Precinct 3 Truth

Elections and Endorsements

2008-11-03T22:30:00.001-05:00

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

2008-10-29T17:13:00.004-04:00

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...

2008-10-28T12:00:00.002-04:00

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

2008-10-17T17:00:00.000-04:00

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

2008-10-07T14:30:00.000-04:00

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

2008-09-23T11:30:00.004-04:00

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

2008-09-01T05:57:00.004-04:00

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

2008-08-31T13:15:00.003-04:00

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?

2008-08-23T21:06:00.010-04:00

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

2008-08-17T06:15:00.000-04:00

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

2008-08-12T20:45:00.000-04:00

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

2008-08-09T21:30:00.001-04:00

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

2008-08-06T06:00:00.001-04:00

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?

2008-08-04T13:15:00.001-04:00

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

2008-07-27T16:30:00.003-04:00

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

2008-07-24T00:30:00.002-04:00

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?

2008-07-19T13:00:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-14T13:45:00.003-04:00

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

2008-07-09T10:26:00.005-04:00

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?

2008-06-26T21:36:00.005-04:00

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")

2008-05-27T09:05:00.001-04:00

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

2008-05-16T14:15:00.001-04:00

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

2008-05-06T20:28:00.005-04:00

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???

2008-05-06T12:00:00.002-04:00

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

2008-05-05T15:11:00.003-04:00

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.

COGers Have Crossed The Line Into CRIME

2008-05-05T13:06:00.006-04:00

Just days before the Open Meeting of the Voters, scheduled by the Council, irregardless to the illegal and invalid COG petition asking for one, the COGers have thrown themselves into the moral debate once again.

This time, the COGers' philosophy of attacking any/all public officials not named Greg Milne in any way possible has backfired on them. In the process of trying to attack the character of Town Council President Janet Joakim, the COGers posted a photo of an unedited personal check attributed to Councilor Joakim on a number of blog sites (including the one STILL written by Gary Lopez). This photo contained the full account and routing numbers for Joakim's personal bank account, a copy of her signature, and her address and phone number.

Any identity thief (or ANYONE really) trolling the internet may have found their "payday" with the wealth of info provided by the COGers. The COGers who have posted the check are either identity thieves or accessories to the crime. This is a serious matter.

If they had blocked out the extremely sensitive personal info (bank account & routing numbers) contained on this check, it would not be a huge deal, but providing this type of information is a REAL CRIME! They routinely complain about the "crimes" and "injustice" in this time, but now EVERYONE in town should know that the COGers are the REAL criminals in Barnstable.

It is one thing for the COGers to participate in the despicable practice of providing the personal HOME and CELL numbers for various public officials, and then calling them at all hours of the day. Public officials have official PROVIDED means of contact - work phone numbers, work email addresses, offices, etc... that we can reach them at, if we want to. Providing to the masses personal numbers that they have not given out for public consumption is bad enough, but actually providing PERSONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION for Town officials in not just despicable - IT IS A CRIME.

I hope that these disturbing people get punished for this deed. Town residents pay attention - Do you REALLY want to support this kind of people - Criminals who will do ANYTHING to attack the people that they do not like?

Finally, Good Leadership @ the Cape Cod Commission

2008-05-01T23:05:00.002-04:00

I know that the hot topics in Barnstable right now are the Open Meeting of the Voters and the new Budget. However, yesterday's Cape Cod Times reminded me of something I have wanted to mention for a while.

Last year, the Cape Cod Commission decided to hire former Barnstable Assistant Town Manager Paul Niedzwiecki as its Executive Director. This move may perhaps be the best thing that the Cape Cod Commission has EVER done. Not only did they select someone who has the ability to have a vision for large projects and communities, they got someone who can get it done, too. Much of the revitalization of Downtown Hyannis has come from Paul Niedzwiecki's vision for the area.

Recently, Paul Niedzwiecki has been making some waves in his new job. Quoting from an article in yesterday's Times,

On April 8, Cape Cod Commission Executive Director Paul Niedzwiecki announced settlement offers for five staff members whose positions would be eliminated as part of a reorganization of the agency. The moves were a response to recommendations from an advisory group formed in 2006, Niedzwiecki said.

Finally, the Cape Cod Commission has someone unafraid to move on and unafraid to challenge bureaucracy. Paul Niedzwiecki and I do not always agree, but his vision, passion, and common sense make him an excellent administrator. Perhaps, he could even make a good mayor.

Personally, I do not like the Cape Cod Commission. It has been too stringent and taken control away from the towns. It has limited growth too severely in some areas, and allowed others to grow out of control. I believe that the individual Cape towns would do a better job of controlling growth without the Commission.

That said, we do have the Commission, and it's highly unlikely that we will be leaving it any time soon. In that case, Paul Niedzwiecki is the best man for the job. The changes he is making are helping set the Commission on the right track. If he can actually make the Commission "less of a reactive regulatory agency and more of a proactive planning agency" as he has said in the past, then the Cape will be much better off. I support Paul Niedzwiecki in his efforts to make the Cape Cod Commission into a better agency, and wish him the best of luck - Cape Cod is lucky to have him.

Defining "Elective Office"

2008-04-29T11:02:00.008-04:00

Barnstable Town Charter:
Section 3-2 Eligibility
"Any voter shall be eligible to hold any elective town office provided that, no person shall simultaneously hold more than one elective town office."

Dictionary.com
e·lec·tive -adjective
1. pertaining to the principle of electing to an office, position, etc.

of·fice –noun
5. a position of duty, trust, or authority, esp. in the government, a corporation, a society, or the like: She was elected twice to the office of president.

There has been a lot of discussion on Greg Milne's attempts to serve on both the Town Council AND the Charter Commission. While some people see the obvious clarity in our town's charter - that you cannot be elected to two town wide positions - others try to play games with words.

The town charter says ONE "elective town office" per person (at a time). It is obvious that "town" means town-wide, and courtesy of dictionary.com we see that "elective" refers to an election and "office" is a "position of duty, trust or authority, esp. in the government". I think it would be VERY fair to define the Charter Commission as a "town-wide elected position of authority in and/or over the government".

Serving in both positions would not only be a violation of the town charter, but it would also be a direct conflict of interest. Charter Commissioner Milne would have the ability to directly impact his position as Town Councilor Milne. Whether sabotaging the effort to maintain his Council seat, determining a number of Councilors that makes his reelection easier, changing the term limits for Town Councilors, or a whole host of other options, Milne could have direct access to change the power a Councilor has (albeit subject to voter approval).

