Gary Lopez Shutting Down?

Gary Lopez is once again claiming that he will shut down his blog. I wonder how long it will last this time. The last time he "shut down" his blog, it lasted two days (if even that long)... and I usually take more than two days between my posts...


For those who need proof, I have a picture of his comment from tonight below:

Secession?

Gary Lopez (of COG fame) and I don't always have to disagree. Oftentimes, he brings forth ideas that we wouldn't normally consider. While we do rarely agree, he definitely starts me thinking...

Case in point - right now Mr. Lopez is in "secession" mode. Basically, his argument is that the Cape is getting run over by the Mass. legislature and high energy prices. He believes that we are not receiving our fair share of state funds and that we could have better energy prices and infrastructure if we had a Cape-wide municipality utility handle electricity production and distribution.

His solution - have the Cape secede from the State of Massachusetts and keep all the same laws as Massachusetts, but we get to keep all the tax/lottery funds that we generate.

I don't agree with the government-owned utility. I think that any time you hand the government more power, there is always problems - union, quality, power, etc. So, I will ignore that for the purposes of this post.

Positives
It is an interesting concept. It would certainly help alleviate the unjust school funding formula that Mass employs where the Cape gets little assistance because our land simply has a high assessment. By keeping income tax, sales tax, property tax and lottery revenues on Cape, we should have more than enough to do everything Massachusetts does for us. We might even get that property tax relief Deval promised us.

It is no secret that the Cape pays out a lot more in tax & lotto revenue than we receive. I'm not sure what the amount is, but I think that we could accomplish what MA provides - social services (health, welfare, DSS, etc), lotto, roads/transportation, judicial system, government, school funding, environmental protection, state police, regulation, etc... We could even remove some of those services from state funds - ie have towns/districts pay their own costs OR go the other way, remove some administration and have one Cape-wide school district. We would have options.

As a whole, this could have some merit.

Negatives
What then are the negatives? I see a few main negatives with such a plan:

US Government Support?
I find it impossible that the US Government would acknowledge our statehood. There is no real reason for them to accept our decision. Also, the "state" we would be creating would be extremely small - not big enough on its own for a single Congressional district (though we would get one US Rep). There is no great outcry or mega-injustice that we could use to drum up national support, and the government would view acknowledging our statehood as a bad precedent to set. If they acknowledged us, they would be forced to do the same for any other town/county who did not like their level of state funding. That decision would allow towns/counties to regularly blackmail their states for more money. We would need a reason more substantial than lack of funding.

Risk of Alienating Rest of State
If we were to try to form a new state, we would be in a LOT of trouble with the rest of the state if we lost. If you think we don't get any state money NOW, just wait until an angry public cuts us off. If we were forced to crawl back to Massachusetts, we would be LUCKY to get ANY state funds. Unless US recognition was a SURE thing, this risk would much too risky.

Complications
Massachusetts owns a good amount of land on the Cape. Would they still own it after we left? I could see that becoming a mess. What about Otis?

Would every town on the Cape join? I would think that they would HAVE to for this to work. What about the Islands?

I'm sure that there are more...

Lack of Infrastructure
There is no infrastructure here. We don't have a REAL city that could serve as the capital city. Hyannis is the closest thing, but it would be the most pathetic capital in the U.S.

We have no TV stations and only the Cape Cod Times and only small local newspapers. We would be a slave to MA for communication infrastructure.

Because we are a hospitality-based area, we have very little industry and (non-hospitality based) commerce. Things like asphalt would have to be imported from Mass. I'm sure that they would not be happy to be the our industrial holding ground.

Can't Handle Things Now
To be perfectly honest, we have a hard enough time as it is right now getting things accomplished here on the Cape. The Barnstable County government has more than its share of problems. Giving them, or a similar body, the responsibility of running the "state" could prove disastrous, though the additional tax revenues could be enough to overcome this issue.

Conclusions
Even with all the negatives I found, I still think that the idea does have some (marginal) merit. At the very least, we need to keep our options open. Right now, it's not that great an idea, but should we get a real reason and then it might be worthwhile to try.

For now, we need to put REAL pressure on our elected officials to make our state funding more equitable. I know that I'm tired of paying for Boston schools and tired of Massachusetts rules requiring that we spend $10,000 per child in public schools. Officials will respond, but only if we stand up loud and strong.


What do you think?

Fraud?

