Alternate Endings vs. Better Beginnings

Cinderella always marries the prince.  Snow White is always awoken by that kiss.  Two out of three pigs loose their homes when the wolf stops by.

These are stories we can recite by heart.  We know how they begin, how they end, and rely on them to be the same each time we hear them.

It's a comfort thing, the archiving, and sharing of the story the way we know, and love it.  It would be a bit unnerving if in another version of the story those three little pig hunted down, and ate the wolf, or Snow White fell for Doc instead of the prince. Unnerving, and not comfortable at all.

So, what's the heck is Hollywood trying to accomplish with "alternate endings" to movies?  There have been many movies released in recent years with an alternate ending.  If you don't like how it ended, you can change it, and watch another ending.  Feel satisfied?  No, not really.  The original story does stay with you, and anything else is merely a curiosity.

The 2011 movie "Tower Heist", starring Ben Stiller, and Eddie Murphy has been released on DVD, and Blue Ray with two alternate endings.

Why?  The endings may have been discussed early in the films production, but abandoned for one reason, or another.  So why think to include them on the release?

I think it might be an example of trying to please everyone, but maybe it's something deeper going on.   The director may want to share all of his work, and not leave anything hidden away on some shelf, and never be seen again.

Ego may just have a bit to do with it, too.

I don't think we need to make anymore choices than we need to.  For most of us, we are one step away from not remembering where we are at any given moment due to living in a modern, busy world.  Adding to the confusion is something to avoid, at least for me.  I have trouble remembering how yesterday ended, never mind the several endings to one movie.

A true cinema-phile would cherish the alternative endings just as they enjoy the version with the director, and cast commenting on the film as it plays.  For people with a normal attention span this version may be fine, but then, there's me, with an attention span the length of a...

...Oooo, look, a rainbow!

Sorry.  See what I mean?

I did get to thinking about this whole thing about supplying different versions of something for those that would prefer column "A", and not column "B".  It came to me that it would be a great idea if policies, actions, new projects, and such, that are  initiated by the town, came with alternate endings, or work-arounds.  Something like, if the copper gutter system on the restored town hall proved to be historically nice, but caused the towns residents cough up a hairball in fiscal protest,  aluminum could then be substituted without loosing a dime, or time wasted by arguing.  Alternate ending.  Happy ending.

In the local scenario it would be less about ego, and more about something to please most everyone.  That could still be accomplished without alternate endings, if more alternatives were shared during the process, and each actions pros and cons were then  shared in detail before coming to a town vote.  Not to say that this isn't done to some extent already, but it would be done all the time instead of promoting one particular scenario to us.  Let all decide, not the few.  The "good, better, best" of each one would be explained.  An informed choice could then be made.  No more surprises.

Then, when all the alternate "beginnings, and in-the-middles" are shared, and explained in detail to all, and choices are made from the best of all the information, then do-overs (local alternate endings) would, hopefully,  not be needed to be done.

And, we all lived happily ever after.

A Little Poke

Green space and conservation land is among our many local treasures.  Having saved land from development for passive, and active, recreational use is a fantastic achievement, and a great continuous goal to have.

In order to enjoy the land,  beyond the high fives at the property closing, there must be access to the property that encourages all of the designed uses, and money to maintain the infrastructure needed for the land.

Trail heads for all conservation land that allows more then one vehicle to park safely, and well marked trails are essential.  The Stallion Hill Property has parking for barely one vehicle, and it is a dangerous place to park

Every town owned property should be marked with a sign large enough to be read from the road.  The sign should indicate the name of the property, and also direct people to parking.  A master map, that is easy enough for a fourth grader to read, should be drawn, and available with each properties name, use, access point, restrictions (if any).  Last map we have available is from 2005, and it is too complicated for the average hiker / walker to interpret.

There are properties in town that are not marked, or have a trail head, such as the town land off of Clarke Road.  They are the Secret Places.  Their existence is not made known, except on seven year old maps, because, well, someone might find them and use them, and how the heck can you preserve something that people are using?

Sorry, it's all I got; only reason I can come up with.  It's probably way off.

The Heins property off Leadmine Road is a wonderful property with trails, and a large open meadow.  Much could be done with this land, however access is only by trail, with parking  on Leadmine Road.  This is not a problem for those going for a bit of a hike / walk, but for families with small children that would like to enjoy the land, its views, and everything else it has to offer, it may be a bit much going in, and with a tired four year old, almost impossible coming out.