Frankly, this issue is only brought up by the town's costly vocal minority. By playing with words and saying that "other towns do it, so it must be OK", they have tried to place their friend onto a board that they could not be voted onto. Enough is enough with them and the Milne situation. It's time we stopped listening to the advice of COGers - they are the same group who tried to force people to create an "elected" position out of thin air by signing their flawed and illegal Meeting of the Voters petition.

Open Meeting of the Voters - Correcting the Errors of the COGers

2008-04-28T08:00:00.008-04:00

Next Tuesday - May 06, 2008 - There will be an "Open Meeting of the Voters" for Barnstable Residents at the Knight Auditorium in Barnstable High School Auditorium.

It is your responsibility to make it to this meeting if you can. The meeting will be open to ALL topics, though many of the COG persuasion will try to make it about their agenda. You need to be there to add common sense to the debates. Those who agree with the COGers (and are less satisfied with this town than most) are going to try to make this meeting into a roast of the Council. It is time to let the COGers know that they are the minority, albeit a very loud minority.

The fact is that the steam behind this "meeting" was started out with a COG agenda. They were able to gather 300 signatures to their petition to call a meeting. Now, I have practice getting signatures, and I could get 300 signatures in a day, just from people who want me to leave them alone. Anyway, when they turned their petition in, it was ruled invalid for a few reasons.

First, their petition contained language that "elected" a prominent COGer as the "Moderator" of the meeting. Two problems with that - You cannot VOTE for and "ELECTED" position by signing a petition. You must have an ELECTION that all voters can participate in and people can run for. Two - the Charter, which allows for the meeting, never even mentions any "Moderator" position. So their rigged "election" is a double phony.

Second, their petition contained language that would have given it subpoena power. In order to force someone to appear at an event (court, town meeting, governmental inquiry, etc...) you must have subpoena powers. This petition tried to use such powers to FORCE a specific list of people to attend, when a petition cannot have subpoena power, nor can the Town Council President. So, no one can force anyone to attend the meeting.

Third, some members of the COG meeting drive sought to limit attendance at the meeting to only those that signed their petition (and the people the wanted to FORCE to come). In my opinion, not only does such a measure break the Open Meeting Law (which the COGers have accused the Council of breaking in the past), it also would have unfairly restricted your right to government oversight and free speech. The Charter NEVER restricts who may attend an Open Meeting of the Voters.

Because of the highly illegal and unauthorized language contained in the COG petition for an Open Meeting, Town Attorney Ruth Weil correctly ruled that their petition was invalid. However, the Council, which has the ultimate say on whether or not an Open Meeting occurs, decided to hold one anyway. This meeting will have no limits on who may attend or what may be discussed. No one will be forced to attend (I know that at least one town official will not be attending), but I recommend that we send so many people over to that auditorium to shout down the COGers, that we have people flowing into the parking lot. Hope to see you there.

Barnstable Students Performing Better than Average in State Colleges

2008-04-16T12:49:00.007-04:00

A major problem facing our educational system nationwide is the decreasing literacy of high school graduates. Many teenagers who have "graduated" high school simply cannot read, write or do arithmetic. Education's three "r's" are simply not being learned by a growing number of students.

Many people have suggested the following reasons as causes for this problem:

Insufficient funding (highly unlikely considering the MASSIVE amount of money THROWN @ schools today)
Underqualifed teachers (possible, but unlikely a major cause)
Class sizes are too large (a favorite excuse, but shrinking class size does not necessarily equal better grades)
Lack of student discipline (the fact that today's kids rarely listen to adults certainly plays a role)
Lack of accountability in school district overview - simply put, parents/citizens aren't holding School Committees responsible for declining performance with increased funding (parental involvement is one of the most underrated factors in education)
Not enough time being spent on basics (In my opinion, we spend too much time with art class, music class, Spanish, social studies, multicultural club, computer class, "health" class and other secondary classes in elementary & middle schools when many of these children can't read, write or do math, and they have no knowledge of American History.)
"Passing" students who should be held back (We are not doing any favors to our children when we pass them because we don't want to "hurt their self-esteem", etc..., even though they failed the class. If they don't know it, they don't know it and they aren't going to learn it when they move on to more advanced material. This then handcuffs teachers who have to reteach what they learned last year or "dumb down" the class in an attempt to catch those students up, while the rest of the class learns little or nothing.)
Too many cooks? (With federal regulations, state regulations, local regulations, regulations at individual schools, PTA, Teacher's Unions, etc..., it seems that everyone wants to determine school policies. Maybe having TOO much government oversight is a BAD thing.)
Complacency & No Competition (In theory, Public Education allows for a utopia of learning for our children. Everyone has access and it is free. Because the vast majority of schools are public, the vast majority of the best teachers teach in them. Maybe that idea is not such a good idea. With no real competition to gage performance against, people simply assume that schools are doing the best job possible, and if they need a little more money in the budget, "it's for the children". The extra few dollars per person is not that much to bear (unless it's an override), and many people simply do not notice the massive amounts of money being spent on public education. In theory, communism is the perfect government utopia - but we know it doesn't work. Why can't we admit that the utopia of public education may not work either.)
Costs going unnoticed (Did you know that Massachusetts State Law MANDATES that local school districts spend at least $10,000 per student per YEAR? Do we really need to spend THAT much money? Do we really need $50, $60, or $100 MILLION dollar schools? If someone told you to hand over $10,000 per child for their education, there is no way you would pay that much for the education without shopping around first. Why do we let our town simply pay itself $10,000 per KID? Because we don't pay it as a personal bill - we have the federal government chip in a little, the state gives us a little aid and less lottery money... and the rest is part of our property tax bill. But parents don't have to hand over that $10,000 per child, they have others pay for it... and a dollar apiece for 1000 people is a lot easier to swallow that $1000 for one person.)

ANYWAY, enough with my rant, and back to the main topic - High School students needing remedial work when entering college. I saw an article in the Boston Globe about this topic, and it led me to more research on the state website. I have included links to my major sources of info below.

According to a study just released by the state, 37% of high schoolers who graduated in 2005 and entered a public college (State College, State University or Community College) the following September were taking at least one remedial course in reading, writing or arithmetic. That is NOT good, because many of the normal, regular entry-level courses in these institutions are basically remedial courses - reintroduction to things students should have already learned - simple math and grammar classes.

However, Barnstable High (and Sturgis) students are outperforming the state average at 33% and 32%, respectively. To contrast, 100% of students at Springfield High, that's right 100%, enrolled in remedial classes. I glad that all Barnstable students are doing better than average, and while some bloggers in town have been overcritical of our schools, they are doing all right, but there is always room for improvement.

