[Town Meeting] Fwd: TMM Information on Article 42

Rich Carreiro rlcarr at rlcarr.com
Wed May 5 13:20:21 EDT 2010


FYI...

--
Rich Carreiro rlcarr at rlcarr.com


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 12:46:54 EDT
From: AdvanEng at aol.com
To: townmeeting-owner at arlingtonlist.org
Subject: Fwd: TMM Information on Article 42

Dear List Owner:
As a novice to Town Meeting issues and procedures, would you please
consider allowing the forwarding to town meeting members of the attached
information email on Article 42? Please call me if you have any questions. Thanks!


Dear Arlington Town Meeting Members:

As the proponent of Article 42, which requests that the Town consider
modifying the Town Bylaws, and specifically Title IV, Article 1 "Use of Areas
Under Control of the Park Department", to require that baseball games held on
lighted baseball fields conclude in sufficient time so that the lights may
be turned off and the fields and parking lots may be vacated before 10PM,
I regret that business conflicts will prevent me from attending Town
Meeting (I am self-employed) until after May 12th, and therefore I respectfully
request the postponement of that article until that time.

As I am not familiar with parliamentary procedure or with the rules of
Arlington Town Meeting, (God bless you all for having the patience to learn
this), I am not even certain whether the "No Action" vote of the Board of
Selectmen will even allow the article to be heard.

So, in the event that postponement is not feasible or possible, in the
presence of some misinformation that you may have been given, I wish to
provide you with the following major points in support of my article:

* The Board of Selectmen has recommended "No Action" on Article 42, and
justifiably so, because the Board of Selectmen has urged the Recreation
Commission and abutters such as myself to work out the details of a field
permitting system that works for all parties.
* I have attended one Recreation Commission meeting this spring, and I
have provided written input to other meetings. I have discussed some of the
neighborhood issues with members of the baseball groups in open public
forums in prior years and, in general, I find the baseball user groups to be
sensitive to the interests of the abutters and to be willing to work with us.
* I have attempted to make constructive comments and suggestions on the
2010 Field User Policy through the established public process.
* The final Field User Policy has largely ignored those comments and
suggestions, as it appears that the Recreation Commission perceives
"restrictions" to be an intrusion on its charter.
* As I have already stated, I find that most field users are more than
willing to work with the abutters but, as you all know, "it only takes
one"......as in there only has to be one group that flaunts the regulations and
makes life miserable for the abutters, and the policy that has been adopted
by the Recreation Commission currently gives "that group" FOUR STRIKES"
before they lose any significant field time.

Therefore, since the Recreation Commission has chosen to avoid putting in
place a policy that would give them the ability to control any one wayward
group (the current policy does not eliminate inappropriate behavior until
after four strikes), I respectfully request that the Town Meeting Members
consider doing so. DON'T LET ARLINGTON BECOME THE ONLY TOWN WHERE THERE ARE
FOUR STRIKES IN BASEBALL.

We're not far off in agreement, but the Recreation Commission has refused
to take that one final step that would achieve enforceability.

And, let me address the possibility that someone may say, "you shouldn't
have bought a house across from a sports center", I have owned my property
since before any lights were installed at these fields and, as the
recreational use intensity has grown, all I ask is that enforceable controls be put
on the use of these facilities which accommodate both the field users and
the abutters.

The text below is taken verbatim from an email that I sent to Leslie
Mayer, the Recreation Commission, and the Selectmen on April 28th. I have
included the entire text in the attached pdf should you wish to read further.

Again, thank you for your time as Town Meeting Members, and I appreciate
your consideration.

Respectfully,
Joel Higginson
433 Summer Street


<<<April 28, 2010

Ms. Mayer,
The final form of the Field Policy betrays your words. We, as abutters,
look for little signs of cooperation. In your own words, "the users
repeatedly stated their willingness to comply with the policy and work with the
neighbors". We look forward to that! One of my major concerns (expressed
in my initial comments on the policy) was that, under the policy you have
adopted, there are four levels of action before an offender loses privileges
(note that the loss is only at that lighted field--you could still move
them to another field) for the remainder of the season. If, in fact, the
field users are willing to help make the system work, then demonstrate that to
us by adopting a policy that has some enforceability to it and some pain
associated with the discipline! Under the policy you have adopted, it could
take virtually an entire season before the abutters saw any "relief" from
any one group that happened to not care about the rules. That, to me, does
not look like a willingness to cooperate, Ms. Mayer. I attended meetings
last year with "the baseball people", and I found them easy to talk to and
understanding of the situation, so I do think that everybody is willing to
work towards the common goal, but I think that, for some reason, your
commission has tended to dig in its heels when it comes to discussions with those
of us who abut the recreation facilities on Summer Street. Coming out
with a policy with this many steps in it doesn't make that situation any
better.

You've changed the rules for baseball field user groups in Arlington--they
now have four strikes before they're out!

Regards,
Joel Higginson
433 Summer Street
Arlington, MA 02474
_advaneng at aol.com_ (mailto:advaneng at aol.com) >>>




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2682419 bytes
Desc:
Url : <http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20100505/077c81f2/attachment.pdf>


More information about the townmeeting mailing list