Precinct 3 Truth

Elections and Endorsements

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 03:30:00 +0000

VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

Regardless of your political views, as long as you can legally do it, EVERYONE needs to vote Tuesday, November 4, 2008. I’ll be disappointed if you vote against my opinions, but I would rather see you vote and disagree with me than agree with me and not vote. Whatever your inclination, you need to vote! I can’t stress this enough – VOTE!

Vote of Confidence

Speaking of voting, Precinct 6 voters came out on Thursday in a show of strong support for Town Councilor Janet Joakim. Joakim’s supporters easily foiled the COG-backed recall effort by over 100 votes. Congratulations to Councilor Joakim and the residents of Precinct 6!

Endorsements

Before I give out my yearly endorsements and the reasoning behind them, I do have a small rant to make. Cape Cod’s Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. That they were unwilling or unable to find candidates to run against US Rep Bill Delahunt, State Senators Rob O’Leary and Therese Murray (who is the Senate President) or State Rep Demetrius Atsalis is a travesty to the concept of a two-party system. I know that this is liberal Massachusetts, but the Cape is one of the few places in the state where people consider voting Republican. Not bringing candidates to the table in these races is a disgrace.

Now, on to the good stuff… Contested seats and ballot questions discussed from local to national…

State Rep (2nd Barnstable District)
Demetrius Atsalis (Incumbent) vs. Carl Yingling

Atsalis has served for many years in this seat. He is a wonderful person who gets more grief than he deserves from the local blogosphere. Granted, Atsalis has not helped himself with incidents that have earned him bad airtime on the Howie Carr Show. However, credit goes to Demetrius for calling in to the show and defending himself.

Local resident Carl Yingling deserves an award for doing something the local Republicans could not do – have the guts to run against Atsalis. The problem is that Yingling is not qualified to be State Rep. He should have some time on local boards or maybe the Town Council before considering a run for State Rep again…

VERDICT: All in all, Astalis has been fine as State Rep. However, he hasn’t been exceptional or note-worthy. Sometimes the best thing politicians can do is nothing, but in Atsalis’ case, it seems that he has little to show for his time in the State House. I have to agree with The Barnstable Patriot that Demetrius Atsalis should be a leader in the State House with his long incumbency. I also have to agree with the Patriot’s bold and unorthodox decision to recommend a blank ballot in this race.

Barnstable County Register of Probate
Anastasia Welsh Perrino (R) vs. Eric Turkington (D)

Eric Turkington is a name well-known in Cape politics. He has been around for a while. Anastasia Welsh Perrino does not have Turkington’s name recognition, but she has something more valuable – experience.

While Turkington has a wealth of experience in the State Legislature, he has no experience in this office. On the other hand, Welsh Perrino has had a career working in and around the office. Welsh Perrino can hit the ground running and already has plans to do so, but Turkington would need help to get the job done.

VERDICT: Anastasia Welsh Perrino is the candidate with real experience dealing with this office, and she deserves the opportunity to prove it.

Barnstable County Commissioner (2 seats)
Ric Barros (R) vs. Brad Crowell (R) vs. Mary Pat Flynn (D) vs. Sheila Lyons (D)

Barnstable County’s government is larger than most residents realize. Barnstable County’s 3 elected County Commissioners make up the county’s Executive Branch. Two of those seats are up for election with a clean slate of candidates, as soon-to-be-former commissioners Lance Lambros and Mary LeClair are leaving.

The four candidates (2 Republicans & 2 Democrats) for the seats all have excellent qualifications and experience.

VERDICT(s): Brad Crowell’s experience as chairman of the Cape Cod Commission has given him excellent insight into the Cape’s needs. He is able to look ahead to the future and plan with precision, while preserving the present. Ric Barros’ passion, fiscal responsibility and insistence on accountability will help the County in this economic downturn.

The 3 Massachusetts Ballot Questions
Income Tax repeal, Decriminalization of possession & Greyhound Racing initiatve

I'm not going to bother giving a history on these questions, so on to the verdicts...

Question 1 VERDICT: Send a message to Beacon Hill and vote YES. Will the State Legislature dare defy the people?

Question 2 VERDICT: is ILLEGAL. We should not be making it easier for people to get it and possess it. Vote NO.

Question 3 VERDICT: This blogger takes a hard line against gambling in all forms – from the Lotto to Casinos. Greyhound racing has managed to somehow survive in this state. Now is the time to end it… not for the dogs, but for the families destroyed by gamblers addicted to betting on racing (horses or dogs). Vote YES.

U.S. Senate
John Kerry (D-Incumbent) vs. Jeff Beatty (R)

If there was ever a case of needing a change, simply for change’s sake, this is it. Other than running for President four years ago, Kerry has accomplished little of note during his extended tour of the Senate. With rumors that he is seeking a Cabinet position, should Barack Obama be elected, re-electing Kerry is an even worse idea (if that is possible).

Jeff Beatty is an excellent candidate to serve our state. His combination of military, CIA/FBI and business experience make Beatty a well-rounded option. His ability to think outside the confines of normal politics is a breath of fresh air in today’s partisan politics.

VERDICT: 24 years is more than enough time to serve as Senator. Serving as a US Rep or Senator was never supposed to be a career. It’s time for John Kerry to move on. Whether now, or later, Jeff Beatty is an excellent choice to serve in the US Senate.

President & Vice-President of the United States of America
John McCain & Sarah Palin (R) vs. Barack Obama & Joe Biden (D)

John McCain is known for being “mavericky” and Obama is known for wanting “change.” The fact of the matter is that neither of these buzz words describe these candidates or their views at all.

John McCain has been a “maverick” during his career in the U.S. Senate. He has broken from his Republican ranks repeatedly and worked/voted with Democrats. However, this version of McCain has been non-existent on the campaign trail, as he has pandered to conservatives in an attempt to convince them that he is one of them. Count me among the unconvinced…

Barack Obama continues to talk about “change”, but, other than NOT being George W. Bush, Obama truly offers little change from business as usual in Washington. He lacks any true experience, and would have been a much better candidate in 4-8 years. Obama also has some highly questionable character issues. Whether really bad people as family friends (Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers) or family members living in the USA illegally, Senator Obama has been unable to show that he is trustworthy for the job.

VERDICT: One year ago, anyone who thought about the Presidential race, wondered whether they would vote for Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney. It’s amazing how things change. I am forced to reluctantly endorse McCain/Palin, but sure that Obama will be a major player in the political scene for years to come.

This Does Matter

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:13:00 +0000

The COGers have been nice enough to further illustrate their desire to recall more Town Councilors than just Janet Joakim.

One well-known COG commenter has now threatened further recalls of the "maggots who call themselves 'councilors'"... He also went on to expand their headhunting list to include Councilor Tobey. The list now tentatively is Rugo (Precinct 2), Munafo (Precinct 3) and Tobey (Precinct 8)... with Crocker (Precinct 5) and Barry (Precinct 7) as strong possibilities, too... Add the those possible recalls to Joakim's recall (Precinct 6), and you have current or potential recalls in Precincts 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. YIKES!

(By the way, the targeting of Councilor Tobey is nothing new. Eric Schwaab started threatening Tobey's seat the very same night that Schwaab lost to Munafo, almost one year ago. Check out this post for more info - Congratulations to James F. Munafo, Jr..

That post is yet another example of info that I have had to rescue before that infamous "Post Deleter" struck again and tried to hide his true intentions...)

Recalling Joakim was NEVER about the issues... It was NEVER about Joakim... It was about the COGers trying to force their personal and political views on the rest of the town... It was payback for standing against COG... It's really all about COG... That's why it shouldn't be supported...

Having these COGers around may start getting real expensive, real soon... Let's send them the message that we don't want them around. Go to the polls tomorrow (THURSDAY OCTOBER 30) in Precinct 6 and VOTE NO ON THE RECALL...

Told You So...

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:00:00 +0000

I don't want to rub it in, but I warned my readers that there was more to the Joakim recall than met the eye. The Joakim recall was never going to be limited to Joakim, especially if they win on Thurday. Now, the talk of COG and Cape COG Living is a recall of Councilor Tom Rugo in Precinct 2.

The COGers have larger goals that are not being disclosed to the public... It's interesting to see them play out...