Consider this excerpt from another well-known blog about Barnstable (the COG blog):

"Because Milne’s name appeared in Precinct 3 as a candidate for both Town Council and Charter Commissioner, 1,820 voters in all 13 precincts had their votes cast aside by the Town Clerk/Town Manager.

In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions fraud may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar, because Milne's name was on the ballot, but he was conditionally permitted to sit in the position to which he was elected, ergo voters were defrauded.

Milne ran unopposed for Town Council, so the Clerk’s choice to accept his nomination papers for charter commission was a fraud on the voters."

General Issues With The Statement
This statement is wrong on a number of accounts, starting with the fact that Milne is NOT the Councilor from Precinct 3 (that is Jim Munafo). Councilor Milne represents the people of the 13th Precinct.

For some unknown reason, Gary Lopez (author of COG) has a problem with the Town Clerk. He has tried numerous times to attack her on her handling of the Open Meeting of the Voters petition. He even continued when some of his closest allies were posting on his site in defense of the Clerk. It seems like he is looking for things to blame the Town Clerk for.

Closer Look at Accusations of Fraud
Let's look at the meat of his accusations - he claims two things. One, the voters were defrauded because their votes (for Milne as Charter Commissioner) were not counted. Two, the voters were defrauded because Milne's name was on the ballot.

One: Were the voters of Barnstable defrauded because their votes for Milne were not counted (ie Milne does not serve on the Charter Commission)?
The question here is who did the defrauding? Greg Milne knew the town's official interpretation of the charter. He knew that, according to this opinion, one person cannot hold ANY two elected town-wide offices at the same time. He was explicitly told that that was the town's official position - for Charter Commission as well. If Councilor Milne had had a problem with that policy at that time, then that was the time to start challenging the policy. He chose not to.
Greg Milne pulled papers for Charter Commission knowing full well that what is happening now would probably happen. Yet, he did not care.

Two: Were the voters defrauded because Milne's name was on the ballot for Charter Commissioner?
Milne did an excellent job of being a politician before the election. When asked which position (Town Councilor or Charter Commissioner) he would take, should he win both positions, Milne refused to answer. He never made it clear which position he wanted more than the other.

Now, as far as I know, while the Town Charter prohibits people to one elected town-wide position (including Councilor), it does not limit them to one place on the ballot. The Town Clerk had no reason to take him off the ballot. So, Milne's name was going to be on there for both positions.

However, knowing he was unopposed for Council, he could/should have told people IF Charter Commissioner was what he really wanted. After the fact, his actions have made it clear that he wanted to be a Councilor first. Knowing THAT he wanted to be a Councilor and the fact that he was unopposed in that election, he should have withdrawn his name for Charter Commissioner. Instead, he chose to sue the town.

People in other parts of town are unlikely to know what is happening is other precincts' Council elections. Many people who voted for Milne may not have known he was running for two positions. If they did, they did not know which one he really wanted, so Milne supporters went the "safe" route and voted for him.

The fact is that even though Milne was unopposed for his Council seat, it was still POSSIBLE that a write-in candidate could swoop in and win the election. If that had happened with Milne having been denied the opportunity to run for Charter Commissioner, there would be an outcry occurring now that might actually have some merit, unlike what is going on now.

The closest analogy is the Senator who runs for President in his district's Senatorial election cycle. Fearful of not getting the nomination for President, the Senator pulls papers for both spots in the primary and runs for both. If he gets the nomination for President, he pulls out of the Senate race (because he can't be both Senator & President). If he misses the nomination, he falls back onto the Senate seat.

For Greg Milne, apparently Charter Commissioner was his "fall-back" position. Now that he got his main job, he is greedy and wants both. This would be like a Presidential candidate running for both Senate & President, winning both and insisting he can do both because he "got the votes".

The only people who have been defrauded are the people. They voted for him in both slots because they wanted to ensure he was in any office come November. The only person who defrauded the people is Gregory Milne - by placing his name on the ballot twice.

To make it simple, I do not think that the voters were the victims of fraud. However, if they were, it was fraud in Milne's refusal to talk to the people about his preferences...

Which brings us to the Open Meeting of the Voters... They think that they can force the Councilors to explain to them in detail exactly WHY they voted a specific way (when their own guy refused to say what office he wanted). These Councilors have routinely discussed their thought processes. They often speak at Council discussion. They probably would answer the phone if you had the guts to use it. But, for COGgers, that is not good enough. Let me just say this - If the Councilors are somehow forced to go to the meeting or forced to talk, they will be the only people in all of this that should speak to the ACLU.

