Your account does not include highlighter on images.
Searches Highlighted on Image
| October 20, 2006 Barnstable Patriot |  |
|
©
Publisher. All rights reserved. Upgrade to access Premium Tools
PAGE 7 (7 of 38 available) PREVIOUS NEXT Jumbo Image Save To Scrapbook Set Notifiers PDF JPG
October 20, 2006 |
|
|
Website © 2025. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Request Content Removal | About / FAQ | Get Acrobat Reader 
|
Advocate rankles
councilors over sense of
'intimidation'
pgauvin@barnstablepatriot.com
E
xcessive buzz about affordable hous-
ing and homeless people is fillingthe
average citizen's ears like wax and
getting about the same result: The message
is fading.
Maybe that's why a frustrated Rick Pres-
brey, CEO of the Housing Assistance Corp.,
wrote a "My View" piece in the local daily
last week faulting a new town ordinance
aimed at gang rentals and why Alan Burt,
self-styled spokesman for the homeless,
crossed the line in the sand and ran smack
into the wrath of town councilors.
Both men are paid to advocate for af-
fordable and homeless housing and can be
expected to single-mindedly promote their
cause. Part of that duty requires them to
display less enthusiasm for the desires of
the larger self-supporting constituency that
town councilors must also consider in their
deliberations.
Presbrey criticizes the new rule requiring
landlords to register with the town's health
board and to furnish certain tenant informa-
tion. The goal is to limit the tenant count per
unit and thus the noise generated by over-
crowded conditions and the number of cars
parked on lawns that change neighborhood
character for the worse.
Burt, a probation officer, receives payment
for his efforts from the Salvation Army and
the Council of Churches. They say he does
his job well in the Overnights of Hospitality
program that provides shelter for the home-
less.
So something is being done about the
homeless in Barnstable and those respon-
sible for it surely are heaven-bound.
The problem for the zealous Burt evident-
ly, is that he feels the town must do more,
a typical urge among stymied advocates
for the downtrodden. Unfortunately, that
translated two weeks ago into an appear-
ance before the town council in which Burt
threatened to go to the state's Human
Rights Commission to complain about the
council if it didn't vote for the proposed Af-
fordable Housing Overlay District (AHOD).
He also stated that the town council would
bring shame on itself if it didn't pass the
measure. (AHOD is on the back burner for
the moment).
Councilor Rick Barry responded that he
wasn't ashamed of his no vote on the AHOD
proposal as it is currently presented; Coun-
cilor Jim Crocker said Burt took "a setback to-
day as an advocate;" Councilor James Munafo
thought it was "a little low" to use that type
of manipulation with the council and council
president Hank Farnham said he didn't appre-
ciate the intimidation "because you don't like
me stickingup for my neighborhood."
The dialogue unveiled what is basically a
clash of agendas, a head-on collision over
the double-barreled issue of affordable
housing and homelessness vs. zoning and
community stability, a conflict that could
be avoided by passing an ordinance against
hypocrisy.
Everybody knows that a combination of
greed, represented by overvalued properties,
and low wages on the bottom rung are at
the root of housing affordability and other
problems including crime, yet few advocates
tackle the issue from that end because the
"haves" would label it radical socialism. Why
not pay "house" wages to workers, pay less
to CEOs and to investors who make millions
off their millions without lifting a finger?
Imagine, too, if the Bush Administration
had gone to war against homelessness and
lack of affordable housing instead of Iraq?
What is he spending there a day -$2 billion?
Imagine if Home Depot's CEO took a $50
million cut from his $123 million compensa-
tion pad .age to build homeless shelters?
Why not fault them?
A fellow at the gym confidently declared
last week that "more density" is the an-
swer to affordable housing on the Cape.
Barnstable residents don't want the town
to become the next Hartford , Springfield
or Worcester whose residents come to Cape
Cod, their oasis in the desert of concentrat-
ed humanity, to escape -density.
Cluttered housing is not the Cape's desti-
ny. Nature didn't design it to hold high-rises
or a glut of row houses or an overabundance
of septic systems. Even trees have difficulty
rooting in the shallow soil.
Advocates fail to notice that Barnstable
residents by and large are generous, as the
response to numerous fund-raisers will at-
test. Nearly $15,000 was raised recently for
two accident victims from Nepal, to name
one event.
Trying to push that generosity to excess
is an unreasonable approach to people who
give liberally and ask only that their neigh-
borhoods be spared from excess citification.
Zoning protects. Protect zoning.
4
By Michael Daley
columnist@barnstablepatnot.com
Ou r
newest local property tax vehicle is called the
Community Preservation Act or CPAfor short. This
is the tax that we agreed to pay when we converted
the former limited term and use land bank tax into the
more permanent and diverse CPA tax.
The town gets special revenue for a special use under this
tax. The state sends additional funds from the sales tax to
each participatin g town. The towns must use at least ten
percent for open space/recreation , historic preservation
and affordable housing. The other seventy percent can be
used for any of the three purposes.
