The Police and Fire facilities project was divided and conquered, perhaps, by the Brattleboro Selectboard at Tuesday’s meeting. They heard of Plan F, which divides the project into phases with the fire facilities being completed first, and the police facilities being put on hold for a relocation and redesign. Whether this conquers the issue will be left up to Representative Town Meeting and voters.
The board agreed that Human Services funding requests should be limited to $120,000 this year, waded into the waters of asking non-profits for payment for town services, and accepted and ratified grants. Read on for all the details.
Preliminaries
The meeting started a bit late due to discussion of contract matters in executive session prior to the public meeting.
Chair David Gartenstein began by mentioning the reopening of the Brooks House and the opening of the solar array on Technology Drive, saying it was an exciting time for Brattleboro. “Brattleboro appears to be on the rebound. Lots of activity. Come on downtown.”
He said they held a solemn meeting when they thought they were to hire a new town manager and could not, but work since then has resulted in another round of interviews taking place this week, and a continued commitment to moving things forward, promptly.
Gartenstein said happy birthday to Tim Johnson of WTSA, and a congratulations on his being named to the Vermont Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame.
Interim Town Manager Patrick Moreland also congratulated Mr. Johnson.
For Selectboard comments and committee reports, John Allen agreed that downtown was looking good with the reopened Brooks House.
Public Participation
Leon Boyd pointed to Patrick Moreland and told the selectboard that he is a town manager and is best for the job.
Human Service Funding Discussion
The Brattleboro Selectboard continued their discussion of Human Services funding requests Tuesday evening. The question of how requests would be handled going forward was at issue.
Requests come via the Human Services Review Committee, a committee of Representative Town Meeting. The selectboard recently asked the town for clarification of their role in their funding requests.
Attorney Bob Fisher advised them in a memo that prior to 2004, the Selectboard would fund “auxiliary services” as part of the overall budget. In 2004, the Secretary of State said that these requests should come from the organizations, or be warned by a petition to be included for representatives to act upon.
Brattleboro Representative Town Meeting opted to form a committee and keep the social services funding request as a unique, separate item on the meeting agenda. The Selectboard place the committee’s recommendations on the warning.
In the original 2005 documents for the formation of the Committee, the plan was to allocate up to 2% of the budget for Human Services organizations. In 2005, the number was $212,000.
Fisher advised that the Selectboard could refuse to place the article on the warning, and could request that a lower funding request be created. The Human Services Funding Committee would then need to bend to their wishes, or take the time to gather enough petition signatures to automatically be placed on the warning.
He suggested the Selectboard meet with the committee to discuss limits, and encourage the Human Services Committee to petition (5% of the voters) for inclusion on a Town Meeting warning if they have disagreements with the board.
Luckily, two members of the Human Services Review Committee were present, and the board held their dialog.
Emilie Kornheiser said that the committee is made up of human services professionals. She told the board that Vermont Yankee funds being eliminated will hit town agencies hard, and that Untied Way funds have diminished.
Ellen Fairchild Martyn said that the needs were going up and funding sources were being reduced. “The needs are definitely there in the community,” she said.
Kornheiser said that the requests are granted only for work done on behalf of, or for, Brattleboro residents. She said funding reductions impact those being served, but also those serving. Human Services, she told the board, accounts for many jobs in town.
John Allen wondered if Town Meeting Representatives could alter the recommended number up or down, and who should be setting the number.
Gartenstein said that there was “some ambiguity” but that they could work in consultation with the committee toward a number. “It’s a Town Meeting decision,” he said, but thought it best that they make a recommendation.
Martyn said that it would be best if the board set a number now, so that the committee could know in advance and make their allocation recommendations a single time, rather than have to revisit and revise them at the last moment. “It would be good to know your intentions.”
Donna Macomber said she hoped the amount could go up in future years, and that she wanted to fund “amazing, vital work in the community.”
The board voted to recommend a $120,000 limit in Human Services funding requests for the coming year.
Regional Economic Hub Study Group – Mission Definition
The Brattleboro Selectboard discussed the mission for the newly formed Regional Economic Hub Study Group. It wasn’t really a discussion so much as a statement. They voted unanimously that the charge of the committee would be to study tax impacts to Brattleboro of being a southeastern Vermont regional hub and make recommendations, study, network, and coordinate with other regional hub communities.
Police-Fire Project Discussion
Remember the Police Fire Facilities Building Committee? They’ve been working on how to proceed with the police and fire station renovation projects, and came before the Brattleboro Selectboard Tuesday evening to give an update on their latest thinking and present a range of possibilities. They went away with a new charge: to make plans to go forward with the fire station projects, and to begin a search for a location for a new police station.
To get there, the board was given a list of six options, A through F, to consider. We’ll detour for a moment to summarize them.
Plan A is to do the project as previously presented for a cost of just over $14 million.
Plan B would reduce the scope, but still provide for a 50 year plan. The police would have to do with no new furnishing, reduced parking lot work, a reduced planning area, and the loss of a conference room and floor above. The fire department would have no new furnishings, the EOC would remain at the Municipal Center, and Station 2 would lose the cupola. With a bit more savings trimmed here and there, Plan B comes in at just over $12.6 million.