To help stop the COGers and their multiple plans, make sure everyone that you know in Precinct 6 shows up to Vote "NO" on the recall. The election is this THURSDAY, October 30, at the Marstons Mills East Horace Mann Charter School. Visit www.sevenvillagesblog.com to support Council President Janet Joakim.

In other news, it seems that Bugsy the Pug still can't get over his election loss from last year. In a recent comment by the former politician, I counted at least three blatant lies that he proposed as legit examples of intimidation and reasons why he lost the race. He seems to enjoy throwing conspiracy theories against the wall to see if anything sticks...

Let's take a stand, let's make sure that this attempted Joakim recall doesn't stick... Vote NO on the recall on Thursday!

Intimidation Doesn't Work and Neither Will "Cleaning Up" Your Image

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:00:00 +0000

Now, there is no question that recall of Council President Janet Joakim is much larger than a single recall.

For anyone who does not believe that the Joakim recall does not have a much wider, larger goal behind it, they should check out Gary Lopez's blog today. Lopez spends an entire post advocating for the recall of Councilor James Crocker.

They should also check out Eric Schwaab's Cape COG Living blog where the hate speech, pure lies, personal attacks and other vicious propaganda are being thrown against the wall at an incredible pace.

Schwaab's attacks against Councilor Munafo have picked up at a frenzied pace in the last week or two. Lopez has been insinuating possible recall attempts against other councilors for weeks.

The COG plans are starting to come into action.

In addition to ramping up attacks against selected Town Councilors (Barry, Crocker, and Munafo especially), COG sent its point man out on the attack. A certain unnamed blogger has been going around threatening lawsuits against bloggers like myself and TJ (from Barnstable Beat). He is making wild guesses on who to send the threats to, and innocents are seeing their names tarnished on the internet. He doesn't care that his any of his threats & accusations have no factual basis.

The attempt to intimidate bloggers, restrict free speech, and remove the one element in cyberspace fighting to show the REAL picture in Barnstable will not succeed.

While this one unnamed blogger has been hard at work trying to intimidate bloggers behind the scenes and all the COGers have been trying to bring down the next "wave" of councilors, COG is also trying to clean up its image.

On the COG site, frequent poster and vocal Council critic, John Julius, berated someone for accusing the COG site of being vulgar. Julius went on to defend Lopez, saying that Lopez quickly censors out such language and doesn't tolerate it. Of course, Julius then went on to name a list of terms (that he uses frequently online) that most people would consider swears. He insisted that these inappropriate terms were just fine and not examples of bad language.

Hillary Clinton tried to intimidate Barack Obama, but he kept his cool and pulled out the upset victory. Her intimidation did not work, just like Obama's attempts to "clean up" his image will fail... His image is always going to be what it is... The question is whether or not people will accept him for what he really is?... Or will they accept him simply because they don't like the other guy?... I don't think they will do either...

COGers are trying to intimidate the common man, but we're not going to fold. They're trying to rehabilitate their image, but we all know what it really is... The question for Barnstable is whether or not the plurality is going to side with them or not... Do not accept them for who they are, and don't side with them because you don't like the same people... Take a stand... Support Councilor Joakim against COG now, or it may be YOUR councilor wasting time fighting COG next.

Visit www.sevenvillagesblog.com to support Council President Janet Joakim.

Some People Never Learn

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:30:00 +0000

Maybe Eric Schwaab writes things solely for my benefit, to annoy me with lies and give me something to write about... nah... He must just do it for fun...

In his last post on his Cape COG Living blog, Mr. Schwaab starts talking about the latest COG talking point - the KMART leases currently controlled by the airport. While this is an interesting topic to investigate, Mr. Schwaab decides that it's not interesting enough for him.

Instead, he has to switch over and make baseless accusations against the Town Councilor who won reelection over Mr. Schwaab just over a year ago. Apparently, Mr. Schwaab hasn't gotten over his ballot box defeat, and he hasn't learned anything from it either.

First, Schwaab accuses Munafo of skipping the COG's Meeting of the Voters, because of "prior committments (in the Industrial Park)". Here he's trying to use another campaign lie he already tried - that Munafo is taking bribes from Barnstable's business community. No only does Munafo not take bribes, but here is a Barnstable Patriot article from BEFORE the meeting that shows that Munafo already had a vacation planned WELL in advance of the meeting. The Council AND the Barnstable Patriot knew Munafo wasn't going to be there because of a vacation...

Funny that our intrepid blogger doesn't mention the fact that HE (Eric Schwaab) didn't bother to attend the meeting... (Is being at you home in Brighton the same as a vacation?)

Then, Schwaab goes on a rant that Munafo has been "hiding since last November"... Considering that Mr. Schwaab has NEVER ONCE tried to contact Councilor Munafo even though he ran a campaign against him, how would he know?

During last year's campaign, Mr. Schwaab said "I started this campaign because my neighbors and I could never find the incumbent". Yet, it came out (in part thru this blog) that he never ONCE even TRIED to contact the incumbent, Councilor Munafo. (You can see the my Schwaab Contradiction Video on Youtube.) Now, he with his latest blog entry, he is back again trying to beat the same dead horse.

So, for Mr. Schwaab: If you have a problem with Councilor Munafo, you should probably try telling him about it on something other than your blog. In case you forgot, try watching my Youtube video from last year's debate, because there's plenty of ways to contact him in there. I'm making this suggestion via my blog because I know that you read it, especially when you come up.

For my readers: What you have in Mr. Eric Schwaab is either a man who has yet to get over his election loss, a man who thinks he is going to run for that same seat in the very near future OR perhaps both. It doesn't sound like someone who has learned a lesson from his loss (like how to communicate properly)...

Having a Nice Blogosphere Vacation

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:30:00 +0000

Sometimes, I just have to drop it all and take a vacation from Barnstable's blogosphere. This place takes so much more out of a person than it should. Blogs should be about sharing ideas and opinions, not what we make it here in Barnstable.

For the past few weeks, I've been enjoying a very nice vacation from all of the blogs... Not having to read about the Joakim recall, Doc Mosby and the Barnstable Airport, more accusations against elected officials being blown way out of proportion, absolutely absurd fearmongering about Hyannis water, etc... It's been really nice...

Anyway, I'll try to be more frequent in my postings here again...

We now have a date set for the Joakim recall election. October 30 at the Marstons Mills East Horace Mann Charter School. Should be interesting...

What are your opinions about the recall election? The primaries that just took place? The general election that's coming up? Are you an Obama fan or a McCain person? What do you think?

New Blog In Town

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:57:00 +0000

There's a new blog in Barnstable's blogosphere. COG Watcher is dedicated to exposing the truth of what has actually been said on the COG blog. Right now, they specialize in compiling COG posts on particular subjects into one single document. I recommend that you check it out.

This archival of posts is very important because Post Deletion is very common by COG bloggers. The Cape Cod COG Living blogger is notorious for being the "Post Deleter".

Unlike COGers, I do not delete posts. Yesterday's "Breaking News" post has generated some negative feedback from commenters who were unhappy with its posting. In light of the event that actually occurred yesterday, their criticism may be fair. However, as a quasi-news outlet, I feel that the community should be aware of the events that are occurring in their neighborhood.

I had multiple fellow Precinct 3 residents ask me for information about the event, and I found none in any of the town's print or radio media. This weekend information gap is quite common, and I hoped that this blog could help bridge this information gap on this particular topic so that the community could be informed with the truth.

I am not the only one who believes that the residents of the community should be aware of police activity in their area. Barnstable Beat recently did an excellent post on the Barnstable Police's new interactive online crime map. Barnstable Beat's post gives you more info on how to check on 30 types of crime and police activities in the community.

Yesterday's post, as well as today's post will remain on this blog and will not be deleted. However, because of the sensitive nature of yesterday's event and how some commenters used it in evil & twisted ways to attack others, comments will not be permitted. This change from standard practice is out of respect for our neighbors.

Breaking News

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:15:00 +0000

Precinct 3 Truth has received information that there is a domestic disturbance in Precinct 3. Sources indicate that multiple police cruisers were present at a residence in the precinct and that entrances to the property were sealed with police tape. There also was a large crowd gathering at the residence, with a large number of vehicles parked on the curb around the home.

Details of the nature of the event are not known at this time, but will be provided as soon as they are obtained.

This breaking news update is being provided because the Cape Cod Times website (http://www.capecodonline.com) and local radio stations' news departments choose to take weekends off. No information about this event was available through any of these media outlets.