With this new tax comes a
special fund and an oversight
committee. The committee is
charged with making a spend-
ing plan for these ever flowing
public funds. The committee
brings their suggestions for
projects and their recom-
mended level of spending to
our town council. It is our
town council that makes the final vote to authorize the
projects.
Recently on Cape Cod there has been an interest in
using these funds for the preservation of historic church
properties. The debate has amplified in recent days. The
Town of Dennis recently held a good debate on the sub-
ject at their Town Meeting. The debate has now moved
to Barnstable.
The local leadership is beginning to discuss the need for
a policy. Our leaders need to decide if we want to spend
tax dollars on non-public religious properties. The town
manager has indicated his desire for public buildings being
prioritized as targets for these tax dollars.
The town committee that recommends on the use of
these funds has recently brought fort h a project that asks
the town council to approve $20 ,000 for spending on a
church in the Village of Barnstable. The committee leader
has suggested they rely on the town'slegal department to
guide his committee.
The town councilor from Barnstable Village has indicated
the town needs to consider the issue of church and state.
In the same breath she has already made a strong case for
spending our taxes on the church property.
Our state has a history of dealing with this matter. The
debate of church and state is set forth not in our general
laws but within our constitution. In 1854 Article 18 was
added to our constitution. It is commonly referred to as
the "Anti-AidAmendment".The "Know-Nothin g"Party was
at this state 's political helm during that time. This group
was particularly opposed to Irish-Catholics. The anti-aid
amendment was originally intended to keep public funds
from finding their way into catholic schools.
The anti-aid amendment has been amended twice. Over
the years articles 46 and 103 have modified this section
of our constitution. Both amendments did not strike
this religiously bigoted language. The amendments have
continued the principal of the "Know-Nothings " and they
actually expanded the original words. Thus, we still have
a constitutional prohibition that may trump our town's
leaders pending debate.
CONTINUED ON PAGE A:8
Know-nothings may know
more than we think
LETTERS
High court did not affirm
1929 zoning
As a practicing lawyer who has five
cases pending before state and federal
appeals courts, I found last week's
article in the Patriot regarding the
Supreme Court's denial of certiorari
in the Gifford matter to be wholly er-
roneous in stating that the Supreme
Court of the United States has found
that zoning in Barnstable began in
1929.Neither the Supreme Court of the
United Statesnorthe Supreme Judicial
Court ofMassachusettshave made any
decision regardingthe effective date of
zoning in Barnstable. In fact, the only
appeals court which has issued any
decision on the issue was the Massa-
chusetts Court of Appeals and it did so
in an unpublished opinion that is only
binding upon the parties to the case.
Thus,thearticleissimplyincorrect and
a correction should be issued.
Inparticular,inJune 1999,the Superi-
or Court issued adecision that affirmed
an enforcement order of the Building
Commissioner againstthe operators of
theWakebyRoad SandPit. (Barnstable
Superior Court Civ.Action 98-87 (June
25, 1999).That decisionspecifically held
that Town of Barnstable's first lawful
zoning bylawwasenacted in 1956. (See
Page 7 of the decision).
In October 2002, the Massachusetts
Court of Appeals reversed that Supe-
rior Court decision to the extent that
it concluded that the 1929 bylaw was
invalid. (Court of Appeals Docket No.
00-P-701, at p. 6). This decision wasis-
sued pursuant to Appeals Court Rule
1:28 for decisions that do not present
substantial questions of law. Thus,
the text of this decision is not found
in any published volume of Massachu-
setts Appeals Court decisions and the
holding (that zoning started in 1929 in
Barnstable) is only binding upon the
actual parties to the case.
Three years later in 2005, the Town
sought to enforce the decision. The
Defendants in the prior action then
filed an exceptionally late request for
"further appellate review" with the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
which request was summarily denied
in early 2005. As the Supreme Judicial
Court explained in the published opin-
ion in Ford v. Flaherty, 364 Mass. 382,
387-388 (1973), adenialoffurther appel-
late review is not an affirmation of the
Appeals Court'sdecision or reasoning.
Rather,it indicates onlythat the Court
did not grant further review.
In response , the Defendants filed
a petition for writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court
requesting the court review the 2002
decision and arguing for the first time
that the town's actions raised federal
constitutional concernsasthe Supreme
Court does not review state law mat-
ters unless the state law conflictswith
the federal constitution or federal law.
As the article reports, the request for
review under the writ of certiorari was
denied.
As the Supreme Court has stated,
a denial of a writ of certiorari means
only that there were not four members
of the Court who felt that the decision
of the lower court was sufficiently
important to warrant a space on the
docket of the highest court of the land.
Rosenberg v. UnitedStates ,346U.S.273,
at n. 4 (1953). Thus, the denial of the
writ of certiorari says nothing about
the merits of when zoning began in
Barnstable,but rather simplysaysthat
the decision beingappealed was really
not that important.