The study also included some other interesting information about other key statistics relating to the transition from high school to college. Barnstable students outperformed the state averages in SAT scores. While less students from Barnstable than the state average attended public schools, they were more likely to stay for a second year. Sturgis students had the same first year of college GPA as the state average (2.8) and Barnstable High students were just below at a 2.7. However, both Sturgis and Barnstable High Students took about three more credits than the state average. So, their relatively average GPAs came with more classwork.

While this is relatively good news about the educations received in our town, the fact is that the education in the entire country is breaking or is already broken. The education that students receive today pales in comparison to what was received 10, 20, 30, 40 or more years ago. What are the problems and what are we going to do to fix it?

Boston Globe - "Many Mass. graduates unprepared in college"
Massachusetts School-to-College Report: Class of 2005 Summary Data.pdf
Barnstable High - School-to-College Report: Class of 2005.pdf
Sturgis Charter Public School - School-to-College Report: Class of 2005.pdf

(ALL STATISTICS FOR CLASS OF 2005 HIGH SCHOOLERS ENROLLING IN A PUBLIC COLLEGE IN MASSACHUSETTS)

Barnstable Average SAT Scores:
Math: 547
Verbal: 554
Combined: 1101

Sturgis Average SAT Scores:
Math: 546
Verbal: 574
Combined: 1120

State Average SAT Scores:
Math: 536
Verbal: 526
Combined: 1061

Overall % of Students enrolled in remedial college classes Fall 2005
Barnstable: 33%
Sturgis: 32%
State: 37%
Springfield High School: 100%

% of Students who enrolled for Second year of state college in Fall 2006
Barnstable: 85%
Sturgis: 88%
State: 81%

Average First Year College GPA
Barnstable: 2.7
Sturgis: 2.8
State: 2.8

Average First Year Credits
Barnstable: 29
Sturgis: 29.2
State: 26.5

Vision for Hyannis?

2008-04-03T23:11:00.000-04:00

Main Street Hyannis has seemingly finished the improvements that it began years ago with the repaving of the commercial boulevard. Now with lighting finally installed and operational, the work that was set out to be completed is done.

We have been left with the telephone poles still up on the street, even though we have been asking for them to be removed for decades. The water pipes need replacing. The 500 Block is still a mess, though there might be some hope with a renovation plan underway for that parcel. We have a gigantic Transportation Center with hundreds (or thousands) of NEVER used parking spaces, and the P&B garage still across the street harassing traffic. The traffic flow on Main Street still makes zero sense. I could keep going, but we all know the problems.

I have a few questions - What is the long-term plan for Downtown Hyannis revitalization? Who has the vision and is working on it?

What is the long-term plan for capital asset improvement, replacement & repair for the Hyannis Water District? Who has THAT vision and is working on it? Do we have the necessary infrastructure to encourage REAL growth?

I don't want to know tiny little details about small projects - I want "big picture" info. I've seen the "Comprehensive Plan" on the town website, but that is not a VISION. At best, it is an uninspired short term plan, with plenty of "goals" and "actions" that are just vague enough that they have no meaning whatsoever. We need a plan that tells us what we are going to do and WHY.

Right now, interest rates are plummeting and we have a AAA bond rating... If we ever wanted to take out bonds to pay for capital improvements, NOW is the time... Provided that we actually NEED what we're going to put that bond up for... And, from what I can see, we need plenty of things...

So, will someone please stand up and let us know what is going on?

Gary Lopez Shutting Down?

2008-03-27T21:45:00.005-04:00

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?

2008-03-21T14:30:00.002-04:00

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?

2008-03-17T23:05:00.002-04:00

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?

2008-03-14T09:15:00.001-04:00

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

2008-03-10T23:54:00.005-04:00

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

2008-03-04T22:40:00.010-05:00

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?

Reagan Jr? I Don't Think So!

2008-01-30T19:24:00.001-05:00

Fashions come and go... but being compared favorably to Presidents Kennedy and Reagan is something that today's Presidential candidates are trying to do again.

For many election cycles now, candidates have been trying to jump on the backs of these Presidents' legacies. I want a candidate who is not afraid to be his own man.

As a self-proclaimed Conservative, I am very disappointed by this race. No candidate from either party comes close to having what I would consider to be "true" Conservative values. My current party of choice has given us four major candidates (3 now that Guiliani left) and Ron Paul.

None of the Big 3 (Romney, McCain and Huckabee) has a consistent enough record to be considered a true conservative and they also have their big conservative no-no's.

Romney - Approving Massachusetts' socialized health-care system
McCain - His McCain-Feingold legislation restricted First Amendment Free Speech Rights
Also proposed a bill to give all illegal immigrants amnesty
Huckabee - Rush Limbaugh has said that Huckabee "is not a conservative" and his record as governor of Arkansas proves it

Ron Paul has many conservative views, but while a very intriguing candidate, is more of a libertarian. In today's mass media-driven culture, Paul is never going to be heard or taken seriously. Leaving us with, again, the Big Three...

Right now, the entire Big Three are all saying that they are the Reaganesque candidate. I heard Romney and McCain do it in their speeches Tuesday night, and have heard Huckabee do it in the past. They are trying to be SEEN as conservatives because their records don't show it.

Of the three, Romney appears not only to be the most conservative, but he would also make the best President. McCain is more liberal than many elected Democrats and Huckabee has a speckled record at best - and his only support seems to be coming from Chuck Norris.

This Tuesday, I had been planning on voting for Ron Paul to send a message to the media that they should not filter out candidates for us... but with the most liberal Republican (McCain) seeming to have the most momentum, Romney needs every vote he can get.

The Democrats are just as bad on the riding the coattails of legacy. Hillary, of course, has been riding her husband's (until it backfired last week). Obama seemingly has the endorsement of the entire Kennedy family and they're all telling us how much he reminds them of their Presidential relative.

I'm tired of America's "coattail" mentality. We need candidates who aren't afraid to be their own person. Until I find one, Romney is my candidate.

Layoff

2007-12-28T23:07:00.001-05:00

I want to apologize for my recent absence from the blog scene. It was rude of me to leave without at least stopping by to let you know that I was too busy to write here.

The combination of the other events, commitments and activities that I am involved in has priority over this blog. While I enjoy blogging, it is not the most important thing in my life. Those obligations and the hectic holiday season combined to give me little time to sleep, let alone blog.

However, the one thing that this little layoff has taught me is a little respect for those who DO blog almost every day. I never really gave blogging much thought, but really the time and commitment necessary to achieve that level of consistency is extraordinary. Kudos to the local daily bloggers for your commitment.