MORE BREAKING NEWS
For those of you travelling off-Cape this afternoon, Capecodonline.com IS reporting an accident on the Sagamore Bridge that is backing up traffic in both directions. You can read more about this story here.

Chinese Olympic Gymnasts & COGers - Connected?

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:06:00 +0000

I've been watching the 2008 Summer Olympics. Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, and many other great stories have made for an exciting viewing. Yet, the biggest story (perhaps even bigger than Phelps) is the story of the female Chinese gymnasts.

In the sport of Women's Gymnastics, the Chinese Olympic contingent can be most accurately be described as children. Of the 6 member team, at least three of the contestants face scrutiny on their true ages. International news agencies, The New York Times, the Associated Press and many other outlets have found documentation on Chinese websites (including official Chinese government sites) even before the games started that showed that many of these girls were well below the mandatory age of 16 to be eligible in these games.

The Chinese have a history of falsifying documents for their female gymnasts. During the 2000 Sydney Olympics, double bronze medalist Yang Yun had a passport that said she was just old enough to compete in the Games. Since then, she has confessed that she was only 14 at the time of those games, and that both she and her coaches lied about her age. (For more on these two scandals, here is an excellent article.) If the Chinese were willing to lie about gymnasts' ages at the Olympics in Australia, how much more so would they be willing to lie in an attempt to rack up more medals at the Olympics in their own Beijing?

With their own (most likely) falsified passports and other state documents, these Chinese girls have pieces of paper suggesting that they are just barely old enough to compete in these Games, just like Yang Yun did. Despite the evidence suggesting these gymnasts were too young to compete, the International Olympic Committee refused to investigate these girls until this week, and it appears to be a public relations exercise and not a true vetting.

Meanwhile, assuming that the Olympic medal desperate totalitarian Chinese government (and these girls) did in fact cheat, American gymnasts have suffered. The American women would certainly have won Olympic gold had the Chinese used gymnasts that met the minimum age requirements.

Above and beyond the cheating via falsified documents, poor judging has also marred the Women's Gymnastics events. Americans and other international stars with superior performances have been scored lower than their hometown Chinese counterparts.

Americans Nastia Liukin and Alicia Sacramone (as well as their other teammates) have both fallen victim to highly questionable judging calls. Liukin was robbed of Olympic gold on the Uneven Bars in a tie (She should have had a higher score than her Chinese opponent), that was broken in the Chinese gymnast's favor. Sacramone was absolutely robbed of a well-deserved Bronze medal in the Horse Vault when the Chinese performer who won the Bronze landed her final vault on her knees.

How does this analysis of Olympic controversy have any connection to Barnstable politics?

Actually, there are some interesting similarities.

Name: COGers go with their COG abbreviation and if you were to abbreviate "Chinese Olympic Gymnasts" you would be left with COG.

Totalitarian: While the Gymnasts themselves may not be totalitarian individuals, they operate within the structure of a totalitarian system. Citizens who dare to question the Chinese government are ridiculed, beaten, jailed and often executed. COGers may not be as harsh as Chinese officials, but they take many of the same traits. If you dare to disagree with them, they may call you names, verbally harass you, accuse you of being a particular Town Councilor, or even recall you from public office.

Websites: The Chinese have been outed because news organizations stories about Chinese gymnasts ages on many Chinese websites, including official sites. Within minutes of these sites being accessed by outsiders, these sites have been wiped from the Internet. Only copies saved by these agencies remain as proof. In the Barnstable blogosphere, COGers are often exposed by people who keep copies of their sites. Many COGers are notorious for deleting posts they wrote on their sites when they realized they had crossed the lines. Bugsy, the Cape Cod COG Living blogger, even earned the nickname "Post Deleter" because he has deleted so many of his own posts.

The Looks: The underage female Chinese gymnasts are very good. While perhaps aided by some very controversial judging calls, these girls were very graceful (except for the one who landed on her knees). If there was no minimum age requirement, the Chinese team's gold win would be an excellent story. The questionable judging on the individual events would still be disappointing, but not the additional burden on the American girls that it has become. The Chinese girls certainly look the part. This is very similar to how COG numbers also look the part. When you first see and hear COG info, it looks good. It sounds like you have been robbed blind, yet when you dig deeper, you find that their info doesn't meet minimum fact requirements. The info that directly rebuts their info is ignored and shunned. When you see all the info, you find that things are not the way that they present them.

Final Judging: Poor judging has robbed deserving American gymnasts of their hard-earned medal placements. While Liukin and Sacramone were done in by inept international judges, the citizens of Barnstable are the ones who will ultimately judge COGers. If we support their recall petitions or their candidates or their ballot questions, they win. So, when you hear political debates raging in this town, decide which side you want to see win based on their entire performance.

Yet Another Post About Blanchard's & the ZBA

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:15:00 +0000

The proposed new location for Blanchard's Liquors is apparently the hottest topic in town, not including "the recall". Yet, according to recall organizers, the ZBA decision on Blanchard's and the ZBA falling-out that ensued is one of their main reasons for "the recall".

I have heard opinions on both sides of the table from friends, family, and commenters on this issue. Reasoning crosses political lines and seems to create very polarizing opinions. So, I cover the topic yet again here on this blog.

For a myriad of reasons - high rent, Cape Cod Mall trying to force them out of their leased building, expansion aspirations, etc... - Blanchard's Liquors decided to move (or try to) from their current location next to the Cape Cod Mall into a new location. The problem arises from their chosen location.

They chose the old Knights of Columbus building located on Route 28 in Centerville at the intersection of Strawberry Hill Road and Rt. 28. This property is a couple parcels closer to Hyannis than the new CVS that was just built a couple years ago right on the intersection. The CVS parcel, the proposed Blanchard's site and the parcels in between all have part of or most of their property subject to "HB" zoning.

According to Chapter 240, Section 25 of the Barnstable Town Code there are basically three types of building allowed in "HB" zones (to summarize):

1. "Office, but not including medical office" - ALWAYS PERMITTED.

2. "Bank, but not consisting in whole or in part of drive-in bank or drive-up automatic teller" - ALWAYS PERMITTED.

3. "Any use permitted in the B District not permitted in Subsection A herein, subject to the following: Such uses do not substantially adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of the community" - SUBJECT TO SPECIAL PERMIT FROM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.

Last time I checked, a liquor store isn't an office or bank, so the owners of the proposed Blanchard's Liquors were applying under the third possible use. The third use is basically any business use, PROVIDED it does not "substantially adversely affect... the community".

The ZBA had every right to refuse this building. They did not HAVE to approve anything. They MAY have set precedents with prior decisions (I don't know if they did or not), but this project required their special approval.

There have been a lot of studies about the concerns of Barnstable citizens, and one of their highest concerns is traffic. There are a lot of dangerous intersections (Lumbert's Mill Road & Rt. 28, Rts. 28 & 149, Yarmouth Road/Willow Street and Rt. 28, etc...), awful rotaries (Airport Rotary), and plain dangerous stretches on Rts. 28 & 132.

The intersection located nearby the proposed Blanchard's is bad enough as it is. Thankfully, there is little traffic on the Rt. 28 entrance of CVS, as most customers prefer to use the light, via CVS's entrance on Strawberry Hill Road. However, that intersection is now out of date, with no left-hand turn signals and what appears to be either timed lights or poorly calibrated smart-lights.

The impact of CVS on Rt. 28 has increased traffic at the light, but has not resulted in people regularly cutting across multiple lanes of traffic on Rt. 28 to get to CVS. Blanchard's would do exactly that.

Sure, they said they'd put in curb cuts designed to discourage left-hand turns, but that doesn't work at Christmas Tree Shop Plaza or McDonald's on Rt. 132. Actually, if you think about it, those curb cuts are actually MORE dangerous, because you don't expect nuts to be taking turns in or out of there. Plus, frustrated drivers, trying to get to the Mid-Cape's largest liquor store might decide not to turn there, so they'll have to find somewhere else to pull a quick U-turn, whether it's side roads in the area, the Middle School, CVS, the Greek Orthodox Church, etc... all options for reversing direction are bad.

So, between additional traffic flowing through the already bogged light, cars making discouraged (and dangerous) left-hand turns in & out of the store, and scores of people searching for somewhere to turn around, the traffic concerns alone pose serious traffic increases and safety threats.

