All supporters comment
UPDATED, Feb. 6: As of the deadline at noon Friday, Jan. 27, at least five town residents had filed citizen articles for April’s Town Meeting, seeking to:
— Prohibit plastic bags at retail, food service or other establishment;
— Establish a 500-foot town buffer zone around what the proposed article calls a “medical-marijuana treatment center”;
— Start a group to study the use of surveillance technology in town and its impact on privacy, civil liberties and human rights; and
— Change streets in Mt. Gilboa Zoning District from the current R2 to the previous zone, R1.
A fifth article, to provide email accounts for members of public bodies, was rendered moot, as the town put the 2016 measure into effect the day before the article deadline.
Other citizen articles, those filed by taxpayers and signed by at least 10 registered voters, were filed by the deadline, but they were still in the hands of Town Counsel Doug Heim.
The same was true of many others articles filed on behalf of official Town Hall sources. The include the town manager, the Redevelopment Board and selectmen.
All of the articles will be part of the warrant, or agenda of items for discussion and votes at Town Meeting.
Paperwork filed with the available citizen articles includes little explanation beyond a declaration of the subjects of each. Here is what is known so far:
— The proponent of the plastic-bag article is Jim Ballin of Swan Place, a Precinct 6 meeting member.
— The proponent of the marijuana measure is Karen E. Thomas-Alyea of Newport Street. The zoning bylaw amendment is aimed at “prohibiting within a radius of 500 feet of a school, day-care center or any facility in which children commonly congregate ….” The article says the 500 feet is measured by a straight line from the nearest point of a marijuana facility to the nearest point of the location of a list of places. These include public and private schools for general education, dance, tech, as well as for day care and gymnastics, day care and libraries. A medical-marijuana dispensary is proposed for 11 Water St.
— The proponent of the surveillance article is Stephen A. Revilak, a Precinct 1 meeting member.
— The proponent of the Mt. Gilboa article is Janice A. Weber, a Precinct 21 meeting member seeking changes affecting these streets: 20-133 Crescent Hill Ave., 2-6 Park Place, 3-115 Westmoreland Ave. and 11-197 Westminster Ave.
Sixth article
On Jan. 31, the selectmen’s office provided a sixth citizen article that had been unavailable previously.
ARTICLE BYLAW AMENDMENT/APPRAISALS OF TOWN PROPERTY INTERESTS
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town Bylaws to add a provision or provisions requiring the Town to determine the value of any real property interest before disposing of it by using procedures customarily accepted as valid by the appraising profession, including hiring an appraiser at the Town’s discretion; or take any action related thereto.
(Inserted at the request of Lisa Reynolds and 10 registered voters)
Two supporters still to comment
The backers of each article have been asked to comment. Their responses will be added after they are received. Three have responded.
The proponent of the email article was Chris Loreti of Adams Street, who was bringing back an article adopted at last year’s meeting but had not been put into effect when he collected signatures. The measure asked the town to provide email accounts for exclusive use of town business to members of the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Finance Committee, Board of Assessors, Redevelopment Board and “possibly other public bodies.”
That article was adopted last May. Loreti learned on Thursday, Jan. 26, from Town Manager Adam Chapdelaine that the measure had been implemented.
“I am very belated in following up with you on this matter, but I wanted to let you know that we have now provided all the town bodies mentioned in Article 26 on the 2016 Annual Town Meeting with town email addresses,” Chapdelaine wrote. “All of these addresses will be posted on the town website by the close of business today.”
Loreti commented Jan. 28: “I am pleased that the town manager was able to work with the town’s IT staff to implement the article from last year, and I hope the board members provided with town email addresses will use them for town business.”
Statement on Mt. Gilboa article
Janice Weber, Feb. 6
Years ago, around 1975, our district was changed to Residential 2. The reason given was that two-family houses could not be rebuilt as two-families, because of the Residential 1 zoning. This is incorrect, you can rebuild a two-family if that is what you had.
Many of my neighbors are concerned with the tearing down and rebuilding of two-family structures in the neighborhood. It is a very densely populated area and this trend is not desirable.