I intend to write regularly (2-3 times a week or more) from now on, now that the holidays are just about behind us.

I look forward to a brand new year in Barnstable.

Why Linda Hutchenrider Is Right

2007-11-19T22:55:00.001-05:00

Linda Hutchenrider has made the correct decision. Tonight, when she refused to swear Greg Milne in as a Charter Commissioner, she made the right decision and followed the law.

Section 3-2 of the Barnstable Charter states:

Any voter shall be eligible to hold any elective town office provided that, no person shall simultaneously hold more than one elective town office.

Now, I don't know what could be more clear than that. This Section is an excellent example of checks-and-balances. It prohibits people from double-dipping. It prevents any one person from holding too much power.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a contingent out there (including Milne) who insist that this clause is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the Massachusetts State Constitution. However, this is wrong.

The first line of the amendment to the constitution that lays out the procedure for Charter change says this:

It is the intention of this article to reaffirm the customary and traditional liberties of the people with respect to the conduct of their local government, and to grant and confirm to the people of every city and town the right of self-government in local matters...

It is clearly the intention of the constitution that every city be granted freedom to govern their town as they see fit (within certain guidelines). They WANT us to govern ourselves and make our own rules.

Furthermore, our current Town Charter had to receive approval from the Massachusetts State Legislature before it became official. They deemed the document worthy and legal. They did not say that any part was unconstitutional. By approving the document, they declared it legal and binding for the citizens of Barnstable.

There is also some dispute as to whether or not Charter Commissioners are town "officers". Well, the fact of the matter is that Charter Commissioners were elected to serve in a town-wide position (or office). They are elected town officers!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Did I mention that Section 3-2 is a genius article?

It serves so many purposes to protect Barnstable citizens:

It stops any one person from serving in two elected positions at once. Therefore, you can't have power on the Town Council AND School Committee. You can't double-dip anywhere.
It decentralizes power. It keeps a small group of people from running the town and/or multiple boards. Town Councilors can't run for School Committee too and control both boards with only 7 or so people.
It also helps prohibit any conflict of interest. Because no one can serve in two elected positions at once, they can't use their power in one position to influence a decision in another. In other words, Greg Milne can't use his power on the Charter Commission to keep or remove his own Council seat.

Greg Milne needs to stop wasting taxpayer money. He should have read up on his current charter before rushing in to write a new one.

Who Should Go Away?

2007-11-15T23:55:00.001-05:00

Over the past few years, a pattern has emerged for people who try to have discussions with COGites.

There will be a conversation, at some level, that goes back and forth for a little while. Eventually, the COGites will no longer be able to defend their opinion. At this point, they will resort to the only two things they have left - calling more names (personal attacks) and telling the other person to "go away".

They claim to be "open", but when confronted, all they can do is try to get rid of you.

When they're not busy telling people to go away, they're promising to go away.

*Only a few short weeks ago, John Julius told us all how he was going to stay away from Council meetings.

*Gary Lopez has promised numerous times to shut down COG, the last time being a promise to shut it down on Election Day.

*Eric Schwaab has told us that he has "closed" his blog at LEAST twice since the Election.

What do these three men have in common? They all went back on their word, and came back to bother us. Not one of these men have followed through on their promises. Julius was back ranting and raving at the Council meeting tonight. Lopez has been REAL busy. His blog was closed down after Election Day for less than TWO days. Schwaab has been "opening" and "closing" his blog at a frenzied pace.

These COGites are the people who tell opponents that they have "no credibility". COGites should take a look in the mirror, because they aren't going to see any "credibility" in it.

These are the same people who criticize town leaders as fake, phony, and liars. Yet, they can't even keep simple promises. They criticize local officials for making up excuses and stories. Yet, that's EXACTLY what THEY do to explain away their actions. I think that they could use a dose of their own medicine.

I think that the people who spend their time telling other people to "go away", should do what they have PROMISED to do - GO AWAY.

Do I really think that they'll do it? No, but normal people do what they say they will. Or, they don't make crazy public promises that they'll never keep.

Next Day (11/16/2007) Update: Eric Schwaab has once again "closed" his blog today. Let's see long it lasts this time...

Update of Update: Well, that lasted less than 8 hours... Schwaab just reopened his site to post some of the most ridiculous claims I have ever seen... Apparently, he just can't get over the fact that he lost this election.

Third Update: His blog is back fully open right now so his friends can back him up. He is spouting crazy stuff right now... More to come in a post on Sunday. Check out two good analyses of these allegations @ http://barnstablebeat.blogspot.com/ and http://sevenvillagesblog.com/.

No System Issues! Hyannis Boil Order Lifted!

2007-11-12T18:26:00.002-05:00

The boil order has been lifted - Hyannis water is safe to drink!

Here's the Official Press Release

Or, see the Official Town Website for more info.

No matter how you slice this, there was no imminent threat to Hyannis water customers. There was no criminal negligence. There was simply an issue in a backup water storage tank. The Mass Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) simply overreacted via standard protocol to protect Hyannis from any possible contamination.

This issue was detected quickly because of the high number of tests done on every facet of Hyannis' water system. It was ended quickly because of the excellent work of many, and even more perfect tests.

The fact is that this contamination NEVER left this BACKUP tank! It NEVER entered the distribution system! There was never any E Coli in the water you and I drink!

It looks like the only reason there was a boil order was because of standard Mass DEP protocol. Hyannis water users' water was actually safe to drink during this situation. The order was simply a precautionary measure.

Looks like the fear-mongers lose again!

Back to Old Habits

2007-11-10T19:29:00.001-05:00

I was amazed, simply AMAZED, when Gary Lopez actually shut down his COG site earlier this week after the election. He had promised to do it SO many times in the past and never went through with it, that I never thought he would go through with it...

But, lo and behold, go take a look-see at Lopez' site now... It is back up and running... He's back with just as much gusto as before... telling us how the recently elected candidates were "bought" by the business community... and telling us how much of an impact he and his COGites had on the election...

I think he must have been following some other town's election.

His COG candidates ALL got SMOKED at the polls (except for Greg Milne, who can only legally take 1 of the 2 slots he was elected to)... His buddy Schwaab, who was supposedly drumming up TONS of interest in this election, not only lost, but was only able to bring 21% (439 voters) of the precinct to the election. I think that Schwaab's campaign tactics actually kept people AWAY from the polls!