A good comparison is the people taking left-hand turns in and out of Parker's Liquors on Rt. 132... Take the number of cars making those turns and multiply them by 10 (or maybe more)... That should give you a good indication of how many cars would be going in and out of the store...

The ZBA had the RESPONSIBILITY to turn down the proposal if it would "substantially adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of the community".

I say that it would increase traffic, affecting my "convenience"

It would increase the risk of accidents, affecting my "safety"

It would add a store expecting high volumes of traffic in an already high traffic area with ZERO road improvements, affecting my "comfort"

I would also say that the combination of these elements substantially affects the community.

The ZBA rejected their RESPONSIBILITY to the people of this town to turn this project down.

Some people have said that the vocal opposition to the ZBA's decision on this project and the end-around to get the Cape Cod Commission to look at this project are all reasons to recall the Town Councilor from Precinct 6. They say it constitutes an "abuse of power".

They say that these actions led directly to the ZBA's mass resignation... yet, even the ZBA member who voted against the project left in the resignation. Meaning that their issues were not the direct result of this project, but more deeply embedded. Most likely, it stems from a lack of communication.

Lack of communication is EXTREMELY common in the "real world". It really does happen. People don't play phone tag for fun. It looks like that was a bigger issue.

To the best of my knowledge and intuition, the way this project was handled was not the reason the ZBA decided to resign (though it may have been the straw that just about broke the camel's back).

However, the issues regarding this building are real. They are concerning. Concerning enough, that the Cape Cod Commission, decided to accept the Town Manager John Klimm's request for the Commission to review the project. They were real enough to get Councilors Barry, Chirigotis, Joakim & Rugo to write a letter formally asking the ZBA reject the permit, and real enough to get Joakim & Rugo, along with Klimm, to appear before the board. There are legitimate concerns about this project. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but they certainly shouldn't be ignored.

Perhaps, if Blanchard's had not decided to build such a large store (9,801 sq ft, just 199 below mandatory Cape Cod Commission review), traffic concerns would not be so large. Their current store is only 4410 sq ft, so this is a 222% increase in space. Maybe they can't advertise as a "discount" liquor store, but their size alone would indicate that they should have lower prices. I would assume that they expect enough traffic to support the 222% size increase, perhaps 222% more than their current location?

Regardless, the ZBA had a clear cut choice on this project, and chose to support the business. Usually, I am all for business expansion & growth. The fact is that we discourage it far too often. Normally, I would applaud a case like this where "conservationists" lose to the common businessman. However, in this case, there are no "conservationists", merely citizens with concerns, and their concerns were completely ignored. That's my problem.

R.I.P. Barnstable Town Charter

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:45:00 +0000

The Barnstable Patriot is reporting that the judge in the Councilor Greg Milne for Charter Commissioner case has overruled common sense and has ruled that Milne may serve on the Charter Commission. This effectively kills Barnstable's charter, because it specifically says that "no person shall simultaneously hold more than one elective town office". Now, if someone disagrees with the charter, all they have to do is go ask Judge Kane.

I have dedicated multiple posts to explaining the common sense and legal language showing that Councilor Milne is not entitled to serve as both a Town Councilor AND a Charter Commissioner. You can find them here.

To recap the events to date:

Before last fall's election, Councilors James Crocker, Greg Milne, and James F. Munafo, Jr. were seriously interested in running for Charter Commission. Before running, Munafo asked then-Town Attorney Bob Smith if the Charter would allow it. His response was an emphatic "NO".

Upon hearing Smith's emphatic opinion, Councilors Munafo and Crocker both chose not to pursue a seat. However, Councilor Milne decided to ignore Smith's (correct) decision on the charter language and run anyway.

During the 2007 election, Councilor Milne appeared on the ballot twice - Charter Commissioner and his Town Council seat (for which he was unopposed). He was told numerous times by the Town Clerk and others that he would only be sworn into one office. I know countless individuals who took this knowledge (that Milne would only be allowed one office) and voted for Milne as Charter Commissioner, hoping that he would abandon the Council for the Charter Commission.

When push came to shove, Milne (obviously) won his Council seat again and also qualified for a seat on the Charter Commission. The Town Clerk again informed Councilor Milne he would be sworn into only one office, and he chose his Council seat.

Instead of acknowledging the fact that the charter clearly prohibits anyone from holding two elected town offices, Councilor Milne (and his COG buddies) sued the town to be instated onto the Charter Commission, throwing the Commission into limbo. It is now about 9 months since this lawsuit began.

Back to the present:

Judge Kane ignored common sense, the charter's own language, and the sworn testimony of the current Charter's authoring Charter Commission Chairman (Michael Daley) all stating that it's only one town office per person.

'The town-entered affidavit of Michael Daley, chairman of the 1989 commission that drafted the charter, provides his recollection that '[W]e did not want people who were already elected to other positions in our local government serving on the Charter Commission' - Barnstable Patriot.

However, Milne has NOT been sworn in to the Charter Commission, yet. Smart money has the town appealing Judge Kane's decision, AND that court setting things right.

Yet, the largest loss in this case may not be Judge Kane's ruling, but rather the potential loss of other Charter Commissioners. Rumors are swirling that Charter Commissioners Sheila Geiler, Bob Jones and Lucien Poyant will resign if Milne is seated on the Commission. This is extremely bad news, because these 3 highly qualified candidates would be replaced by Daley and two COGers.

I wouldn't want to work with Milne either (and neither does ANYONE on the current Council), but we can't let him win twice with one decision.

So, if you know Geiler, Jones or Poyant, please encourage them to stick it out, no matter what...

A Lighter Side

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:30:00 +0000

With all the recent posts, there has been WAY too much seriousness.

For once, let's not worry about politics and keep it light.

I'm asking you to help out with some comments.

What real-world topics are on your mind? I want to know.

What do you think about the Manny trade or the Patriots season coming up???

In addition, I am going to conduct an informal survey - What are your three favorite TV shows and why? It can be past, present or a mix of both.

I'm just looking to hear your opinions, and all I ask is that we leave politics out of this post. There will be plenty more posts to talk about politics, but if there's a good response to this post I'll try to make "A Lighter Side" a more regular part of this blog.

Yet Another Post About the (Now Failed) Joakim Recall Attempt

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:00:00 +0000

Writing entries about COG's futile attempt to recall Town Council President Janet Joakim is starting to get tiresome and repetitive. Yet, necessity is the mother of invention, and so I create another post.

Yesterday, in an already anticipated move, Town Attorney Ruth Weil declared COG's recall affidavit invalid because it did not clearly inform possible signers that that they were "signing under the penalties of perjury", which is required for a legal affidavit. Citing multiple case laws, including a 1975 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and a 1994 Superior Court ruling. Both clearly articulate the fact that this language is a REQUIREMENT of affidavits and how a Town Clerk handles them (whether or not she lets the process continue) does not supersede any state law or court rulings.

As the Barnstable Patriot pointed out, the recall attempt in Barnstable not involving Joakim ended up dying for the same reason. The 2003 attempt to recall Councilor Carl Riedell failed for very similar language issues.

It looks like this one is crystal clear. No amount of COG whining, moaning, groaning, yelling or screaming is going to change matters. Nor will any amount of phone calls or emails to the State Attorney General, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or Radio Hall of Fame Talk Show Host Howie Carr will result in any change. There is clear legal precedent in this matter, and the lawyer they hired to review this petition (and approved it) should be fired. This one is all on COG.

Though on this one, they might just go out and start over again. After they whine a bit first.

Of course, Weil's ruling and the anticipation of the expected ruling brought out more of the worst of COG. Over on the COG Living blog, they're talking about getting guns and "bankrolling" the next attempt to the tune of $2,000. The worst is coming from the main COG blog. There has been ethnic slurs (A "Femme Nazi" quote from Lopez even made it into the Barnstable Patriot's article), countless shameless attacks of all types on both the Town Attorney and Town Clerk, as well as the "piece de resistance" - a very large photo of someone giving the middle finger. Real family reading!

Now that people will be told that they are signing any recall paperwork under "the penalties of perjury", I wonder how many will actually sign it. This is not a simple sign-and-make-the-annoying-person-go-away petition anymore.

To those who complain that this ruling somehow "overturned the will of the voters": 255 signatures from a tiny precinct in Barnstable do not overrule the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Ruth Weil and the Town Clerk were simply doing their jobs in ensuring that all legal issues were covered. They could tell everyone that the petition was illegal now or a nice judge could. I'm glad they saved us the trouble.