The Heins family owns the original home and barn at the end of the Shumway Hill Road, and public access is not allowed to their former property via that road. This would have been ideal had the town obtained an easement.  Thus, a small matter limits the lands use.  Think of all the activities that could be done on the land were there easier access.

Access, and signage are two things we need to work on for all town owned conservation land, otherwise it is unusable to most.

A couple of things for the to do list.  Sometimes a little poke helps to get things moving.

Another Side To The CPA Story

The following images were submitted for posting by Steven Greenberg of Fiskdale.  Contact information below.--ed.

Contact information:  Steven Greenberg                    Email:  steve@ssgreenberg.name
251 Holland Rd.                     Phone:  (774)241-0095
Fiskdale, Massachusetts 01518-1231  
Other Email: s.greenberg@ieee.org ssg@alum.mit.edu

Voters Can Decide

The letter below was submitted by Carol Childress and Dave Holland for posting.  --  ed.

February 17, 2012

RE: Voters Can Decide! 

Dear Editor: 

Thank you for graciously printing a letter from us on February 5^th regarding a petition drive to place a question on the April 9 2012 Town Election ballot in Sturbridge. The petition requires roughly 350 signatures and the question asks voters if they wish to revoke the Community Preservation Act (CPA). 

Our primary motivation behind the petition is to stop further debt build-up and to stop spending on new projects that deter funds away from our current debt. It’s pretty simple: no new projects equal no new debt, and we’re wondering if taxpayers want to cut up the town’s CPA credit card. If enough signatures are gathered by February 27, voters can decide at the April 9^th Town Election. 

The current property tax rate of $17.63 does not include the tax impact on the initial $9,000,000 debt service and the remaining $5.7 million debt service for the Burgess Elementary School. The average single family home share could be as much as $306 or more per year for fiscal year 2013, until the debt is paid (source: Sturbridge Assessor’s office; subject to change.) Also, we hear rumblings that Well #1 is being prepared to go online, so users of public water may see another increase in their water bills. The larger picture is this: the CPA portion is $4.3 million of the town’s overall $49,000,000 debt. We strongly feel that if anymore debt of any kind has to be incurred by the town, it should be for new infrastructure, repairs and new equipment, natural disasters, and other necessities.

While we’re at it, we wish to make a couple clarifications, as we had received some incorrect information that was printed in our February 5^th letter. In our earlier letter, we had stated that CPA state-matching funds was 23%. We were referring only to the first round of state-matching funds from the state, which is distributed evenly to all communities in the Commonwealth that adopt the CPA; the final numbers are in and it is actually 26%, for a total of $96,363; that 26% a drastic reduction from the 100% match that used to be distributed, and it reflects the adoption of the CPA in 147 other communities across Massachusetts. That is how the current match works: as more towns adopt the CPA, the percentage of matching funds decreases. However, because Sturbridge adopted the CPA surcharge at the 3% level, the town also received an additional 16% in matching funds ($57,671) for a total match of 42.58%. Other communities that adopted the surcharge at 3% also receive second and third rounds of state-matching funds and the amount varies depending on a town’s ranking. 

Regarding state-matching funds, we wish to address a statement by Penny Dumas, Chairperson of the Community Preservation Committee, in the Tantasqua Town Common on February 16. Ms. Dumas stated that a House Bill is pending to amend the CPA so that municipalities are “guaranteed” a minimum state match of 75%. Our first question was – who will foot that bill? If one reads that bill, it proposes tacking on a surcharge for real estate transactions at Registries of Deeds across the Commonwealth, and those additional funds will be used to provide 75% matching funds in the first round of distributions to all communities that adopt the CPA. The language in the bill does not “guarantee” a match; it says if not enough funds are raised, the first round will be less than 75%. There are numerous proposed amendments to the Community Preservation Act and we suggest that people read it: http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H00765

Although our primary reason for asking voters to revoke the CPA is a financial one, other concerns have surfaced since the CPA was passed 11 years ago that have caused us to question how the CPA is managed in Sturbridge. For example, our annual CPA debt service is $413,482, which exceeds the surcharge revenue amount of $354,225. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) has rendered Legal Opinions 2006-50 and 2004-464: "The amount of debt that a municipality may authorize under the Community Preservation Act is limited in amount to that payable from estimated SURCHARGE REVENUES over the life of the borrowings. (3/6/2006)." http://www.mass.gov/dor/local-officials/municipal-finance-law/in-our-opinion.html. The numbers above inform us that the CPA debt exceeds the surcharge revenues; the Community Preservation Committee responded and said this discrepancy is due to the decline in the state match – and this is exactly our point: no more spending, no more borrowing, and no new CPA projects until the existing debt is paid.  