In 2005, with NO Council race, NO contested town-wide races, and 3 Non-binding Ballot Questions, 20% (or 440 voters) showed up in Precinct 3. There was actually one LESS voter in 2007 than 2005...

In 2003, WITH a Council race (every precinct was electing a new councilor because of redistricting), A $9.2 Million Override, and NO contested town-wide races, Precinct 3 had a turnout of 40% (or 891 voters)...

Precinct 3 shows up when there's a reason...

Apparently, they didn't view voting for Schwaab as a reason...

More on voter turnout later next week...

Back to Lopez and Schwaab - I couldn't stop laughing when I saw Lopez' site back up and running... It's what he does - he says he's shutting down his site, but simply can't follow through...

And, as far as Mr. Eric Schwaab P.D. ("Post Deleter") is concerned, it looks like he's shutting down his Cape Cod Living blog... From what I've been reading, he's going to start over again and he is going to choose what he puts on the new site... Sounds to me like he's going to be doing some wholesale post and comment deleting... That's what he does...

One final note - To my friend @ Barnstable Beat, you might as well drag out those posts about Lopez that you were about... Looks like he's back (AGAIN).

Congratulations to James F. Munafo, Jr.

2007-11-07T06:09:00.001-05:00

I would like to congratulate the Precinct 3 Barnstable Town Councilor - James F. Munafo, Jr. - on his reelection to the Council.

In the Precinct with the highest percentage of voters showing up at the polls, Munafo defeated challenger Eric Schwaab by a tally of 240-188 to reclaim his seat.

It was a tight race by all accounts. Mr. Schwaab helped drum up support among the citizens, but the lousy weather kept many from the polls and the turnout was lower than many anticipated. I am disappointed that after all the hoopla surrounding this heated contest that only 21% of the precinct showed up to vote. We need to do better than that Barnstable.

In a related development, the "Post Deleter" struck again. I'm not going to back off his case just because the election is over. When he backs off and stops spouting off ridiculuous things and then deleting them, I'll stop posting them...

Anyway, on Election Night, instead of a Thank You to his supporters... he went onto his last post (which was trashed with comments from both sides of the aisle) and posted this comment (before taking it down this morning):
Now, I thought Schwaab said he just wanted to "be friends" with everyone once the election is over... If that's the case, then why did he write this? Honestly, please let it go...

Anyway, kudos to the citizens of Barnstable who showed up to vote, voted down the COG slate and elected excellent School Committee Members, Town Councilors and Charter Commissioners.

Church or Candidate's Crutch?

2007-11-05T17:45:00.001-05:00

Calvary Baptist Church (CBC) on West Main St. Hyannis is a very nice church, and has been a very nice church for years and years. Now, with their Soup Kitchen for the needy, this small congregation has been getting a LOT of notice. That, and the fact that Eric Schwaab continually uses the church as a political launching point.

So, today I was checking out Schwaab's blog today on my daily paroozing of the Barnstable Blog scene. Lo and behold, I found Schwaab sensationalizing another incident at Calvary Baptist.

Incumbent James F. Munafo, Jr. was holding a sign hold-out on the corner of West Main St. and Lincoln Road. He placed temporary signs legally on Town property (the town owns land 23 feet out from the centerline of the street) at the corner. Of course, Eric Schwaab had to come to the rescue (again)... The problem was that he didn't know what he was talking about (as usual)... He instigated a fight with Munafo over the signs, and threatened to steal the signs if Munafo didn't do what he told him to do... Eric is already a notorious sign thief, but when Munafo told him that he would photograph him and report him, Schwaab backed off...

Then, on his blog, Schwaab says this "Minutes later a police cruiser arrives and parks itself right between Farnham and Munafo."

I am laughing so hard right now that I can't stop.

Eric Schwaab knows nothing about the 3rd Precinct and that comment proves it.

That "police cruiser" wasn't police protection that Munafo called in as you claimed (though with you threatening to steal his signs, who would blame him - you called the cops for less), but it was the Hyannis West Elementary School CROSSING GUARD!

I find it HILARIOUS that a guy who claims to be as "in touch" with the residents of the 3rd as Schwaab does, does not even know about the Hyannis West Crossing Guard.

It is SCHWAAB who DOES NOT KNOW THIS PRECINCT!

This isn't the first time Candidate Schwaab has tried to use incidents at the Calvary Baptist Church to make himself look like a knight in shining armor. Here are some other cases in point - instances Schwaab has taken advantage of the Church or used incidents at it to his political advantage:

"Hate Crime" against CBC - Schwaab incorrectly claims that he & his friends we the only people in the entire town to respond to the church in the aftermath of a disgusting graffiti attack earlier this year.
"Donation" of stolen Residential Exemption money to CBC - After our "expert" on the Residential Exemption got caught stealing a residential exemption, Candidate Schwaab had to think fast. What could he do to restore credibility to his campaign? He would donate the $$$ to a church. Surely, that would make him look like a good guy... that and the fact that he can write the donation off as a charitable contribution.
Illegal placement of signs on non-profit's property - Somehow, Schwaaab has convinced the people over @ CBC that he is a good guy (probably his $1800 donation). They allowed him to put his sign up on their property and endorsed him. It was NOT a "free corner". The problem with this is the fact that as a "501 (c) 3" non-profit entity (which allows for the tax write-offs that Schwaab is enjoying) they cannot LEGALLY endorse a candidate for ANY elected office, UNLESS they drop that status and all the nice tax perks that go with it. (Also, to clarify, it is illegal for a church with "501 (c) 3 non-profit status" to endorse a single candidate, but not illegal for it to be a town polling place and allow supporters to place temporary signs.)
State Rep Demetrius Atsalis' phone call to CBC - When Demetrius Atsalis left a message on the CBC answering machine letting the church know that he thought it was wrong for a church to endorse any candidate, he didn't know it was actually against the law.... but when the church started asking questions, their lawyer sure did... If anything, Mr. Atsalis' phone call may have saved their tax-exempt status... Yet, Schwaab didn't hesitate to use the incident to ride in and "save the day"... Yep, he moved so fast that he accused an innocent flooring company of the incident and told people to boycott their products... He didn't stop to check his facts, and he never apologized... by the time he figured out it was Atsalis, Demetrius had already admitted making the call... There was no malice or ill-intent, but Eric Schwaab had to fabricate some evil for him to save the world from (again)...
Use of CBC as location of phony proposed debate - A few weeks ago, Mr. Schwaab started pushing a request for another debate with Munafo via blogs... He never called Munafo about the debate to discuss it man-to-man (He still has never called Munafo, EVER.) He tried to use this event he never planned on going through with as a crutch to make him look more manly. He was showing his Third Precinct civic pride by having it @ CBC, and saying that Munafo had to be afraid of Schwaab if he wouldn't debate him in a church... Sad Sad Sad

True Character Coming Out?