Anyway, our friends down at the Barnstable Patriot did an excellent job of summarizing the Weil decision, so here's the link to the complete story and here's a shortened version below:

Joakim recall ends on invalid affidavit (updated)
Written by David Still II
August 05, 2008

The affidavit submitted to initiate the recall of Barnstable town council president was flawed, according to the town attorney’s office, and the recall election cannot proceed.
That is the essence of the Aug. 5 opinion from town attorney Ruth Weil in response to a request from Town Clerk Linda Hutchenrider. Hutchenrider did find that the petition submitted to recall Precinct 6 councilor Janet Joakim contained more than the necessary 255 “good signatures,” but asked for an opinion from the town attorney’s office regarding the entirety of the submission.

The defect in the affidavit is that it was not signed under the penalties of perjury, which Weil argues is a condition for a valid affidavit. In support of her opinion, Weil cited several Massachusetts cases, including a 1994 Massachusetts Superior Court case in which despite a town clerk’s issuance of recall petitions based on an improper affidavit, the recall was defective....

Weil's opinion is similar to one offered by her predecessor in 2003 during the attempted recall of then-Precinct 5 councilor Carl Riedell. The affidavits submitted to begin that process were deemed defective for the same reason after the collection of what appeared to be sufficient signatures....

Writing on his blog..., recall organizer Gary Lopez indicated that a new recall effort would commence.

“We will eschew a court challenge and begin the recall process anew on August 12th,” he wrote.

How Exactly Does A Recall Election Work in Barnstable?

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:15:00 +0000

I raised a question in my post back on July 19 - "Another Recall Attempt?".

Having read and reread the section of the town's charter dealing with recalls, I have to wonder exactly how a recall ELECTION process works in Barnstable. Maybe one of Barnstable's town attorneys could fill me in, but I'm still unclear on how the process works. I have a pretty good idea, but am always open to other suggestions.

The highest profile recall election in recent years occurred back in 2003. Governor Gray Davis of California had presided over some bad economic times in California - the state budget was a mess and electric rates had tripled. All necessary steps were completed to result in a recall election. When voters went to the polls to vote on the recall, they had TWO things to do - Vote YES or NO on whether or not to recall Davis AND Vote for his replacement IF he ended up being recalled.

A number of high profile candidates ended up on the ballot as possible replacements, and when the dust had settled, the people had voted to recall Davis and the replacement candidate with the most votes was selected as the new governor. That is how former actor (and alleged Republican) Arnold Schwarzenegger became Governor of California.

California placed the recall question and the replacement election on the same ballot. However, after reading Barnstable's charter, I am pretty sure that there has to be TWO SEPARATE elections. Here are some quotes from the charter:

Section 8-8 Recall of Elected Office Holders
(c) Recall Election
If the petition shall be found and certified by the town clerk to be sufficient, the town clerk shall submit the same with such certificate to the town council within five working days, and the town council shall forthwith give written notice of the receipt of the certificate to the officer sought to be recalled and shall, if the officer does not resign within five days thereafter, order an election to be held on a date fixed by them not less than forty five and not more than sixty days after the date of the town clerk's certificate that a sufficient petition has been filed; provided, however, that if any other town election is to occur within sixty days after the date of the certificate the town council shall postpone the holding of the recall election to the date of such other election.

The recall election for any officer elected by precinct, shall only be held in the precinct that the officer represents.

If a vacancy occurs in said office after a recall election has been ordered, the election shall not proceed as provided in this section.

(e) Office Holder
The incumbent shall continue to perform the duties of the office until the recall election. If said incumbent is not recalled, the incumbent shall continue in office for the remainder of the unexpired term subject to recall as before. If recalled the officer shall be deemed removed and the office vacant. The vacancy created thereby shall be filled in accordance with this charter. Any person appointed to fill the vacancy caused by such recall shall hold office for the unexpired term of the officer recalled.

How does the charter say that a vacancy on the Town Council shall be filled?

Section 2-5 Filling of Vacancies
If a vacancy occurs in the office of councillor occurs during the first forty-four months of a term, it shall be filled by a precinct election. If a regular town election is scheduled to be held within 120 days, but more than fifty days, after the date vacancy occurs, it shall be filled by a special election within that regular election; otherwise, the council shall schedule a special election to be held as soon as is practical to fill the vacancy for the balance of the unexpired term. The provisions of the charter governing regular elections shall, so far as they are apt, apply to said special election, provided no preliminary election shall be held.
(Amended by Town Council item 91-03-02 on 6/20/91; amendment approved by voters 11/5/91).

Perhaps, one could read Section 8-8(e) that says "Any person appointed to fill the vacancy caused by such recall shall hold office for the unexpired term of the officer recalled" as saying that we should have a recall like California's - recall question and replacement election on the same ballot. BUT that comes AFTER the section says that "The vacancy created [by a successful recall] shall be filled in accordance with this charter."

Now, as I read that section, I am left to conclude that we have a two-part recall election process. Section 2-5 specifically deals with vacancies in Council office. It says that IF a town/precinct election is already being held 50-120 days AFTER the vacancy occurs, then a special election will be piggybacked on it OR if that doesn't exist, then a special election shall be held as soon as practical. It does not seem to allow for a vacancy to be filled on the same ballot as a recall designed to create a vacancy.

A vacancy can NOT possibly occur until a recall election has happened. Then, IF the Councilor has been recalled, a special election (or special ballot question added onto that precinct's ballot for an already occurring election) can occur. That's the way I read the charter.

Now, maybe I'm wrong... but if I am, could you please fill me in with the facts? Comments are open... and frequently monitored... or email @ dedicatedprecinct3voter@yahoo.com

It Is NOT "Illegal" To Have Political Signs Up

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:30:00 +0000

The latest hot-button subtopic of the attempted recall of Janet Joakim is the appearance of her campaign signs. Her political signs have allegedly started appearing around her precinct, and for some unknown reason, that has some COGers jumping mad. They are complaining that it is "illegal" to place political signs any time other than 30 days before an election. They want the town to waste money confiscating these signs.

Here, on this blog, I like to discuss the TRUTH. The TRUTH about political signs is that there is no ordinance in the Town of Barnstable that limits political sign placement to a window 30 days before an election.

The Town Council has considered enacting such an ordinance in the past, but it has NEVER approved one. First Amendment and enforcement issues forced the Council to take an alternative route.

Instead of passing a binding, enforceable LAW, the Council passed a resolve "discouraging" the use of political signs anytime other than 30 days before an election. Here's what they said:

98-135A RESOLVE - CAMPAIGN SIGNS
RESOLVE: That the standard of community character for the Town of Barnstable shall reflect the policy that political signs are discouraged prior to 30 days before an election or referendum.
(Passed by the Barnstable Town Council on 8/20/98 by a 10 yes 0 No vote.)

This is NOT a law. It is NOT an ordinance. It is NOT a court order. It is NOT legally binding in ANY way, shape or form. It is merely the opinion of the 1998 Town Council. This opinion cannot force people to take down political signs, it merely discourages them.

Is it tacky to have political signs out before an election? Maybe. However, look at the BIGGER issue: Which is more important - A person's First Amendment Rights? or You not having to see "tacky" signs?

I don't know why, but this sign issue seems to come up year, after year, after year. Every time, there is someone complaining how the signs are "illegal". They may be "discouraged", but the TRUTH is that they are NOT "illegal".

Thoughts For Today

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:30:00 +0000

That was an awesome thunderstorm that just passed through...

Here is a collection of thoughts I have right now as the storm has kept me awake...

The "recall": This "recall" situation is an example of the many things our current charter gets right. While citizens are given the highly powerful right to recall an elected official, our charter makes sure it can't be done without some real backing. In fact, because it takes 100 signatures to initiate the recall of a town-wide officer and 50 for a precinct officer (Town Councilor), the charter's authors actually made it HARDER to recall a Councilor than a School Committee member... The number of detailed steps that must be followed ensures that a small disputes do not make recalls commonplace. I think the current Charter Commission should take note of how well the charter is working in this fiasco.

