Quick Thoughts on the Meeting of the Voters

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.

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

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

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

Replace Church with Liquor Store?

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

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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


THREE: Stop This For "The Children"?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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