Plan B1 eliminates a third floor for the fire department, but is similar to Plan B. Cost is just over $11.8 million.
Plan C is the “spend the $5 million” approach, using the money already borrowed to fix things for 5 to 10 years. Including costs spent to date, Plan C would equal the amount already bonded for, $5 million.
Plan D is the “life safety and must-haves” path. To do this would fix things for 5 to 10 years and cost just under $5.8 million, a bit more than Plan C but still less than A and the B’s.
Plan E combines the Police and Fire operations in a single building at the Central Fire location downtown. This returns the project to a 50 year plan. A new 2-story metal building would be added for the firefolk, the existing station would be renovated for the policefolk, and there would be a new Station 2 in West Brattleboro. Including costs to date, Plan E is estimated at just over $11.2 million.
Plan F is the “move the police to another property” scenario. This 50 year approach calls for purchasing an entirely new property, relocating the police, and keeping the current plan for Central Station and Station 2. Including costs to date, Plan F comes in at just under $12.9 million.
With this background, the discussion began in earnest. The goal, said David Gartenstein, was to figure out a process for going forward.
They first reviewed the process to date, noting various approvals and rejections of the last few years. The board discussed constraints, such as a change in plans requiring a new vote by Representative Town Meeting. Each member of the board then gave a personal opinion of what to do.
David Schoales said they should set a number and let the team get back to work, with a commitment that the board would eventually get approval from Town Meeting representatives. Kate O’Connor said she would like to work within the remains of the existing $5 million bond. John Allen would like to go ahead with Central Station. Donna Macomber suggested working in stages to move forward. David Gartenstein said that each of them had a different viewpoint.
“We don’t know how to move forward. I don’t know what the consensus in town is or what direction to take. I don’t know what town will agree to spend or build. The Selectboard’s responsibility is to figure this out, but the answer isn’t apparent,” said Gartenstein.
The Police Fire facilities Committee then weighed in, endorsing Plan F.
Chair Robin Sweetapple explained that they had looked over all of the options multiple times and felt that it would be negligent to consider any short-term fixes, as substantial money, time, and effort has led to property purchases, demolitions, and architectural plans. She said that Plan F would shave about $2 million of the previous total.
Other members of the committee agreed that starting with the Central and West Brattleboro fire stations would be smart, as they are shovel-ready and could get underway easily. The second phase would then become locating a property for a new police station, and doing a new design for that location.
Project manager Steve Horton cautioned that the numbers were preliminary with guestimates throughout.
The board then disagreed on how much was available to spend. Allen and Schoales both felt that $14.1 million had been approved, but O’Connor and Gartenstein were hesitant to assume more than the current $5 million bond.
“We have $14.1 million to spend. It has never been taken away. We’re listening to public input. We have to move forward,” said Allen. “A small group of people rejected the budget. We have to make a decision and move forward.”
“It’s tone-deaf for us not to consider what happened last year with the budget,” countered O’Connor. “To just push ahead concerns me.”
Schoales said they had the authority to spend $14.1 million, but wouldn’t do so. He suggested bringing the plan to Town Meeting Representatives. Macomber agreed.
Gartenstein said it was the first time splitting the project into phases has been suggested. Moreland said that Plan F would require a new bond authorization, as the location of the police facility will be changing.
Schoales suggested holding a special Town Meeting. This frustrated John Allen, and kicked off a spat. Or a tiff. A verbal volley of sorts, between Allen and the Chair.
“When we go back to Town Meeting and to asking permission,” John Allen began, “I’m in favor of listening, but we have to make a decision. What’s to say that Town Meeting says no? I’ve gone through PAYT and skateparks and thought we had it covered but we got railroaded. I’m sick and tired of being railroaded. I’m sick of getting things started with a committee and have it thrown out because someone didn’t want it.”
“I totally disagree,” said Gartenstein. “We haven’t been railroaded. We don’t make funding decisions, Town Meeting does. We don’t have the authority to spend $14.1 million. We need a plan, and to get approval from the funding authority. The five of us can’t make the decision.”
“How did they vote on it?” shot back Allen. “Did they vote unanimously? They did?”
“Tell me about the budget revote, and if we have authority,” retorted Gartenstein.
“Representative Town Meeting said unanimously that they wanted this,” Allen insisted.
“I voted against it,” said Gartenstein, popping the unanimity claim. He challenged Allen to make a motion to proceed without another Representative Town Meeting.
“I want to,” taunted Allen.
“See the result you get,” pushed Gartenstein.
Macomber urged patience, and said that it was okay to be frustrated in a democracy, and to voice that frustration. “We need to le go of history and old frustration,” she said. She endorsed going to representatives for approval of the plan.
Gartenstein eventually offered to compromise and agree to Plan F, if Town Meeting approves it. “I want town meeting authority, and to let voters at large vote on it, but I could endorse doing the fire portion, and then scoping out the police part.”
Allen thanked him.
Schoales suggested adding in a million extra for purchase of a property for the police station and some initial design work in that direction.
Gartenstein thought presenting each station as its own agenda item would be wise.