The Water Company: I've been looking at the Council documents (agendas & minutes) related to the purchase of the Hyannis Water Company. As I read over these items, I have learned that the Hyannis Civic Association unanimously approved the purchase, AND that the Town Council voted UNANIMOUSLY to purchase the company.
Yet, the COGers seem to forget that fact. When they criticize Councilors for endorsing that deal, they only attack the Councilors they hate most. In other words, they criticize everyone except COG's resident Councilor/"White Knight"/Man of the "People" Greg Milne. They conveniently choose NOT to criticize him for voting for the purchase, while suggesting that other Councilors committed heinous crimes by voting for it. Gotta love the double-standard.

Serving on a town board/committee: I know that not everyone has the time to serve as a volunteer on a town board/committee, but the recent Zoning Board of Appeals mass resignation highlights the importance these boards play. Simply put, these boards are much more influential than we realize. Having enough people willing to serve is a problem, one that you can easily fix.
You can start by reading about the different boards/committees HERE.
You can also just download the application form HERE.

Driving Issues: LIGHTS: Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like a lot of the town's so called "smart" traffic lights just aren't working right. In the past, when there was no traffic in the other direction, I never had to wait more than a few seconds at "smart" lights... Now it seems like I am waiting forever... Am I the only one experiencing this?
BAD DRIVING: Is it just me, or does it seem like there are more bad drivers out there this Summer? I have had so many near accidents because drivers either cut me off, had no idea how an intersection works (aka doesn't have a 4-way stop), missed Stop signs, ran CLEARLY red lights or simply had no clue how to drive. It's getting scary out there... Which segue ways nicely into my last thought...

Hearing on Proposed New Traffic Signals on Rt. 28: On Wednesday August 13 @ 7:00 PM, Mass Highway will be conducting a public hearing on proposed intersection & signal upgrades at 3 locations on Rt. 28. They are looking for public input. The locations in question are: Lumbert's Mill Road, South County Road/Main Street (Marstons Mills), and Rt. 149.
Improvements and a signal are definitely needed at Lumbert's Mill Road (mostly because of the incredibly bad driving exhibited in this town).
The Rt. 149 intersection has had a poor design for a long time. The fact that the intersection is located in the middle of a hill does not help the traffic problems there. A light there might not be such a bad idea.
The South County Road/Main Street (Marstons Mills) intersection is the least busy/dangerous of the three. I'm not so sure that a light is needed there, especially if a light is added @ Route 149.
The biggest issue is the vast number of stops and lights in this stretch of Rt. 28. Lumbert's Mill Road to the new Stop & Shop could have 6 traffic signals. That's 6 signals in less that 3 miles. Traffic on Rt. 28 already crawls along for good portions of this stretch. Adding 3 new lights seems like a lot, when you consider that of the 3 that currently exist, 2 are for the Stop & Shop plaza and one is for the road leading to the Town Dump.

Another Recall Attempt?

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:00:00 +0000

COG is reporting that it has completed the first step in its latest attempt to recall Precinct 6 Town Councilor Janet Joakim. It found 50 or so people in Precinct 6 willing to sign anything. The affidavit these people signed allows the recallers to take out a recall petition. Recallers have 10 days from the issuance of the petition to get 10% of registered Precinct 6 voters (around 250) to sign the petition. If they obtain the correct amount of signatures (as certified by the Town Clerk), there will be a recall election scheduled for between 45-60 days after the Clerk certified the petition (unless Councilor Joakim were to resign, which is HIGHLY unlikely). In that election, AT LEAST 20% of Precinct 6 must show up for the results to count AND the majority must vote that she be recalled.

The recall process is not a simple one and is another good example of things that were done correctly in the construction of our current charter. A recall is an important voter tool and a serious matter, and (because of how the charter was written) it cannot be done on a whim.

The ironic matter of this recall is that it will cost between $7,000-$15,000 to perform the recall election (should the recallers succeed in reaching the election). Considering the EXTREMELY poor turnouts at Barnstable elections, it would not be surprising to see LESS that 20% of Precinct 6 show up, which would nullify the results. So, between actually LOSING the election (which is what COGers do best) and not getting enough voters to show up, there is a very good chance that they could be wasting a good amount of OUR money.

Now, I am not an expert on recalls, but the way that I read the charter makes this even more interesting. As I read it, IF a recall election is successful, then ANOTHER separate election must be held 50-120 days later to fill the vacant slot. Which means that a successful recall costs between $14,000-$30,000. YIKES!

Here's a good article from The Barnstable Patriot's archives describing the recall process.

Here's an article from the Patriot in 2007, that details the start of last failed attempt to recall Councilor Joakim and in which Town Clerk Linda Hutchenrider estimates that "a single-precinct recall election would cost between $6,000 and $7,000".

TJ, over at The Barnstable Beat puts the cost of a recall election at up to $15,000.

ZBA Issues Force COGers To Return To Roots

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:45:00 +0000

When I wrote my post on the Zoning Board of Appeals and the new Blanchard's proposed on Rt. 28, I had no idea about the tale that was about to drop in front of a couple of spectators that night.

While I have serious concerns about how the ZBA handled the Blanchard's situation, I have serious concerns about all issues concerning the entire board.

There are members (who recently resigned) who had served since 1973.

There were multiple openings, positions left unfilled by the Town Council, and members who had served for over a year waiting for a replacement.

There were qualified Alternate Members who were passed over for entirely new people and there was serious politicking in the election of the two newest ZBA members, whose qualifications are not what I am here to discuss.

There needed to be change and restoration on this board long ago. The Town Council and its Appointments Committee dropped the ball.

Meanwhile, back in Barnstable's Blogosphere, Blanchard's had been a topic of discussion just before the mass resignations. Now, of course, this overturning of the ZBA has become Topic #1. Even the Cape Cod Times actually mentioned it in an article.

Meanwhile, in COGland, the Main COG Blog and Eric Schwaab's blog have returned to their COGer roots.

Schwaab, desperate for another COG friend, called Councilor Hank Farnham a COGer. Schwaab based his invitation on a post on Barnstable Beat that claimed that Farnham, NEVER a member of the COG clan, had called for Council President Janet Joakim's resignation. Schwaab forgot about the names, allegations and comments that COGers have made about Councilor Farnham in the past (especially when he served as Council President). Yet, because Farnham reportedly agreed with the COGers on their one pseudo-issue - Joakim's removal from office - Schwaab was ready to initiate him into the ranks.

Elsewhere, lead COGer Gary Lopez was busy drumming up false accusations against a fellow blogger. This is the ULTIMATE COG trick - when you don't agree with someone or they have proved you wrong - accuse an blogger or commenter of being a Town Councilor. I know, because I have been called so many different names and been accused of being so many different people, that I have lost track. Of course, as of the last couple years, the COGers love to accuse is Janet Joakim.

TJ, over at Barnstable Beat, has now been accused (again) of being Ms. Joakim. Lopez brings no EVIDENCE, only hopeful theories that may even have been altered to prove his point.

This kind of game is COG's favorite thing to do, and I wish the best to the falsely accused. However, they are not done with the game-playing.

Remember the "outrage" near the end of the last election cycle where people reportedly made "nasty" ethnic slurs against the COG candidate in Precinct 3 (Schwaab)? Remember how it was shown that COGers make more slurs and "nasty" attacks than any commenters have EVER been accused of making against COG?

Well, COG is making slurs again. On Sunday, Lopez created a follow-up post to his original post accusing TJ of being Joakim. Here is his title:

"SUSPICIONS CONFIRMED; Janet Joakim is a sicko femme Nazi...."

(My sincere apologies to Councilor Joakim for posting this, but people need to know what is being said.)

I am greatly disturbed by the nature of comments and posts made by COGers. TJ and I are not always on the same page, but we always have stood firm against the COG machine. TJ has been put through a purgatory online recently, and has come out stronger than ever. I know TJ will emerge victorious in this case, too.

As for Councilor Joakim, we rarely agree on larger political issues. Yet, in local politics, there are many instances of common ground. In the blogosphere, there are even more. Councilor Joakim does not deserve the treatment she has received from COG. She has stuck it out through treatment that no one in this town deserves.

The COG group will always resort to their typical tactics. They are:

False Accusations
Personal Attacks
Lies and/or Manipulation of Facts
Racial, ethnic or other Slurs (aka "cyber hate-crimes")

Let's take a stand as a town and not let them get away with it.