That is the reason for my warrant article.
Statement on appraisals article
Lisa Reynolds, Feb. 3
Reynolds, a Precinct 6, Town Meeting member, wrote Feb. 3: “This article is designed to ensure that when Town Meeting votes on selling town-owned real property (land, buildings, easements, rights-of-way, etc.), members are made fully aware of the current and accurate value of that property based upon accepted appraisal industry methods and standards.”
Statement on reducing plastic bags
Jim Ballin, Jan. 30
Presented by Arlington for Reduced Plastic Waste (Jim Ballin, Greg Dennis, Jim DiTullio and Laura Kiesel)
The elimination of single-use plastic shopping bags provided by retail establishments in Arlington would protect the marine environment, advance solid waste reduction efforts, lower greenhouse gas emissions, protect waterways, reduce toxic air emissions and minimize litter.
Extensive research shows that plastic bags cause significant environmental harm across our town, state, country, and world. Each year, between 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide, with billions winding up in landfills. In the United States, we throw away almost 100 BILLION plastic bags annually, and only recycle 5 to 10 percent of them.
Plastic bags can take up to 1,000 years to break down, and they never fully biodegrade. In the meantime, plastic waste kills an estimated 100,000 marine creatures (including dolphins, sea turtles, seals, and whales) and 1 million sea birds annually. These animals often are strangled or choke on the plastic when they ingest it, mistaking it for jellyfish or other food. Plastic bag production also contributes to climate change since it is a petroleum product that requires intensive energy to manufacture and transport. In addition, when trash is burned, as Arlington’s is in an incinerator, plastic bags disposed of in the trash can release toxic chemicals into the air. Plastic shopping bags are not allowed in our curbside recycling, yet all too many are disposed of in that manner, making them a top contaminant of our recycling stream. Plastic shopping bags jam up sorting machines at our recycling centers, causing delays in the process and ultimately resulting in higher costs for Arlington residents.
So what can be done?
As plastic becomes increasingly stigmatized and as more of us voluntarily choose to forego single-use plastic items in favor of more humane and environmentally-sound alternatives, others will become motivated to do the same. However, though modifications in personal behaviors and choices are crucial to incite larger positive change, mandates at the institutional level often become necessary to complete a paradigm shift.
The proposed ban in Arlington would apply only to single-use plastic bags provided at the point of sale, so reusable bags, paper bags, and produce bags would be exempt. At present, 42 municipalities in Massachusetts have adopted similar bans, affecting one million residents. Our neighbors, Cambridge and Somerville, have already banned single-use plastic bags at retail shops, with positive environmental effects and little or no negative commercial impact. Plastic bag bans have existed in Massachusetts as far back as 1990, and it is time for Arlington to join this environmental movement sweeping the state.
Statement on buffer-zone article
Karen Thomas-Alyea, Jan. 29
The history of why this article is needed is a bit convoluted. When the state measure to allow medical marijuana facilities (RMDs) was passed, it included a 500-foot buffer zone around areas dedicated to children, such as schools including preschools. Subsequently, Arlington passed zoning rules limiting RMDs to the downtown business district. The intention at the time was that this zoning restriction was — in addition — to the state buffer zone.
However, there was some ambiguity in the wording, and the state ruled this past summer that the town’s zoning was — instead — of the state’s buffer zone. The town manager and members of the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) have publicly stated that it was not their intention to void the state’s buffer zone and that action is needed to rectify the ambiguity. To correct this error, the town needs to amend its zoning ordinance so that it once again includes the buffer zone to protect children. That is the purpose of this warrant article. The language used in the proposed article was taken from that used in neighboring towns such as Burlington.
It is not clear whether this warrant article will affect the medical marijuana industry’s application for a permit at 11 Water Street. That location is upstairs from Arlington Pediatric Associates, around the block from Henry Bear’s Park, directly across the street and visible from Robbins Library (home to the country’s oldest public children’s library and host of many outdoor music concerts for children), and within 500 feet of Mariposa Montessori Preschool (which is located in the Unitarian Church).