In summary,the article inthe Patriot
stating that the Supreme Court ruled
on the date when zoning began in
Barnstable is simply wrong. The only
decision on this issue is unpublished
and binding on solely the parties to
the case.
While the Town's legal department
is to be commended for its success in
having the belated writ of certiorari
denied, the legal department should
not be commended for not having to
"farm" this matter out to achieve the
result. The Town has three well-paid
and capable in-house counsel. It also
has Ruth Weil, an outstanding legal
mind, in its growth management de-
partment.
If any criticism should be made of
the legal department , it should be
directed at the failure to clearly in-
form the Patriot and others that the
Supreme Court made no decision with
regard to the effective date of zoning
in Barnstable.
Paul Revere, III
Cummaquid
The author took no part inany of the matters
discussed in this letter, but does represent a party
in oroceedinas related to the Wakebv Road oarcel.
A vote for Doherty
It is rare that I endorse any poli-
tician. The main reason for this is
that I am rarely sure enough about
an elected official to feel confident
enough to recommend the votes of
others.
I do want to briefly share my views
on the upcoming county commis-
sioner seat. Tom Bernardo from the
Assembly of Delegates is running
against the incumbent county com-
missioner, Bill Doherty.
I do not know Tom Bernardo very
well at all, and I don't have anything
negative to say about him at all. I
presume and it appears that he has
been doing an excellentjob as aleader
of the Assembly of Delegates.
I can say that I have had numer-
ous opportunities to talk with Bill
Doherty, that I have seen him and
heard him in a number of important
human services meetings. I can say
that I do know Bill Doherty well, and
I will say that I plan to vote for Bill.
In my opinion, Bill is a very honor-
able man who is very involved with a
number of community issues. I can
tell you that I am
very proud of him,that his leadership
is something that we should all be
very proud of.
The county commissioner position
is very important. I think we have a
wonderful team of commissioners
right now. As the old saying goes,
"Don't fix somethingthat ain't broke."
I will vote for Bill and I recommend
that you do, too.
Alan Burt
Centerville
A proud vote for White
A significant majority of the nation's
voters have lost respect for the cur-
rent administration and the sitting
congress. Nearly all the incumbents
are viewed as having been bought
by big donors who expect payback.
Even officeholders whose votes we
often approve knuckle under to party
pressures or special interests on is-
suesthat would crimptheir campaign
coffers.
There are very few in the mould
of Paul Wellstone or James Jeffords.
Reliable voices for socialjustice being
so rare, we in the 10th Massachusetts
District are fortunate to have the op-
tion of votingfor anIndependent con-
gressman. No corrupting big donors
willbe trying to purchase his political
agenda. They would strike out if they
tried. Wouldn't it be refreshing to
have an advocate for legislation that
benefits all of society.
Peter White has been a lifelong
voice for moral, ethical government
at all levels. If his voice was heard
in the halls of Congress, it would
command widespread attention. We
could be proud of our vote if we used
our franchise to support a candidate
who is not compromised by politics
as usual. This is a rare opportunity
to signal our wish to see idealism
triumph over politics as usual.
Richard C. Bartlett
Cotuit
What's up with Dominion?
I have been getting a lot of calls
from constituents asking me what
they should do about the Dominion
Power Supply offer we all recently
received in the mail. This is what I
have found out.
You are pretty much guaranteed to
save 35 percent of your power supply
costs for November and December
of 2006. It would have saved me
$33.02 on 724 kilowatt hours (kWh)
for the months of November and
December last year. I'm assuming
the same level of usage this year.
[$93.54 - $60.52 = $33.02]
After December you are totally
at the whim of market forces. That
means Dominion will charge you
the market rate for electricity each
month in 2007. That could be good
and it could be bad. Youwillnot know
if it is bad until afteryou receive your
bill for the month and then it will be
too late to complain.
It's a gamble on 2007. Nobody
really knows what will happen to
the price of fossil fuel , especially
natural gas, which generates about
42 percent of our electricity in New
England.
If you sign up with Dominion you
should check the price for a kWh on
every monthly bill and perhaps pay
attention to the commodities prices
for natural gas in New York City.
Saving energyisalways less expen-
sive than consuming it. We should
CONTINUED ON PAGE A:8
I LAMINATE nHARDWOOD I
MAMNG7W$099 MAPLE 2V4" 0AK W
COORDINATES A sq. ft. from
25Year Warranty Material Only
^
0% *%
Q
MMrV/NG7CW $099 Y Jw5J
REVOLUTIONS W sq.ft. W Sq. lt.
Material Only Material Only while supplies last
I STOREWIDE I I CARPET I
"DALTILE" starting at
on selected $ *m 99
ceramic and T | sq. ft.
porcelain tlleS including "premium" pad
^*2^--^^^2^^^^^TPTi^^^/f iz^. ~-
I ^
mw\ JiiZLl^^l l±j_ M-EllLl ^lLl([vm))
T»
n«»ni
»*twmt