Blanchard's II

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:26:00 +0000

Back in March, I wrote a post about the new proposed Blanchard's Liqours at the edge of Precinct 3's borders on Route 28 (near CVS) at the old Knights of Columbus building.

The building was a hot button topic, thanks to discussion started on Janet Joakim's SevenVillages Blog. I chose to write my own post on the topic because of the magnitude of the issue and its extreme proximity to Precinct 3 - It's across the street from this Precinct.

When discussing it, I saw three major issues that needed to be discussed:

Since the town hands out liquor licenses, should it relocate the store into an area that already has two stores in a 1.5 mile area?
Traffic Impact of the new store
Impact of the store on children

After writing the article and reading the comments left by many (including the late Bradley Ouimette, who will be missed), I came up with the following answers:

While competition is a GOOD thing, too much competition will in this area will likely result in one of the two current stores being forced to close. Thus, we are left with a trade of abandoned buildings - Knights of Columbus for the closed liquor store(s).
The traffic impact of the store would be a MAJOR problem. This stretch of Rt. 28 is dangerous enough, and adding an entrance and exit at this location will only make it worse.
Contrary to the belief of some, adding a liquor store to this area is not an issue for the children at the nearby Middle School. There are already liquor stores closer to the High School, the Charter Schools, and Elementary Schools. Plus, it is absurd to think that Blachard's employees would be duped into selling to Middle Schoolers, no matter how good their fake IDs might be...

The biggest issue turned out to be traffic. I feel that allowing the largest liquor store in the Mid-Cape area to be placed at this location without traffic correction is recipe for traffic disaster. If you think that the Lumbert's Mill or 149 intersections with Rt. 28 are bad, this could be even worse. Now, there were possible ways to deal with the traffic issues - back entrance/exit, median strip, etc... - but Blanchard's chose not to include them in their proposal.

The curb cuts they proposed are similar to Olive Garden, the McDonald's on Rt. 132 and both Christmas Tree Shops entrances on Rt. 28 and Rt. 132. In other words, these are the exits/entrances you see people cutting across multiple lanes of traffic to use incorrectly. This is mainly because there are no ways to turn around in Hyannis. Who in their right mind WANTS to go around the Airport Rotary so they can go to McDonald's? Why drive past it, when you can just sit in the Left-hand lane and pray for an opening (a big one) so that you can take the very awkward turn?

Curb cuts do not solve the problem, and often cause even greater problems because people driving by these cuts are not expecting other cars to take illegal left-hand turns.

Anyway, the proposed store required Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) approval because the land is not currently zoned for that use. However, when the proposal came up before the ZBA, the ZBA had no problem approving it even after the Town Manager, Town Council President AND the Town Councilor from that Precinct (Precinct 2) all spoke before the board about the negative impact on traffic that would occur in the area.

The opponents of the project stepped up to the nuclear option, obtaining Cape Cod Commission (CCC) review of the project. Blanchard's had originally escaped review because, at 9,800 square feet, their building fell just 200 square feet short of mandatory CCC review - 10,000 square feet. CCC review could very well kill the project either because of the time & expense or a disapproval. Opponents of the project have also been conducting a mini-"purge" of the ZBA.

More recently, the "Blogger Who Promises To Retire But Never Does" has claimed that the actions of at least the Council President were based because there is a distant family connection between her family and the family that owns one of the two liquor stores nearby the proposed Blanchard's site. Let me be the first to say that I have no idea whether or not this is true, but it would have no impact on my opinion either way.

Cape Cod Package Store (CCPS), located just seconds down Rt. 28, now wants to expand... The COG author asserts that the traffic coming out of this store at its current size is worse than any that would occur at the Blanchard's site. While there are always going to be morons who ignore traffic laws, the COG author leaves out one thing. It is POSSIBLE for people to take a left turn out of this store, BUT it is MORE likely that the will use the BACK entrance which will take them right to the smart light at the intersection that is a few feet away and will allow them to go wherever they want.

If the CCPS wants to expand, they should go through the same arduous process - ZBA and public opinion - that Blanchard's went through before receiving token approval from the ZBA. Let's see some real review of CCPS impact on traffic, and if that means changing the CCPS entrance on Rt. 28 to the Right ONLY In/Out entrance that was proposed for Blanchard's, then let's demand it. This time the Right ONLY In/Out curb cut will actually work - because patrons can exit out the back, right to the light at Phinney's Lane & Rt. 28.

If Blanchard's had included a rear entrance (like CCPS has) that would have placed patrons on Wequaquet Ave./Old Strawberry Hill Rd. in addition to their Right ONLY In/Out entrance on Rt. 28, then they probably would have eliminated traffic concerns and approval would never have been an issue. Patrons could take their lefts at the light. (Though, this plan might have required future alterations to the intersection - additional left turn lanes and signals - depending on how much traffic there really was.) Yet, even this plan caused unrest among Blanchard's prospective neighbors.

In the end, the ZBA ignored the pleas of both citizens and officials - that is why Blanchard's faces CCC review and that is why the ZBA is being shaken up. For once, the community actually voiced their opinion on a zoning issue, but the ZBA ignored them. Hopefully, the new members of the ZBA will listen as we begin some discussion on the proposed expansion of CCPS.

Lots of Rain Keeping You Locked In?

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:36:00 +0000

Other than the return of some snowbirds, it has been relatively quiet since my last post.

There has been some bad news - the recall rumors & threats are back in full force, but they don't mean anything until paperwork is accepted. Sure, Greg Milne is running for ANOTHER elected office, but that doesn't mean anything unless he actually gets elected.

There has been some good news - lighting on Main Street looks great, gas prices have leveled off, and our friend at Barnstable Beat is sticking it out through some petty attacks.

Anyway, I was sitting here admiring the torrential downpour, thankful that I have escaped the cicada invasion so far, and a question popped into my head. With all the rain pouring down recently, is anyone experiencing drainage problems? My street and the ones around it has been very bad with drainage in the past, but it seems to have weathered the last few storms OK. How about you?

The Value of a Business (or "The Cost of Doing Business in Barnstable")

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Tue, 27 May 2008 13:05:00 +0000

Should a piece of business property be assessed at the value of the entire company?

Should my home assessment include the value of my laptop, TV, furniture, and pets?

In today's Barnstable - where taxes are high, homes are overvalued and not selling, good jobs are scarce and tourism (the lifeblood of our economy) has been low - people looking for any reason at all to lower their taxes are willing to suggest exactly that - a piece of business should be assessed at the ENTIRE value of that local business. Not that a Mobil station should be assessed at whatever billions of $$$ that Mobil is worth, but that a local store or mall that has only one location should have the property assessed at whatever price someone else pays for the property AND business.

Property assessments in Barnstable have been skewed for years. A combination of bad assessing, 2-acre zoning, building caps and a few other factors have caused a dramatic increase in assessed residential property value. We asked for 2-acre zoning. We wanted a cap on new homes. We knew that higher property values would result, and that was a major reason people wanted these measures - they wanted more valuable homes. BUT, now we are paying for it - because higher residential property values means higher residential property tax bills.

Now, looking to shift the burden of taxation to a faceless "Corporate America", there are some that will do anything to (unfairly) shift the burden away from themselves. Looking to avoid paying for their own mistakes, they try anything from the split-tax to trying to improperly assess business values. Let's take a closer look at the value of a business:

Assuming that someone is going to buy a business and its property, what are some major factors that make a business (and its property valuable)?

Strength & viability of the business
Property value
Value of recurring contracts
Local goodwill
Historicity of business and site

Strength & viability of the business

If someone is buying both the business AND property, with the intention of continuing to run the business, then the actual value of the sale is going to be based (at least partially) on the strength and long-term viability of the business. If the business is floundering or outdated, it is worth less. If it is extremely successful or has a bright future, then it is worth more. If the business has a local monopoly, it is more valuable, too.

Property value

Property value is a very important factor in business value. Size, location, structures, parking, etc. all play a large role in setting property values. A desirable size & location and adequate parking allow a new owner to be comfortable on-site. A building without need of renovation is another valuable commodity. Without some of these items, a piece of property is worth less.

Value of recurring contracts

The value of recurring contracts is a value that cannot be underestimated. While some may be undesirable, generally, a recurring contract is a highly valuable asset for a purchaser. Guaranteed lease revenue, long-term contracts with large corporations or government, patents, etc... all help increase the investment value of a purchase.