2007-11-02T06:00:00.001-04:00

I'd like to warn readers that this post is rated R for language.

(I am putting it up for public record)

MID-DAY UPDATE: THE POST DELETER STRUCK AGAIN, DELETING HIS OWN COMMENTS FROM HIS BLOG. IT'S A GOOD THING I SAW THEM SO WE CAN HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE!

They say that you get to know who a person is once you've seen them operate under pressure. It looks like Eric Schwaab is cracking.

Over the last 48 hours the REAL Eric Schwaab seems to be coming out.

He started right here on this blog. On my post entitled "Hypocrisy? You Decide." Mr. Schwaab dropped by to drop off this one word comment.

It belongs in the little trash can below it, but I'm going to leave it up so that people can see his true colors come out.

Then, last night, he went crazy on his own blog. Thankfully, I was able to obtain copies of his site before he removes these highly offensive posts...

Folks, if this man is willing to do this on the internet, I shudder to think what he does in person or on the phone. Do you really want a guy like THIS to be your Town Councilor?

Please Vote Munafo this Tuesday or I'm going to have a LOT of writing to do over the next 4 years!

Charter Commission and Ballot Questions

2007-10-31T23:49:00.001-04:00

I decided that since everyone else seemed to be doing it, I might as well throw out my endorsements and recommendations.

I reserve the right to change my mind @ any time, but here's what I think right now:

Ballot Questions

Question #1 - BINDING - Should the Town (Tax) Collector position be changed from an elected position to an appointed one?

Personally, I believe that electing people is a good idea. I tend to be more suspicious of appointed positions. That's why, unless I hear a REAL good argument, that I say to vote NO on Question #1.

Question #2 - NONBINDING - The Council Review Committee suggested the reorganization of the council into 9 positions - 5 District Councilors and 4 At-Large Councilors. Do you agree with the opinion of the Council Review Committee?

I will never vote for a "nonbinding" question again. They are marketed as non-binding and as a "good indicator of voter interest". They end up being a mandate for a particular course of action. Suddenly, the "non-binding" question is now the basis for binding legislation. Furthermore, I'm not a real big fan of the 9 Councilor plan (I'll explain more later). I say vote NO on Question #2 or leave it blank.

Question #3 - BINDING - Should a 9-member Charter Commission be formed for the purpose of reviewing Barnstable's Charter?

I have been an avid supporter of the formation of previous charter commissions. I support a review of our current charter. I am in favor of a mayor. Yet, I simply cannot endorse Question #3. Something just does not feel right about this. My gut says to vote NO. The timing of this review and the forces in the background of this push just give me a bad feeling about this. I say vote NO on Question #3.

Charter Commissioners

IMPORTANT NOTE - REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU VOTE ON QUESTION #3, YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR VOTING FOR UP TO 9 CHARTER COMMISSIONERS! So, even if you vote NO on Question #3, still vote for up to nine commissioners!

Absolutely Vote For These People:
I wholeheartedly endorse these candidates as the best candidates for Charter Commission.

Lucien Poyant
Lucien has served the town well for many years and has been active in past Charter Reviews.

Dennis Guyre
A fresh voice in Barnstable politics... he's willing to listen...

Michael Daley
Michael was the Chairman of the last successful Charter Commission in Barnstable.

Marcy Dugas
Marcy has been an advocate of village representation on the Council.

Richard Clark
I never thought I would endorse Clark, but I find that his support for a mayor and fresh outlook on Coucil makeup nicely compliment the fact that he doesn't want to completely do away with the current charter.

Deborah Shiftlett-Fitton
As she mentioned in her Barnstable Patriot capsule she is one of the few candidates not related to some past charter review or the Council Charter Review Committee. She sounds as if she will remember the villages when determining Council make-up.

Good Candidates (Strongly recommend voting for these candidates)
There are nine seats on the Charter Commission (if it is voted in)... These two should be strongly considered.

Allen Goddard
Charles Haggerty

Vote For These People Only because you have to vote for NINE:
You should be picking only 3 candidates from this list and the one directly above, in addition to the first 6.

Peter Doiron
Even though Peter is associated with the COG movement, I cannot help liking a lot of what he has to say compared to some of the other 21 candidates. I don't think he would be that bad of a choice. Certainly the only COGer I could even think of voting for.

Royden Richardson
Roy is another former Councilor I didn't think I'd ever be endorsing. I think he is a better option that anyone else not mentioned yet.

Vote for these candidates only if you have a MAJOR beef with any of the higher ranked options:
These are desperation picks... only to be used in emergency... Alphabetical order...

John Alden
John Brennan (*Also running for Town Council)
Sheila Cullinan-Geiler
William Elkins
Robert Jones
Susan Rohrbach

DO NOT VOTE FOR THESE CANDIDATES UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES:
Alphabetical order - these candidates all have EXTENSIVE ties to COG!

Oliver Cipollini
William Cronin
John Julius
Gregory Milne (*Also running for Town Council)
Bradley Ouimette
Taryn Thoman

MY VIEWS ON THE CHARTER

My views on the charter are complex. Personally, I don't think that the current charter is that awful. On the other hand, I do want a mayor. I really like village/precinct representation on the Council.

Is the current charter broken?
I honestly do not believe that the current charter is "broken". While it is not a perfect document, it has worked pretty well - AAA Bond Ratings and All-America City Awards do not come to crappy towns. There is definitely room for improvement, but the situation is not dire, as some would have you believe.

Mayor/Town Manager
I definitely want a mayor. I want the town's top official to be accountable to the voters. It does not matter what we call him - an elected Town Manager is fine with me. However, if people think that a mayor is a fix-all for every problem they see in the town, I have two words for them - Buddy Cianci.

Council Make-up
There has been a lot of complaint that having 13 Councilors is too many. I believe that 9 is way too few. I might be willing to compromise at 11, but I really do not think that 13 is too many. It seems to work well enough.

As far as At-Large Representation is concerned, I am against a large amount of it. I could see a working system that had a total of 13 Councilors - 9 District Councilors and 4 Councilors At-Large. However, I believe that, in general, the accountability that village representation gives cannot be replaced by At-Large Councilors. It would be too easy for one section of the town to dominate the Council.

The legislative bodies of the State and Federal governments have many more local representatives that regional ones (senators). I think the same logic applies here. Having many more local Councilors helps keep a higher level of accountability and keeps the village identies alive and well.