Also in our February 5^th letter, we had erroneously stated $58,000 had been funneled to new projects in 2011 instead of paying down the debt. The correct figure is $23,050 plus $15,000 for administration. The difference in the numbers is due to Warrant Article 7, which was voted at the June 6, 2011 Town Meeting. The wording of Article 7 is as follows: “to amend the vote taken under Article 62 of the April 28, 2008 Special Town Meeting, which article authorized an appropriation of $20,000 for the purpose of designing and constructing two bridges to span brooks” at the Leadmine Mountain Conservation Area, “to provide that such funds may also be used for the design and construction of additional bridges” in that same area, “or take any action thereto.” The Summary Box under the warrant article reads: This article would expand the use of previously approved funds, specific to two bridges, for use in the design and construction of additional bridges in the Camp Crusoe/Leadmine Mountain area. The amount totals $8,101.24.” Although the Community Preservation Committee has explained that the warrant article merely asked voters to appropriate the $20,000 as voted in 2008, that’s not how the text of that warrant article reads, nor does the Summary Box make it any clearer. However, this is not the first time the town has used ambiguous CPA warrant articles. 

We wish to share some additional information with voters because much of this is invisible unless you spend inordinate amounts of time researching this stuff: 

• Many people don’t see their property tax bills because they are sent from the town directly to a mortgage holder. Take a look at how much you pay in property taxes each year and what the surcharge costs you. 

• Sturbridge’s “Community Preservation Fund” is not a pot of money just sitting there waiting to be spent. Actually, we feel it should really be called the “Community Preservation Borrowing Fund” because it’s used mainly to pay the $4.3 million dollar CPA debt. The bottom line: the town took out loans to do four expensive, worthwhile projects, and we’ll be paying on them until the year 2030. The bad news: the 3% surcharge does not go away until the debt is paid. The good news: the state-matching funds will continue as long as there’s a surcharge, or until there is no more state funding; also, the CPA can be brought back in the future if voter’s wish. 

• The town completed five land acquisitions using CPA funds – four of which still require Conservation Restrictions on them. We, the voters, approved those acquisitions and simultaneously authorized the town to place permanent Conservation Restrictions on them; however, the town has not completed them, thus making them vulnerable to conversions to uses other than conservation. Town officials have been asked to complete them several times since last May and a handful of times since 2005; but so far, none have been completed.  

• Voters at the 2011 Fall Special Town Meeting will recall the controversy over the town’s attempt at inserting “active recreation” into the Shepard deed, a property purchased by voters for conservation purposes with CPA funds in 2004. This was an attempt by certain town officials at shoehorning a multi-sports complex onto a conservation parcel by doing a “deed correction,” a tactic that completely bypassed the proper process. This property should have had a Conservation Restriction placed on it after it was purchased. And worthy of note: the very same people who talk about preserving our town’s character and using our vast open spaces for hiking, biking and kayaking, never said a word publicly about that conversion, which would have taken place on top of rare turtle habitat.  Voters are hereby advised that all of the so-called “conservation” land purchased in our town is at risk of conversion because the CPA warrant articles contained ambiguous language – the same thing that happened to the Shepard parcel can happen to the other parcels.  

• Certain town officials completely wasted $72,000 of CPA funding for recreational field designs on the Shepard parcel because no one did the required due diligence to determine what uses were legally permissible on the parcel. The vote to convert the Shepard parcel’s use should have come BEFORE that money was spent, using the proper Article 97 process. 

When town officials are dealing with taxpayer dollars, there has to be accountability. As concerned citizens, we bring this information to taxpayers so they may make an informed decision on April 9^th. Please contact childresscarol@rocketmail.com to sign the petition.    

Sincerely, 

Dave Holland

Carol Childress

Respect

When someone that has served you, entertained you, worked with you, enlightened, or amused you passes away it is, obviously, a sad time.  We feel the absence of those that touch us personally up close, or from a distance.  What they did for us will always be remembered.

We will mourn them, and remember the moments they shared with us, the gifts they gave to us, and we will file them away in a special place, and then move on.

