that have the same patriotic understnading are the elite military personnel, and our police officers. One side has witnessed our countries enemies in a far away land, and the other has witnessed our countries enemy while servicing within. The conclusion being that the enemy is us. “We the People” are destroying our country from within, by voting for the same people who represent our Government or should I say themselves.
Post a Comment