Automatic Review
Another charter option getting a lot of attention is an automatic review process. Many candidates are recommending that the next town charter include a provision ordering mandatory reviews every five years. I think this is a bad idea. Why mandate review if it is not necessary? Then, when review is needed, people will say "We just had a review" or "We have one scheduled in a couple of years, so it can wait". I think this measure will only hurt future reform.

Closing

Frankly, it doesn't matter what I say, if you don't vote. So, please, get out and vote. Bring your neighbors. Be involved. And check out the candidate profiles for yourself @ the Barnstable Patriot's Dotcommons site. Some candidates even have videos there. Read up, Watch up and be and Informed Voter!

The Post Deleter!

2007-10-31T14:23:00.001-04:00

When someone posts something to a blog, it's kind of like a public record of their thoughts. That's why when someone deletes an entire post (comments and all) without an explanation, people notice.

Yesterday, October 30, Eric Schwaab posted a post detailing a discussion he had with State Representative Demetrius Atsalis. In it, Schwaab called both Atsalis and Schwaab's opponent in the upcomin election, Incumbent Councilor James F. Munafo, Jr., both "thugs", among other things... It was not a pretty post by any stretch of the imagination... It was not an inroads to a productive working relationship between possible Town Councilor and State Rep... It was not a "consensus building" post...

On the one hand, Schwaab felt strongly enough to post the message and leave it up on his site for quite some time... Yet, he altered the "public record" that his site provides... Maybe he realized that the post made him look bad... or maybe someone called him out because the post was too nasty or perhaps just plain wrong... All I know is that he took it down with NO explaination... That means he must be ashamed of it... Why this wonderful "consensus builder" have to change anything he says on his "non-hate blog"???

The fact is that he doesn't have a problem taking his shots... and he sure makes plenty of them... but I've never seen him apologize once... I've seen John Julius apologize (I assure you that that unbelievable fact is true)... but never Schwaaab... Wonder how his colleagues will feel if they have to serve with a guy who has fun by taking shots at elected officials? I wonder what he'll do if he's elected to the Council and doesn't have the "new majority" he's banking on...

Will he leave this board the same way he left the Hyannis Water Board?

Update on Post Below!

2007-10-25T17:05:00.001-04:00

This is an important update on the post below. Mr. Schwaab's video from yesterday has been removed and replaced with a new version... because it was TOTALLY wrong!

I was lucky enough to still have a copy saved on my computer to share with you to show you that this guy will say anything. Watch the original version here, and the post below... then saunter over to his site to see the new video... It's a riot.

Hypocrisy? You Decide.

2007-10-25T07:01:00.001-04:00

My video has been up for 4 days now. Eric Schwaab has no response. Watch it for yourself below. Mr. Schwaab proves that the very reason he says he is running for office is a farce. The video isn't simply about phone calls - it is Eric Schwaab admitting that the reason he says he is running for office is made up...

Anyway, one of the things he has been doing is complaining that I am making "silly little movies"... Yet, he has his own silly little movie sitting on the front page of his blog... An anonymous caller (supposedly) left a message on the Calvary Baptist Church phone... The movie plays the message and includes the maker calling out the owner of the phone number... And I love how he words his entry so that he insinuates that a Munafo supporter was responsible... Way to sensationalize things...

A few things

First: Mr. Schwaab has no business complaining about my video when he is posting his own. It makes him look silly.

Second: ANY church that makes political statements of ANY kind are going to get calls like that. Some people cannot handle the idea of church and politics mixing, and are going to feel the need to voice their opinion.

Third: Calvary Baptist is a great church and they provide excellent services to the community with their food bank. However, as a church and non-profit food bank, they most likely have what is known as 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. This status allows people who donate money to the group (including Mr. Schwaab) to write it off on their federal taxes as a charitable donation. This incentive encourages donations, and without it, they will lose income. One of the quirks of this status is that these organizations cannot make political endorsements - posting signs is an endorsement. Now, I don't think that this rule is right, but it is the law... unless Calvary wants to lose its exemption...

Fourth: During this incident, Mr. Schwaab "helped" the church by taking home the signs of other candidates. This is at least the second time he has interfered with the signs of another candidate. He needs to learn to leave other people's property alone. This "help" is actually against the law...

Decorum Note:

It's worth mentioning here that Mr. Schwaab responded to my video post. He didn't say anything about the video, and proceeded to violate the rules here. His comments were deleted. I put the rules in place for a reason, and expect some respect for them if you want to post comments. The site rules are placed right at the top of the page on the right. They are very clear. If you cannot follow them, don't waste your time posting here.

But what makes it amazing, is that after his comments were removed, Mr. Schwaab complained about it on his site. He said, "It looks like my new friends over at the 3rd Precinct Truth blog are afraid to engage in an open dialog. They are deleting comments." He didn't mention the fact that he violated the rules here - thereby warranting comment deletion. Anyway, not less that 4 hours later, he deleted one of his own comments on the very same page. Amazing! How can he sit there and say that, and then do the very thing he complained about.

Mr. Schwaab, please stop by, comment on the video... As long as you follow the rules, I'm more than willing to host you here... Open dialog is welcome, as long as you follow the rules of this forum... I doubt that you can respond to the video, but the invitation is open.

New Video (Post Updated)

2007-10-21T18:11:00.001-04:00

This video has been up for almost 24 hours now. I know Eric Schwaab has watched it. He has no response to it. So, this is an open challenge to Mr. Schwaab - Do you have a response to the video?

Anyone is more than welcome to post here, as long as they follow the rules... Can you respond, Mr. Schwaab?

Oh, and I find it ironic that Mr. Schwaab has the gall to say that he doesn't "use the phone". Funny... I wonder what Chris Kehoe has to say about that... Maybe you can respond to that, too, Mr. Schwaab...

Check out this video from the debate... Eric Schwaab contradicts himself and proves the reason HE says he is running for Councilor is a farce...

Even more info on the debate & this video to come soon.

What Is This World Coming To?

2007-10-12T22:01:00.001-04:00

Ran across this link posted on Eric Schwaab's site by a commenter, and now placed on the front page of his blog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzjmVWVCfWA

This kid obviously has no idea what he is talking about. It's sad that people use kids like this. Sure it's "cute", but it sure isn't right. That kid deserves better than this.

I don't have a problem with wishing someone "Happy Birthday" (Happy 50th Eric), but when you have the kid talk about political issues he knows nothing about it really makes me wonder what is happening to this world.

Are You A Town Councilor, Too???