Today, it's the moving on part that seems to have society flummoxed.

Whitney Houston passed away on February 11th, one week ago.  Today, a funereal service will be held in Newark, New Jersey.  When I first heard she passed away I was as taken back.  Somehow, I didn't truly expect her death to happen so soon, but I did expect it sometime in the near future.  I am comfortable in knowing that now she is safe.

This woman's personal life is none of my business, but it has been pushed at me from all angles.  I enjoyed her songs, and her moments on the screen.  This is what she chose to share with me.  She did not choose to share anything else,with exception of the reality show did with her then husband, Bobby Brown.  I chose not to tune in.  To me she was a singer, and an actress, and that is what I enjoyed about her.  

The media has spent more moments, over the past seven days,  reporting to us about the passing of Whitney Houston than they did with passing of Ronald Reagan.

Is it what we demand to see, or is it because the media feels we need to see it?  Maybe, something altogether different.  A bit more self centered on behalf of the networks.  Offer more of the same, in a different way, over and over, and it will attract more viewers.  More viewers, equal high numbers for ratings.  Those numbers set the price they offer for advertising.

Could something as sad, and solemn as a celebrity, and mothers, death be used to line the make money for the networks?  Of course.  It is done everyday, and this past week was no different.

All I wish for is that she be allowed to rest in peace, and that the media moves on.

Respect comes in all forms, and that would be one of them.

My Head Hurts From Banging It On The Wall Over And Over Again

Yesterday I received the Board of Selectman meeting minutes for December 5, November 11, October 14.

Not bad.  Those meetings were just  a few months ago.  Typically late, but not bad.


I also received  meeting minutes from July 25, July 18, July 11, July 5, and, wait for it....


...April 4, 2011.


I know.  I have brought this up several times, and you have commented, and commented on how you believe the delay is unacceptable.  We have heard from the Chairman of the Board of Selectman, Tom Creamer,  on December 3rd of this past year, offering his rationale, and his apology, for the repeated, and historic, delays.  I guess he didn't tell the person typing up the minutes.

 "To that point, the release of these finally approved minutes clearly fails to reach the threshold level of reasonable; as such it is in fact truly unacceptable that this situation has manifested. As one member of the Board, I fully accept my share of responsibility for the delay as I could have pressed much harder, much sooner, but quite frankly, I allowed other Town matters - tornadoes, hurricanes, Town concerns that arise daily, Town Meeting preparation, an October nor'easter, etc, to dictate my focus. As all of our meetings are televised, recorded, and replayed daily, I have not been as assertive on this issue as I could have; and for that I will accept full responsibility and no level of other demands upon our time can alter the fact that we failed to ensure the release of the minutes in a timelier manner.
I can say unequivocally that the delay in these meeting minutes being presented to the Board for final approval has been publicly raised on a number of occasions over the last several months - though clearly not in as assertively as it could have been - at least in terms of my approach, as I and another member of the Board have raised this issue publicly and have both characterized this situation during these public discussions as "unacceptable" and one that needed to be corrected "immediately". 


There has been however a lapse of more specific focus on this issue - at least on my part - as I have allowed other Town concerns and challenges to distract my focus away from the minutes. For that, I apologize to you and all residents."


                                                                   Chairman of the Board of Selectman,
                                                                                     Tom Creamer


Today is February 15, 2012.  It has been months since any appreciable snow fell.  More months since the hurricane rolled though, and the tornado hit town.  Although,  much work still needs to be done to recover from those insults, much more has already been done.  The excuse / reason that those storms have distracted the Chairman from following through on timely dissemination of the minutes is no longer valid.


If one cannot keep ones house in order, it is difficult to believe they can keep much else in in order.  Just because we discussed this issue a few times, and a rationale, and apology were offered, it does not mean it is finished.  Not if the same issue continues to go uncorrected.


Take this bit of advice from someone that knows all too well its meaning, 

"Choose your words carefully; they can come back to bite you on the ass."

Mr.Chairman, you may want to put a pillow on your chair today.

Time To Schedule A Play Date With Some Old Friends

Ever have a yearning?  You know, a desire to do something more, in addition to, or completely different, than what you are currently doing.  Now, I don't mean moving from the recliner to the couch, vacationing in the mountains for instead of the shore,  or Shaw's instead of Stop & Shop.  No, I mean a yearning that is like a tugging on your belt loop that actually pulls you off balance when you think on it too hard.  These feelings most often happen later in life, middle age mostly, but are healthy at any age.