Local goodwill

Local goodwill is a commodity unlike any other. Local goodwill can make an ordinary business into a nationally known commodity. Take Four Seas Ice Cream - an ordinary ice cream shop, BUT local goodwill (among both residents and tourists) has propelled Four Seas into a name known nationally and it has become synonymous with Cape Cod summers. Having a good name in the local community is key to business success, and having a GREAT reputation locally is what helps makes you into a GREAT success. If someone were to buy Four Seas tomorrow, they would be paying a premium for the name and its local success.

Historicity of business and site

Historicity of a business or site ties in with local goodwill. Do people go there because of history? Does the site have historical value? Is it located in a highly historical area? Take the Hyannisport general store, right next to the Hyannisport Post Office. That tiny little store makes a huge profit because everyone HAS to go see the Kennedy Compound and Hyannisport.

I say all this to illustrate my point - the sale price of a business and its property is not what the property should be assessed at. The innate characteristics, features and advantages a business contains cannot be included in the value of a piece of property. If someone buys Four Seas Ice Cream and its property to tear down the building and put a strip mall in, that value will lose the majority of its value because the one thing that makes that property so valuable is not the property itself, but the business and history that makes Four Seas Ice Cream (the company) so valuable. Without Four Seas Ice Cream (the company) included in any sale of the land, the sale would worth MUCH less.

(Please note that I was only using Four Seas Ice Cream as an example. I am not saying that it has/will be sold.)

False Alarm

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:15:00 +0000

As the blogger from Barnstable who proudly resides in Precinct 3, I try to chime in whenever the Precinct, or issues directly affecting it, is mentioned in the local blogosphere.

Readers who found Precinct 3 mentioned in Gary Lopez' latest blog post can rest easy. Precinct 3 has absolutely NOTHING to do with the story, which is another pointless attack on Janet Joakim.

Speaking of which, in this latest post, the author of the COG blog has done two interesting things that cannot be a good indicator of his future power (if any) in Barnstable politics.

First, he again posted the account numbers and routing numbers for Janet Joakim's bank account, by adding the infamous picture of her check. As I have pointed out previously on this blog (here and here), this action is a crime. That Lopez has posted the check AGAIN is to spit on the face of common sense, and hopefully will only be further ammunition for any charges and/or investigations that should be conducted of the COGers.

Second, Lopez made this little quip "If Janet Joakim has the gall to run for reelection next year "... Hmmm... I thought the COGers we going to recall her... What happened to that??? Apparently, they either don't have the signatures or they don't have the votes (they NEVER have the votes). Though, the embarrasment of being voted down is always overshadowed in their minds by the "success" of collecting the signatures.

Last Tuesday, we had "Meeting of the Voters"... 300 people signed that petition... Not even 100 showed up... Looks like COG can get the signatures, but not the vote... Councilor Rugo was right when he said that anyone could collect 500 signatures in a day - half of them just from people who want you to leave them alone... Looks like plenty of people want the COGers to leave them alone, and they're saying it at the ballot box and meeting rooms... But folks, the BEST way to get them to leave you alone is to NOT SIGN THEIR PETITIONS.

By the way, the town DID record the Open Meeting, and the complete video is available for viewing or download on the town website, or you can download it by right clicking on this link --> and Selecting "Save Target As...".

Quick Thoughts on the Meeting of the Voters

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:28:00 +0000

Some quick thoughts on tonight's Open Meeting of Voters

Moderation

I thought that the moderator did a good job in his breakdown of the time allowed for each of the three issues.
However, he was a tad too under-spoken, oftentimes letting people ramble on over him or ignore what he had said.
His explanations and preparation were excellent, and overall he did a good job.

Participation

It was good to see a decent number of people at this meeting, however, the auditorium was not close to half full.
There definitely appeared to be less COGers than other citizens.
For the most part, this meeting was VERY civil, and there were not many negative personal comments.
Even though commenters were given a generous limit of 5 minutes, the entire allotted time was rarely used by anyone - only maybe one or two speakers came close.
The one exception being the author of the COG site.

COGers

For the most part, the COGers were certainly outnumbered
However, Gary Lopez (of COG fame) thought he was entitled to speak whenever he pleased, however he pleased and for as long as he pleased, regardless of what the Moderator said.
The other COG supporters (including Mr. Julius) made their points well, without breaking rules.

Access

For those of us unfamiliar with the High School, finding the Knight Auditorium proved to be a challenge, and there was no signage telling us where to go.
While there were some people recording the meeting on their own, I do not believe that this was recorded for television on Channel 18. Maybe I am incorrect about that, but the meeting certainly should have been either aired live on TV or recorded.
If anyone has a copy of any video of this meeting, or knows that the town DID in fact record the meeting, please let me know.

Overall

As I have said, this seemed to be more of an inquisition where the COGers thought they would have two hours to grill the Councilors however they felt.
The Moderator correctly allowed town officials to answer the charges the original (and invalid) petition laid against the town, before allowing public comment on each issue.
The Moderator allowed the most time (about 1 hour) for discussion of Issue #1 - Split Tax, a little less time for the Greg Milne legal fees issue (about 40 min), and the least amount of time to the final (and already resolved) shellfish issue (about 20 min). This was a very good distribution of time, and mirrored the interest of those attending the meeting.
Very little was accomplished at this meeting, except more discussion of these issues. However, I thought the Council did a good job of explaining their point of view, as did all parties speaking tonight.
It was nice to have a pretty civil political debate in Barnstable, for once.

Mandates???

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:00:00 +0000

What exactly is a "mandate"?

Nowadays, everything that happens in politics is referred to as a mandate. If a politician wins by one vote, he has a "mandate". If a measure passes by one vote, it was a "mandate" of the people.

Also, according to the COGers, If a NON-BINDING referendum passes, it is a "mandate". They also claim that if a candidate is elected to two offices, and chooses to try to ILLEGALLY hold BOTH, he has a "mandate" because he was "elected to both".

Why must everything be a mandate? Why can't we just have a simple non-binding referendum? Why can't we simply be supporting a candidate to make sure he has a position SOMEWHERE in the fall?

In my opinion, the ONLY time there is a MANDATE, is when the voters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts pass a BINDING referendum ORDERING the State Legislature to do something (like lowering the State Income Tax).

I'm sick and tired of hearing that EVERY little thing is a "mandate". Let's let the COGers see a real "mandate" - for them to leave us alone - tonight at the Open Meeting of the Voters. You need to be there.

More on the Check

noreply@blogger.com (Dedicated Precinct3 Voter) — Mon, 05 May 2008 19:11:00 +0000

Some people have complained in the comments on my previous post that I was being too kind to Joakim in my assessment of the "check-writing fiasco". On the contrary, my post was designed for a specific purpose - to point out the criminality of the COGers irresponsible actions.

Anyone could write a post simply piling on Joakim or supporting her. That was not my intention. Sometimes, the most interesting and important parts of arguments are not the main issue, but the OTHER things we learn during the discussion.

Am I disturbed by the "check-writing fiasco"? A little. Does it call into question the financial responsibility of a Town Councilor responsible for the large financial burden of our over $100 million budget? Yes.

On the other hand, one has to wonder if the problem was not the $45 bounced check in question, but a $400 unpaid bill, why didn't the store owner do anything about this in the last 3 years??? Couldn't he have gone to a number of places - Cape Cod Times, Barnstable Patriot, the league the purchase was made for, local Democratic leadership, a collection agency, small claims court - at ANY point before now???

Sounds to me that both sides have issues here, and that blame cannot fall on either party fully. I don't like sticking my nose into these "he said-she said" arguments. There is never anything of substance that any outsider, other than a real judge and/or jury after a trial, can add to the discussion.

As I said before, the MUCH larger issue here is the apparent criminality of the MULTIPLE COGers' actions. Posting someone's PERSONAL check online is not only irresponsible, but a criminal action. Posting the personal check with the sensitive personal info (routing number, account number, etc) blacked out would have been fine. Posting a TOWN check acquired via a Freedom of Information request would be fine. However, leaving someone entirely vulnerable to identity theft is inexcusable and warrants the attention of law enforcement officials.

This posting of personal info online was only the next logical step in the COGers' invasion of public officials' privacy. Whether it was John Klimm's cell phone number, or any of the other personal information not intended for public distribution provided by COGers in their online forum, they HAVE done similar acts in the past, and NO ONE should be surprised.