The ARB has said that this RMD is “grandfathered in” because marijuana industry filed its application in 2014, at the time when the Unitarian Church had closed the preschool in order to renovate the building to make it ADA accessible. The Mariposa Montessori Preschool moved into the space after renovation was completed, and is now in its second year of operation.
It is not clear why the town has not attempted to work with the RMD applicant to find a more suitable location that abides by buffer zones intended and protects children. It is also unclear why this particular applicant feels no compunction to abide by buffer zones intended to protect children.
At any rate, this warrant will rectify the present ambiguity in the town’s zoning ordinances and thereby prevent future marijuana stores from opening within 500 feet of places where children commonly congregate.
Town surveillance article
Steve Revilak, Jan. 28
There were really three things that led me to file it.
The first factor was an ordinance called “An Act to Promote Transparency and Protect Civil Rights and Civil Liberties With Respect to Surveillance Technology”, which was discussed by the Cambridge City Council on Nov 26th, 2016. This ordinance had a number of attractive provisions. It would require city agencies to hold public hearings before deploying surveillance equipment. It would require city agencies to have public polices regarding their use of surveillance equipment; it would require agencies to conduct civil rights and civil liberties impact assessments. Finally, it would require periodic reporting, to ensure that the actual use of surveillance technologies remained in line with stated usage policies.
The Cambridge city council voted 7-0 in favor of referring the Act to their ordinance committee for transcription. As I understand, the ordinance hasn’t been passed yet, and is still being worked on.
Surveillance technology (e.g. CCTV, automatic license plate readers, etc) is becoming cheaper and more widely used. I felt the Cambridge ordinance established a reasonable set of policy thresholds, and provided a mechanism for public input. And I strongly believe that the public should have a say in how this stuff is used.
The second factor was the Arlington Housing Authority, who put up 15 CCTV cameras in one square block of precinct 1, right around the beginning of December 2016. 12 of the 15 cameras were on AHA property; three were outside AHA property, and essentially filming everything that went by on the street. I have a map and a couple of photographs here >>
I attended the AHA’s Dec 2016 board meeting to discuss the cameras. During this meeting, the housing authority’s executive director mentioned that they “had hundreds of video feeds”. I’ve since visited all of AHA’s properties, and inventoried their outdoor CCTV cameras. By my count, there are 72 of them. (I can only presume that indoor cameras make up the difference between 72 and “hundreds”). For comparison, the Arlington Public Safety building has eight outdoor
cameras. I find it surprising that AHA has (or needs) a higher density of CCTV than police headquarters.
After negotiations with my neighborhood, AHA agreed to remove two of the street-facing cameras, which were mounted to a utility pole, across the street from AHA property.
I’m not trying to knock AHA. Their primary mission — providing affordable housing to Arlington residents — is important, crucial work. But I do take issue with their extensive use of CCTV.
AHA said that the cameras were necessary for safety and crime prevention, which leads me to my third factor: studies I’ve read about CCTV deployments, and their effect on crime.
The UK has (probably) the most extensive CCTV system on the planet, and I started reading some of their studies. The results are very mixed. In some (but by no means all) cases, CCTV can yield a small but statistically significant reduction in certain types of property crime: like purse snatching, or stealing things out of cars. For other crimes — assault, battery, disorderly conduct, prostitution, drugs — there is absolutely no deterrent effect. Studies of US programs (San Francisco and Los Angeles) have essentially come to the same conclusion. Under the right circumstances, the cameras can be a useful tool, but they are absolutely not a solution in themselves.
To summarize, there are several issues. Privacy and civil liberties; policy (have you formalized how the cameras etc are used, along with data retention and access policies?); and fit for purpose (what problem are you trying to solve, why do you believe surveillance cameras are the appropriate solution, and what metrics are you using to gauge their effectiveness).
I asked for a study group so that the town could start looking at and thinking about these issues, and what actions (if any) would be appropriate in response.
YourArlington’s 2016 Town Meeting summary
Town Meeting information at town website
This news summary was published Sunday, Jan. 29, 2017, and updated Feb. 6, to add comment.