I have those kind of yearnings.  Always have, ever since I was a kid. For most of them, they took their sweet time in arriving.  Probably had a lot to do with the fact that I took my sweet time in acting on them.  

John Lennon wrote that life was something that happened to you while you were busy making other plans.  That was me.  I was making plans to grab a hold of those yearnings, but life just got in the way.  I know, even that is said so often it is beyond cliche.  Unfortunately, it's true

Happens to all of us.  Best we can do is strive for the best, compromise as needed, and never settle for way less than desired.  That's the hardest part: not settling.  Take it from someone that actually competed in the Settling Olympics for way too long, and never once placed.  Then, I chose not to settle anymore, and the results have been remarkable.

Today, I am at a stage in my life that I want to reach up, and grab onto those dreams that have been circling my head for far too long, and see where they take me.  

So far, the ones I've latched on to have taken me on a helluva good ride.   Now, I would like to take it one step further.  

Dreaming is good.  Real dreaming is actually planning in disguise.  

The object in a dream is the goal, like a cottage on the lake, or a cross country trip only on the back roads, or getting that long elusive degree.  Without the dream coming first, the next step could not happen.

When a dream begins to tug at you, that feeling, that yearning is something you need to act on.  When the puling is becoming almost unbearable, and your world is pretty much in alignment, then it is time to give in to the tugging on your belt loop.

Today, I don't mind getting yanked around a bit.  It's all part of getting ready for a new adventure.

Never letting your head grow old, and going on new adventures are two ways to stay young, and continually enjoying life.

One more thing, don't ever let go of Peter Pan, and by adding Tom Sawyer to the mix it will make for a most excellent mid life play date.  Imagine where you'll go.

A Do Over With Purpose

On January 27th  the Lewis Tree Service, working for National Grid, swept down Route 148 clearing branches from nearby power lines.  They spent a long time in front of my house, which is also across the street from Selectman Angie Ellison.

Coincidence?  Most likely.  I don't think they read this blog, or give a hoot whose house they work in front of.

Today I heard that now familiar sound of a wood chipper droning on from the front of this old house, and there they were again.

Twice inside a month!

Cynicism is not one of my traits, and I do give credit where credit is due.  This time would be no different.

He wrote hopefully.

After the truck pulled away from where they were working, I saw what they were up to.  There was a dozen, or so, tall trees, not too big, with a diameter of 6 to 8 inches, that stood at the corner of the two lots across the street.  Apparently, these trees had every intent of  reaching toward the wires again someday, and although they had been trimmed just a few weeks ago, they were being "trimmed" again. Actually, trimmed is not quite the word, they were cut in half, leaving 10 foot "stalks" with a few branches remaining.

Job completed.  Effective trimming with ugly results, but we didn't ask for pretty, we demanded it be done well.

No question that those trees will be thinking twice before making their way towards National Grid property again.

Now, here are my only questions to be generated by this work:  was this merely a do over because something they had previously missed had been pointed out to them?  Did they do "touch-ups" along their previously trimmed route elsewhere in town?

I guess it really doesn't matter.  We are just not used to seeing this kind of attention given to something that is an issue.  The fact that they are still in town, and making sure that there will be less chance of us loosing power next time we are hit with 12 inches of snow on fully leafed out trees, or anytime, is great.

Something good has finally come from that October snow.

"The Pic" May Be Gone, But Those Good Times Will Stay With Us

About a year and a half ago, I wrote of my families poor experience at the Piccadilly Pub here in town.  "Three Free Deserts? Why, Yes, That Will Make Everything All Better".  

The first hint that I had  that there was not going to be a good end to this restaurant was the new menus layout when The Pic was purchased in 2009.  The menu was just that, a menu.  No pride of product like the original owners had.  Just a list of what was available listed in pretty fonts, and colors.  

That simple display showed me there was no pride in product, and the manager, we interacted with, showed it.  

We didn't go back for well over a year, and when we did, the "product" was served well, the servers, as always, were excellent, but there was something in the air; a lack of permanence, maybe.

My feeling was right.  As of last week, The Piccadilly Pub is closed , and shuttered.  The owners are not talking.  Bankruptcy had been filed last year, and recently a Canadian group purchased those bankrupt holdings.  There is no word on whether or not "The Pic" will re-open, or be reincarnated into something different.

