Right, Steve. I look forward to "hearing" your thoughts. Let's all hook up at TM!

PS..Dan, I am Hamatron5000!!! ; )

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

Steve:
Last night the BOS talked of doing just such a thing. The governor's numbers are expected the last day of October, from what I hear the cuts will be painful, and FY 2011 is looking pretty gloomy too.
Now is a good time to focus on solutions to the fiscal problems. We need to maintain services, keep people working and do that within the confines of a very tight budget. But, it can be done and is being done in other communities. For example, in Plymouth the Acting Town Manager has set aside an entire day to meet with the different Unions to talk about ideas to deal with the new cuts. Having lots of different perspectives is a good thing in these troubled times.

Good point, Steve.
If the budgets are not available by at least 7 to 10 business days before Town Meeting, shame on the Selectmen for not having their departments ready, and shame on the School Board if their budget is not ready.
Why should anyone spend money for a budget that they can't trust because the authorities are not  prepared, and how can you trust anything within the budgets that are not ready for submission?
Ridiculous!!

Articles 3 & 4 I will take up together.

We need real economic development in Wareham. In speaking with both business owners and consumers very few beleive we will get out of this financial crunch by raising meal or hotel taxes. We need to build a residual stream of income, and expand our business community. The positions that are directly responsible for this area have been left vacant for too long. We have many valuable assets in this community that we have not taken full advantage of, and I beleive we need to focus on them. I will personally be voting no on these two articles.

Article 5 Civil Service

We have had Civil Service protection for our Police Chief since 1938. Wow when you think about that one might say well that's an old law that needs to be changed. Wareham has survived all these years with a Civil Service Chief, so the question to me is why now? Many suggest it is because of the relationship between the former Chief and the current BOS / TA.

Most issues, I find can be resolved with improved communications, and sitting down talking with each other. In my mind if this was not able to be accomplished then changing the rules will not fix that communication problem, this appears to be a people issue not a system defect.

My opinion is changing the law will do nothing to improve the issues, keep the Civil Service and let's attempt to bring open and meaningful communications between the Chief and
the Administration.

Great thread..thanks Steve and others. You all raise excellent points.

Steve, your thoughts on 3 & 4, are good. I've gone back & forth on those. Just because the Town is in need of $$$ (and we all should know why, and it's NOT just the bad economy). But I agree. Why not support developments like Bay Pointe, or the ADM proposals, which include hotel/motels. Increase the number of units and the need to tax the few we have is lessened. Pretty much my thinking on the meals tax, too.

They say they support development. I haven't seen it unless it's "their baby" (Westfield-and all the problems with Article 2). Time to take the pacifier away.

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

Article #7 Historic Buildings

While not an overnight success, my experience tell me this is a good article for Wareham. I base this on the great success story in nearby New Bedford, if you have a chance this weekend take a ride around the neighborhoods of downtown.

Many of these houses would have been torn down, if not for the efforts of WHALE. Today many of these houses are part of their Historic District, which brings in many tourists and raises revenue for the city.

Again not an overnight success, but in our planning for the future, these projects could help spur economic development.

I will be voting yes.

searay240 wrote:

Article #2 Westfield.

Well there is certainly plenty of rhetoric on this one from both sides of the issue, folks talking about ball fields, senior housing, affordable housing, sewer, roads, taxes, income, revenue....and the list goes on. However when you read the article, it ask the citizens of Wareham to place a piece of property in the care of the Board of Selectmen, to lease or convey the land.

Let me be very clear, I don't care who the members of the BOS are and my opinion has nothing to do with the present board. I don't feel we should allow ANY Board to convey land without first coming to Town Meeting an getting the approval of the body. Conveying land as it states in the article requires a 2/3 town meeting vote, not a simple majority.

I personally will be voting NO on this article for the reason stated above. Just my opinion.

I AGREE 100%.       In 1977, I believe, at town meeting, the majority of voters,  TAXPAYERS,  voted to keep Westfield for the people of Wareham.  Open space, park, ball fields, picnic area - but nothing about housing for anyone.  To my understanding, filing this with the proper authorities was not done.  Oops!    I don't care.  We voted for this land to be kept open.  Our vote did not change - someone other than the voters at town meeting - made an error.  Fix the error.  The people in Wareham have already voted on what they wanted done with Westfield.  Keep it open and KEEP IT OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE SELECTMEN, PLEASE.

I am sorry if you don't agree with this part, but I am wondering whose palm would be greased.  Do they already have a developer with plans in hand.  ???

AGAWAM SHORES.  Correlate the above 1977 (Westfield) town meeting vote with last years town meeting vote for road repairs in AGAWAM SHORES.  Do you see any differences?         Both Westfield being left as open space and Agawam's badly needed road repairs, etc. were passed or approved.    Oops, again!  Someone - other than the voters at both town meetings - made an error.         So, fix the error.        The voters have already spoken.  Neither will cost us $.  The money is there for Agawam Shores.  No money is needed for Westfield and it won't go bad if we just sit on it until we are financially stable again............the year 3009?

VOTE  -  NO - WESTFIELD
VOTE  -  YES - AGAWAM SHORES.       Now how easy is that?!

Last edited by bornofwareham (2009-10-21 20:55:53)

searay240 wrote:

Article #7 Historic Buildings

While not an overnight success, my experience tell me this is a good article for Wareham. I base this on the great success story in nearby New Bedford, if you have a chance this weekend take a ride around the neighborhoods of downtown.

Many of these houses would have been torn down, if not for the efforts of WHALE. Today many of these houses are part of their Historic District, which brings in many tourists and raises revenue for the city.

Again not an overnight success, but in our planning for the future, these projects could help spur economic development.

I will be voting yes.

I will never forget the day that I pulled into the CVS parking lot on Main St., ran in quickly and when I came out I realized that on my way in I had heard
something very loud and then I saw the machines.
  I sat in my car, facing the Water's Home.  I watched it being torn apart by the jaws of a huge yellow machine.  There I sat, tears streaming down my face.  How could they do that?  Who let that happen?  Mr. Water's owned Water's Drug Store on Main Street, where the drive in bank is (next to the P.O.).  I noticed other cars, stopped and looking, also.  I guess I felt foolish for crying.  The only problem I have with Historical Society rules, is that some don't allow you to change trim to a less fancy, less expensive type.  Yes, it changes the building's appearance, but some restorations are expensive when matching trims, etc. and some "ask" you to paint the building the original colors.  Saving the house or the "Tobey Homestead", for example, are very important.  Very.           Vote yes.

I believe there is a need for affordable senior housing, but to toss money and property (with deed restrictions) at it is not the answer. We need a well thought out study of existing housing and examination of the available land that the town owns. There needs to be pressure put on the State to upgrade Agawam Village as part of that process. It has to be comprehensive to include several key items including the expected demand in increments.

We can address affordable senior housing without increasing our exposure in the short term. Westfield is NOT the answer. If you consider the multitude of mistakes and mis-steps the Selectmen have made, you really have to stop and consider if these people are capable of leading our town out of recovery. My boss always says that if you 10 million dollars in your pocket and you have a management team, you have to consider if they have the ability to take that 10 million dollars and make it worth MORE over time. If they cannot be trusted to do that, then you replace them! :)