ACLU
Enough with the ACLU... I love how the COGgers complain about the high taxes in the town and then go around looking for & making cases suing the town. Maybe if you weren't encouraging and backing people suing the town, they wouldn't need so many lawyers on staff. Enough with the frivolous lawsuits.

Oh, and by the way, COGgers, if you didn't notice, I read the nice letter the ACLU sent you... They told you, in so many words, that they want no part of this matter.

Replace Church with Liquor Store?

On Rt. 28 in Centerville, there are discussions of replacing a church with a mega-liquor store... Maybe that is exaggerating a little bit, as the debate centers around replacing the decrepit Knights of Columbus building (right near CVS) with a brand new 9600 sq. ft. Blanchard's Liquors. Blanchard's Liquors currently has a store just a couple miles down Rt. 28 behind the Cape Cod Mall, but are looking for a more stable and permanent location.

On the face, this appears to be a good idea, as the Knights of Columbus property is awful. Both the building and land are unkempt and falling apart. The property is a real waste and basically an empty lot/abandoned building. Having a nice, new building constructed here would be pleasant. Yet, there are more issues that go into the discussion.



The Knights of Columbus location is just outside the 3rd Precinct. As a resident of the 3rd, I frequent the nearby CVS and surrounding roads. I know the area very well. The construction of this building will have an impact on my travel.



However, there are three questions that should be considered when discussing this building. One, do we need another liquor store in the area, and should this opinion have an impact on construction. Two, what impact on traffic in the already poorly regulated area will the construction have. Three, should the nearby location of the Barnstable Middle School have an impact?



Please click on the picture at the bottom of this post to see a picture of the area this building would go...

ONE: Do We Need Another Liquor Store in the Area?
The first real question is should government be able to mandate whether a kind of business can be built... In general, I oppose government placing itself in matters of building/housing construction and renovation/additions. However, in this case, because the town has the right to limit liquor permits, there should be discussion on whether or not we should give the permitting.

If you look at the map at the bottom of the page, (click on it to expand) you will see that there are two liquor stores (Barnstable Bottle Shoppe & Cape Cod Package Store) within a mile of the proposed Blanchard's. If you were to look further to the right on that map towards Downtown Hyannis, you would see even more liquor/package stores. Clearly, there already is a significant amount of competition for Blanchard's in this area.

My main concern with this competition, is to ensure that we are not left with an empty undesirable 9600 sq ft building on Rt. 28. With the amount of competition already in the area, it would not be surprising to see either Blanchard's go out of business or one or both of the smaller stores in the area to fold. If Blanchard's were to be forced to close in 5 years, what will happen to the building?

I think should be some discussion on how feasible Blanchard's thinks this location is, how the other stores think this will affect their business, and is it REALLY necessary to have a third licensed and permitted liquor store in this very small area.


TWO: Traffic Impact
The Strawberry Hill Road/Rt. 28 Intersection is already a traffic headache. There is a "smart" light at the intersection, but it is poorly programmed and can cause cars to wait for minutes on Strawberry Hill Road when there is no traffic (I mean no cars at all) on Rt. 28. Also, there is considerable left-turn traffic in all 4 lanes, but no turn signals - just solid lights.

Adding the additional traffic from a new liquor store will only complicate matters at this busy and dangerous intersection.

However, perhaps we could use the addition of this store to put in new smarter (better programmed) lights with turn signals and/or a median strip from the beginning of store property right until the light. The newer lights have not been discussed, but a median strip has. A median strip would eliminate the possibility of drivers trying to cut from one side of Rt. 28 to the other to get to Blanchard's and CVS. Yet, this solution causes the problem of drivers who want to go back towards the Mall on 28 taking matters into their own hands with u-turns at the intersection or going down to the 7-11 to turn around in their lot, etc... So even a median strip has its issues.

However, the issue seems moot because developer is refusing the cost. We could try to force the issue, but who knows what could happen. The developer is instead proposing curb cuts, like the Olive Garden and the Rt. 28 entrance to Christmas Tree Shops, that are designed to funnel traffic forcing only right-hand turns in and out of the property and deterring left-hand turns in and out. At the Olive Garden which is located AT a very busy 5-lane wide intersection, this works, partially because of their rear entrance. However, at the Christmas Tree Shops and other location with a similar curb cut and less traffic (Rt. 132 McDonald's) these curb cuts DO NOT work, even though they have alternate entrances. I know that I am not the only person to ignore similar curb cuts & "No left turn" signs so that I can still take lefts.