The old "Pic", the one I remember, will be greatly missed.  I hope that what ever replaces it will be able to supply the countless smiles our old friend did.

One thing that does need to be done is to recover the historic posters, and photographs of the Fairgrounds that were loaned to the restaurant, and lined the wall. Those are priceless, and need to be returned to their owner.  Although owned privately, a request for their return from the new owners on Town stationary would help things along.

Yes, Virginia, It Is Contagious, And It May Be Spreading

On February 7, Craig Semon of the Worcester Telegram wrote an excellent article about the single pane windows that were chosen for the newly restored town hall project.  I wrote about it here a few times last spring as well.

• "Historic Energy Fail",  
• "A Real Pane In The Glass", 
• "Is It Me?"

For the sake of historic correctness, the Community Preservation Committee, and the Historical Society made it mandatory that historically correct single pane windows, a slate roof, and wainscoting be installed, otherwise $1.6 million in Community Preservation Funds would not be available to the town.  The building committee bought it.

A member of CPC was quoted as saying that "thermal-pane windows would have been very noticeable, unattractive and not historic".

Really?  Noticeable?  By whom?  From where?  The CPC supports storms windows instead.  How are they historically correct?  They may be historically correct for 1959, but I don't think that was the era they were going for.

So, it was the historic look, and feel, we were going for in our $5.2 million dollar restoration of an old, drafty building in which we conduct our town business.  We weren't going for safety of town hall employees, and visitors, by shoring up the building with new supports, electrical and heating systems?  It was all for that certain historic look?

Then why the hell are there indoor toilets, an oil fired furnace, electric lights, and an elevator  to assist those unable to navigate the stairs instead of a hay hoist from some second floor window to haul them up to meetings? 

Stupidity, can be hereditary, but more often, it's contagious.

From the Telegram article:

"But even without storm windows on the restored windows, heating costs have dropped since the renovation. 

“From the last full fiscal year that the building was occupied prior to the renovation to the first full year of occupancy since, the Town Hall required 7.2 percent less oil per square foot than prior to the renovation,” said Town Administrator Shaun A. Suhoski. “Certainly, weather patterns play a key role in fuel consumption, but, also the renovations, which included repair of all windows to eliminate drafts as well as additional attic insulation, have helped to control heating costs.” "

The town hall has used "7.2% less oil per square foot than prior to renovation".

Big whoop.

We replaced our windows in our 150 year old home with Harvey insulated windows a few years ago.  We immediately saw a 36% savings in heating oil.

36% savings, and that is without any insulation in these old walls.  We recently underwent an energy audit by MassSaves, and they confirmed it.

I'd keep the excitement about a 7.2 % savings confined to internal memos, suck it up, and replace the windows.

Historic correctness is great, if appropriate, but folks can get a bit obsessed with it.

Cripes, its a good thing we can't hear a toilet flush from outside the building, otherwise the CPC would have us install a two-holer in the parking lot.

Click here for the Worcester Telegram article.

A Sign Of A Deeper Problem

Over the past year, or so, we have driven down Route 20 and have seen many "Going Out Of Business" signs, being held by people hired to hold them,  up and down Main Street.  The "business" is Sturbridge Furniture, and every few months the store had a "going out of business" sale.  I've wanted to write about this peculiarity many times in the past, but held off.  It was obvious that the owners actions were not being completely thought out, and although I can think a lot here in Fiskdale, not all that thinking has to be out loud.

This past Sunday, Thomas Caywood, a reporter for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette not only thunk out loud, he wrote real good, too.

In an article entitled, "Recurring Sturbridge business closing draws consumer scrutiny".  The article is not only informative, but gives us a peak at what may be the real reason behind the multiple claims of "going out of business" by the stores elderly owner, Carlton "Warren" Marshall, over the last couple of years.  I won't degrade Mr. Caywoods words by paraphrasing them here; I suggest that you click the link and read the article in it's entirety, right down to the last three lines.

You see, there in those last three lines may lie the reason for the bizarre business behavior.

"But Mr.  Marshall isn't exactly apologetic about the issue.


When asked what he would say to people who feel the signs are deceptive, Mr. Marshall replied:  "Tell 'em to go screw."


Those close to him should have intervened, and offered better business advice.


But wait, there's more...