2007-10-12T19:53:00.001-04:00

*Please note the sarcasm in the post title.*

Do you disagree with Eric Schwaab, John Julius, Gary Lopez or any other COGer? If so, according to their logic, you must be a Town Councilor (or working for one).

I find it amazing how adamant John Julius is that I am a Councilor. I AM NOT. David Still confirmed it over on the dotcommons site, but that wasn't good enough for him. I don't know what will, and it really doesn't matter. They say things like that because they simply can't handle the idea that people in this town, other than Councilors, disagree with them.

Take the Barnstable Blog, for example. It is an anonymous blog that does not agree with COG. However, instead of just accepting the fact that a regular common citizen is running it, they start accusing people of running it. They have no proof of their accusations, but tell them to the world like it is gospel. (If they're willing to make these kind of allegations, imagine what they would do if they REALLY knew the name of the person who writes it.)

When Schwaab took this act much further a few weeks ago, it really bothered me.

The internet and the blogosphere are designed to give users basic anonymity unless they choose to reveal more. In the case of myself and a great number of other Barnstable commenters and bloggers, we choose to remain anonymous. (We'll get into why in just a sec.) However, Eric Schwaab crossed the line from cyberspace into the real world when he called up Chris Kehoe (a local businessman) and proceeded to harass him with unfounded accusations about the authorship of a blog that has been particularly critical of Schwaab. He was making unfounded claims that Kehoe was/is running the site for a Town Councilor.

Calling someone about a written blog is CRAZY! Calling to accuse someone of writing a blog, when you have absolutely no proof to back yourself up is just INSANE.

Kehoe says Schwaab called 5 times. FIVE! Schwaab says he called only twice. I don't believe him. When Chris Kehoe went to the police to file a complaint, he HAD to have some evidence to back him up. I doubt that a successful businessman like Kehoe is stupid. Not only is filing a false police report a serious crime, but it is one that can quickly be verified via phone records. DUH! I'm willing to bet that an analysis of Kehoe's phone records and Schwaab's (if it is ever done) will show that the candidate called more times than he admits... AND that he lied to the Barnstable Patriot.

However, the big issue here is not the number of times that Schwaab called, but the fact that he actually called! Schwaab has NO proof that Kehoe writes that blog. NONE! Yet, he didn't have any problem calling him to talk to him about that blog. Blogs are online communication tools - telephones are not! If Schwaab really wanted to talk to the writer of the Barnstable Blog, the best way to actually get the REAL author is to contact him on the blog or via the contact info the author may or may not have posted there (like email).

This is why I choose to remain anonymous. I do not want to have phone conversations about politics or my blogging with Eric Schwaab, John Julius, Janet Joakim or anyone else in this town. However, I am more than willing to discuss anything online - here or the dotcommons site. My personal life is exactly that - PERSONAL. Never should my personal and political life cross.

If a person makes the decision to remain anonymous, then others in the online community should have the decency to respect their decision.

I find it disappointing that I need to remain anonymous to protect myself from the politics in Barnstable.

We Can Do Better

2007-09-26T14:45:00.001-04:00

"We can do better" has been Eric Schwaab's mantra for this campaign. Yet, when faced with opportunities to "do better" he absolutely refuses to do so.

The Hyannis Civic Association has scheduled a "Meet the Candidates Night"/Debate for this Thursday (September 26). However, there is a special Town Council meeting that falls on that same night. Sitting councilors are being forced to decide which event to attend - the job that they have been elected to do and want to keep doing or the nice candidates' night that might help get them re-elected.

The question is - Why can't one group or the other simply change the date of their event?

The Council cannot lawfully cancel their Council Meeting because they have been advertising its existence. To cancel it now would be a violation of public meeting laws. It would basically be lying to the citizens of Barnstable. Obviously, that is not a good option. Changing the time of the meeting would also violate those laws.

The Hyannis Civic Association (HCA) CAN lawfully cancel their meeting, but they have been advertising it and people might show up to a cancelled meeting and be unhappy. HOWEVER, you would think that it would be in the best interests of the HCA to have ALL candidates able to attend their meeting.

Neither side is going to back down. This is VERY disappointing.

What is more disappointing is the response of Candidate Eric Schwaab. Instead of putting his "We can do better" mantra to use to find a realistic solution to the problem, he is more than content to leave Councilor Munafo out of this forum and crash on him for not being there. Instead of being a "hero" (that's a little strong, but you get the idea) who found a solution to "bring everyone together", Schwaab is actively campaigning to have the event go forward without serving incumbents.

Sounds to me like Eric Schwaab is scared of his opponent.

Every candidate faces the choice of which event to attend. I applaud the Councilors who ARE going to the Council meeting. (That includes the Precinct 3 Incumbent - Jim Munafo, as well as Hank Farnham [running for re-election in Precinct 9] and Gary Brown [running for Town Collector].) That's where they belong. We elected them to do a job. We don't expect teachers to skip school whenever there's a job fair in another school district...

Actually, Mr. Schwaab and the others running for Town Council should be at ALL the Council meetings ALREADY! If they want to get elected to go to Council meetings for the next 4 years, then they should show at least some interest in current Council meetings. If they can't handle going to the meetings just to watch, how can they handle running them???

The right choice is clear - No matter how much embarrassment it causes them, the Hyannis Civic Association should move their debate. This is not a couple Councilors who are going to miss the event because of a fishing trip or other lame excuse, this is Councilors simply trying to do their jobs for the people of Barnstable & Hyannis...

Eric Schwaab could be setting himself up as a uniter, but instead, he has chosen to be a divider... Will he be like this IF he's elected to the Council?

Election Results In

2007-09-18T20:45:00.001-04:00

Incumbent James F. Munafo, Jr. and vocal challenger Eric Schwaab have moved on to the General Election in Barnstable's 3rd Precinct. Another challenger, Michael Hersey, was knocked out of the race.

The other contested race in the 3rd was Town Collector. Current Town Councilor (Precinct 9) Gary Brown and Assistant Town Collector Maureen Neimi beat out the Oliver Cipollini to advance to the general election.

In the 3rd, Schwaaab came in first place with 120 votes, Munafo had 94, and Hersey came in with 89. There was a large turnout in this highly contested race.

The stage is now set for a big race in the 3rd. Schwaab has been a highly vocal critic of Munafo, and has been very active on the Barnstable blog scene with his own blog. Munafo has served for the last 4 years as Councilor.

This is the race that everyone in Barnstable is watching. This is the race that I expect to post about most here on this site. I take no shame in admitting that I will vote for Munafo in November, but let's bring the discusion on.