Even if this were to work, we still have the same issues of a median strip and people wanting to head back towards the Mall. They are not going to take a right at the light and go backroads to 132. They are not going to take a left at the light to go to West Main and head back to Hyannis that way. They're going to be pulling U-turns and turning around the first place they can. We haven't even addressed the issues of people coming from Centerville (heading towards Hyannis) on Rt. 28 who want to go to Blanchard's. They are either going to cut across traffic and go around the curb cut to get in (most likely) or they're going to go to the first place they can after the store to turn around - so the apartment complexes, roads, and the middle school in the area are going to be filled with people turning around, etc. (plausible)... Not a pretty idea...

Obviously, there are some serious traffic issues here that haven't been addressed, and I don't know if they can be solved. This is a big issue.


THREE: Stop This For "The Children"?

Enough already. I am tired or every little thing that we do in America is justified as being "for the children". Do we need to protect them? Yes. Should we ignore them simply because they cannot vote? No. Are they a priority in many people's lives? Yes. Should they be brought up to justify every decision we make? NO!

Some opposition to this store is being made because of its proximity to the Barnstable Middle School and (to a lesser extent) Barnstable High. The School Committee voted unanimously against a liquor store so close to the schools, even thought they have no legitimate say in the matter. This does bring up the question of would the liquor store this close to those schools be an issue with "the children".

First, if you take a look at the map again, note the location and distance from the entrance to the Middle School to the proposed Blanchard's site and compare it with the distance from the HIGH SCHOOL entrance and Barnstable Bottle Shoppe. From my calculations, the High School is already closer to another liquor store. The Cape Cod Package Store is not much further from the High School than Blanchard's would be. Yes, there's another liquor store in the area, but they already have two. If you're worried about the stores not IDing kids, the stores should already being regularly checked by the police (undercover, etc...) f9r ID compliance. Adding another store should not be an issue for high schoolers' access to alcohol. As a matter of fact, by moving Blanchard's away from the MALL (High Schooler hangout),, they may be reducing the chances of high schoolers tying stupid things with fake ID's.

This leaves the Middle Schoolers. I honestly don't have ANY clue how this liquor store would impact middle schoolers. They can't drive, so they'd have to walk up to the store, and I don't care how good your fake ID is, any liquor store clerk should be able to tell if you're a KID. AND, if they aren't sure, they have the right to refuse to sell the product.

Overall, I see no impact on local children by the addition of this store. If we were that concerned about "the children" then we should be more worried about the current location of Barnstable Bottle Shoppe. They are closer to the high school and basically across the street from the Hyannis West Elementary School (property in green at bottom right of map). We should be more concerned about Elementary School Children and possible access to alcohol - have you seen the fake IDs THOSE kids have - WOW! (Please note the sarcasm...)

In reality, location of alcohol does not matter as much as ease of access does to kids attempting to obtain alcohol. We need to make sure ALL liquor stores in Barnstable and the Barnstable Police are cracking down on fake IDs and people purchasing for minors. That is more important than the location of a single liquor store.


CONCLUSIONS
I have mixed feelings about this project. When I started writing this post, I was on the fence leaning toward allowing the new Blanchard's... Yet, as continued writing and saw all the potential issues, I now am leaning toward NOT allowing this building. As a basic principle, I endorse free and unhindered property development - it's YOUR property. However, this case presents the problem of extensive area competition that could start causing either this property or the sites of the other liquor stores in the area to become exactly what the Kinghts of Columbus is now - empty and unkempt. Also, it seems apparent that without any other entrances to alleviate traffic on Rt. 28 (Which CVS, Olive Garden, Christmas Tree, etc... all have), this construction will severely tax this intersection and area of Rt. 28 and it will clearly make this stretch of road more dangerous. These issues are real and important.

I think that opponents of this project should stop throwing "the children" at us and start throwing the real concerns and issues this project presents to the people of Barnstable. I think that Blanchard's needs to address and solve these problems satisfactorily before anything moves forward. I think that we need to think about this one before rushing forward.