With all the attention given to illegal sandwich board signs here in town, non-compliant open flags, and all the other transgressions against our silly sign by-law, you would think that the folks "in charge" of doling out the signs, and sign permits, would not only be up to speed on our our sign by-law, but the General Laws of the Commonwealth when it comes to "Going Out of Business" signage.  It's obvious that Mr. Marshall was advised by someone at town hall to hire "sign holders", and not just hang the signs around town.  You would think that after the third time in twenty-four months those signs were hoisted on Main Street, that the "somethings wrong with this picture" alarm would be going off at town hall.


You'd think.


Yes, we can blame Mr. Marshall for scamming us.  It wasn't an attempt to scam, he did make sales during those repeated "going out of business" moments, thus he did scam.  We also need to hold someone accountable at Town Hall as well.  This should not have happened.  


If there isn't a person "in charge" at Town Hall, but several people doing little pieces of the overall picture, and not knowing what the whole picture looks like, then that should be changed.  Otherwise, we shouldn't complain when those "pictures" come out distorted.


Lesson learned.  I hope.

And, now on a completely lighter, but not too far removed,  note:

A Call To Revoke The Community Preservation Act

The following was submitted by Sturbridge residents Carol Childress, Barbara Search and Dave Holland--ed.

SIGN THE PETITION TO REVOKE

THE COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT!

Come to the Sturbridge Recycling Center on Saturday, February 11 and 18, and sign the petition. Contact: childresscarol@rocketmail.com to sign or to help get signatures.

• Sturbridge is currently $4.3 million dollars in long-term CPA debt due to the completion of four very worthwhile but expensive CPA projects. Final payoffs on that debt are the years 2017, 2026, and 2030.

• The 3% CPA Surcharge is ON TOP OF the current tax rate of $17.63 (less the first $100K of property value.) The chart below puts it into perspective: our town has the second highest property tax rate in comparison to nine surrounding communities. From a home buyer perspective, Sturbridge’s property taxes are off-putting.

• We need to revoke the Community Preservation Act and stop new spending….NOW.

The 3% Surcharge can only be rescinded when all the debt is paid – we’re talking 2030, folks!

• Currently, our annual CPA debt service exceeds our annual CPA Surcharge Revenue: the anticipated 2012 Surcharge Revenue is $360,000; the annual debt service is $413,482. *The Massachusetts Department of Revenue has opined that when communities consider borrowing for large CPA projects, the debt service should not exceed the SURCHARGE REVENUES – but Sturbridge’s does.

• When the CPA was adopted, the state match was at 100%. Now, the match is 23%; as more towns adopt the CPA, the percentage of state matching funds declines.

Why revoke the CPA?

Reason 1:   We are $4.3 million in CPA debt that we must pay until 2030. We do not feel it is appropriate to fund new projects, especially in light of the 2011 natural disasters and the town’s current budget situation. The CPA can be brought back by voters at a later date if they so choose.

Reason 2:   In addition to the annual 3% Surcharge Revenue, the town relies on other Community Preservation Fund balances that are carried forward each year to pay the long-term debt; but those funds are also being spent on new, smaller projects. For example, at the June 2011 Town Meeting, voters approved $58,000 in four smaller projects plus $15,000 for administration – should that money be saved for when the state-match is reduced or depleted? Or can it be used to more quickly pay down the long-term debt principal and interest?

Reason 3:  Taxpayers need a break! We cannot revoke the 3% surcharge until the debt is paid; but we can revoke the Community Preservation Act and stop new projects from coming forward. We can stop further debt build-up, and we can stop using funds on new, smaller projects that deter funds away from our current debt.

FY 2012 Property Tax Rates (All communities except Webster have a single tax classification) Rates are per $1,000 of assessed valuation (Source: MA Department of Revenue)
Brimfield $14.48	Brookfield $16.45
Charlton $12.00	Dudley $10.90
East Brookfield $14.22	Holland            $15.18
Spencer $12.28	Southbridge      $17.83
Sturbridge $17.63 (+3% Surcharge, less $100K exemption)	Webster $11.78 (Residential) $18.47 (Comm’l & Industrial)

*MA Department of Revenue Opinions 2006-50 and 2004-464: "The amount of debt that a municipality may authorize under the Community Preservation Act is limited in amount to that payable from estimated SURCHARGE REVENUES over the life of the borrowings. (3/6/2006)." http://www.mass.gov/dor/local-officials/municipal-finance-law/in-our-opinion.html.