Thanks go to Town Council President Janet Joakim for bringing this issue up on her blog - www.sevenvillagesblog.com.

Map of the area around proposed site of Blanchard's Liquors.

(Click to expand in this browser page or right-click "Open in New Window")

(Note: A post on the Town's handling of the Open Meeting of the Voters petition will be coming soon.)

Breaking News Alert

Eric Schwaab's Cape Cod Living blog has been removed from public viewing.

According to the page I was redirected to when trying to view the blog, that "blog is open to invited readers only".

I am not sure what has brought about this sudden change in access... I cannot read every blog every day... However, this change is a surprise to me.

More to come as this story develops... Please feel free to add any info you may have in the Comments section...

Coming soon - analysis of last Thursday's Council Meeting and their decision on the flawed Meeting of the Voters petition...

Keeping My Comments Brief

I am too much of a perfectionist. If I don't have the time to do it right, I probably won't do it. That's probably why I have stayed away from this blog. It's enough to have to read about these stories over and over again, but having to write about them can be overwhelming.

So, I'm going to hit on four of the "hot button" topics going on right now.

The Open Meeting of the Voters
"The town council may call meetings of the voters of the town. Upon the request in writing of three hundred voters setting forth the purpose (the specific purposes) thereof, the town council shall call a meeting of the voters. The president of the town council or other designee of the town council, shall preside and regulate the proceedings of such meetings. The president of the council shall cause the attendance of town officials and employees necessary to respond to the issues and concerns raised by petitioners." - Barnstable Town Charter

Nowhere in that paragraph of the town charter, the ONLY one mentioning the Open Meeting of the Voters, does it mention a "Moderator" position. Yet, the petition circulated by COGers, said "By signing this petition you will 1) Elect John Julius as the Moderator for the Petitioners".

What EXACTLY is a "Moderator for the Petitioners"? Who gave the writers of the petition the right to circumvent Massachusetts Election Law and deny me my right to vote or run for this position? Did anyone else run?

The fact is that no one knows what the position is. A petition does NOT have the legal authority to ELECT anyone to a position. This petition can not possibly be legal.

The Charter is clear that the Town Council "calls" the meeting - which means that they get to set the date. The Charter is also clear that the Town Council President runs the meeting - Sorry COGers, but Janet will be leading your meeting, how ironic.

Another Lawsuit / Greg Milne's Eligibility
What I want to know is which COGer is a lawyer? Because they just LOVE suing the town for no reason. Enough with the silly lawsuits and the ACLU and the Attorney General's Office. When they haven't gotten back to you in 8 months, they're not going to get back to you. Please stop wasting time & money with frivolous lawsuits.

Can't we get over the Milne Charter Commissioner thing? It seems pretty clear that the charter says a person cannot hold more than one elected office. Greg tried for two on the same ballot. He only gets one.

For the people complaining about the late Town Attorney Smith's "Home Rule", there is similar legal precedent. Federal environmental regulations are set by the EPA. However, the states have the right to set their own standards, as long as, their regulations are MORE strict than the federal ones. The same idea applies here. The state said they would not regulate the number of elected positions a person could hold. Our town came in and wrote into our charter (which was approved by the State Legislature) a stricter regulation on holding elected offices. They have merely strengthened State law.

Shellfishers vs. Landowners
Fishermen and shellfishers hold an iconic place in Cape Cod history and Cape Codder hearts. I want to see them succeed. I am tired of government regulations hurting these industries. That's EXACTLY why we shouldn't create another overreaching government regulation banning construction. The government can tell me whether or not I can build on MY land, how high I can build it, and whether I should build it again because they don't think it met their "building code". Enough with government intrusion into peoples' lives. It should stop now. NO to the proposed dock ban.

New Building
This leads me to my final point. Why is it that Circuit City has to jump through more hoops than a circus animal to get their building approved when a mega-Nursing Home gets approved without much of a fight? Why had no one heard about this huge home before it was approved? Enough with the town building cap and two acre zoning and all these crazy building regulations. They have driven property "values" through the roof, raising the residential property tax burden, misrepresenting our fiscal status to the State Legislature and leaving homeowners with "$600,000" homes that are barely worth half that on the market.

Final Beef
Actually, I need to correct myself. I have one more issue. Lately, I have been noticing more issues with street flooding when we get any decent amount of rainfall. Has anyone else been having or seeing the same issue?