Horton said he could get the board more solid numbers within a few days.
With that, the Brattleboro Selectboard voted to adopt a new charge for the committee, to make a recommendation as to costs and related plans for the fire stations downtown and in West Brattleboro, and to develop plans and purchase land for a new police station. They also decided to contemplate holding a special Representative Town Meeting to vet Plan F, and to receive the authority and funding to go in that direction.
“Solid progress tonight,” said Gartenstein.
Billing Non-Profits For Emergency Services
The Brattleboro Selectboard discussed billing non-profits for emergency services to better share the costs among users of the various emergency systems in town. To get there, they decided to find out how much emergency services to some non-profits cost.
David Schoales introduced the idea and said it was a way to begin to do program-based budgetting, which aims to align resources with goals. He suggested they track the costs of emergency services to the largest non-profits in town so that they will be prepared for future discussions.
He admitted it was unenforceable to demand payment, but noted that Burlington and Boston had struck agreements with large non-profits. “I still don’t see any services we can do away with,” he said. “It’s either backwards or forward, and this helps us go forward.”
Patrick Moreland said the request would be “a lot to consider.”
David Gartenstein said he saw value in collecting the data. “There is a question about how much work it would take to get to that level of analysis. It should be useful information without overburdening staff, but I’m in favor.”
Police Chief Fitzgerald said that gathering data on all non-profits would be a burden, but selecting a handful would be doable. He suggested they pick a few and then look at records for incidents over the last three months.
It was agreed that some preliminary data could be delivered to the board within a few weeks.
Town Manager Evaluation Forms Discussion
What format of form should be used to evaluate the Town Manager? The Brattleboro Selectboard made it known that the form should be the long form questionnaire, as it is “qualitative.”
Rescue Rope Grant
The Brattleboro Fire Department received $2500 from the Vermont Department of Public safety Equipment Grant Program. They will use the money to purchase 2500 feet of half-inch super static rescue rope.
Grant Application – Strong Communities Better Connections Pilot Program
The Agency of Commerce and Community Development, in collaboration with VTrans, are offering Strong Communities Better Connections grants for planning around issues of transportation and land use. Brattleboro’s Planning Department plans to apply with a planning project for lower Main Street.
The project will involve consideration of vehicle, pedestrian, land use, and municipal infrastructure needs that will occur when a new bridge to Hinsdale is built a bit south of the current location. It’s a conceptual development plan that includes Malfunction Junction and the waterfront areas.
The old bridge will be used for bikes and pedestrians once the new one opens. Both David Schoales and John Allen asked if the new bridge was being planned or built. David Gartenstein said no. Patrick Moreland said it was anticipated within our lifetime, contrary to some opinions.
The grant requires a $4,000 match, which will come from Program Income Funds (money paid back from certain loans).
The board ratified the application, which had been sent in earlier to meet a deadline prior to the ratification.
JAG Grant
The Brattleboro Police received $90,000 from a Edward J. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant. The money will be used of pay for staff time and benefits associated with fighting drug trafficking.
"I'm sick of getting things
“I’m sick of getting things started by a committee and have it thrown out because someone didn’t want it”
How ironic is this statement in light of the SB considering the skate park site selection committee’s overwhelming decision of ELM street park objected to by John Allen! Seems a little self selective to me.
"I like public input, but only when I agree with it"
I had a similar thought while typing what he was saying.
Happy to hear the other board members try to counter Allen’s perception, but he used the word railroaded, multiple times. I think he really believes that a small number of voters and taxpayers are adversaries of the board and work tirelessly to stop his great ideas. He doesn’t seem to believe in or see the benefits of the mess that is democracy.
That “unanimous” vote in October 2012, btw, was 99-34. Many reps claimed after the vote they didn’t understand what they were voting on at this rushed special meeting.
Fast Tracker on the Red Line
If finally valuing a public review process requested by the community is labeled railroading by John Allen such as the case of an “inconvenient” 6 month evaluation/conclusions completed by the Skate Park Site Selection Committee which came to be eventually, somewhat dismissed, then I’m Choo-Choo Charlie!. Pressing time constraints don’t seem to be such an issue these days for making the present site viable. Maybe John Allen would be happier running for Mayor.
Thanks again for informative notes Chris!
There is at least
one board member who needs a reality check. The voters/residents/citizens of Brattleboro voted against the budget due to the fact that it included massive loans for this project.
Before throwing more good money and time after bad we need another townwide vote with more specific questions asked ie:
1)Do you think the town should (relating to both fire stations and the police station):
a) Repair only the health and safety problems on all 3 properties
b) Build 2 new fire stations
c) Buy property and build a new police station
etc,, etc,, etc
2) What is the maximum amount of money, INCLUDING INTEREST, that you want allocated and spent for this project (in total):
a) $5 million
b) $8 million
c) $10 million
d) $12 million
e) $15 million
f) $20 million
g) $25 million
etc,, etc,, etc
Any other useful questions should be included.
The board should be getting a CLEAR vote from the residents before proceeding with this project any further. IMO, to proceed any other way would be a continuing waste.
Good questions
These look like good iBrattleboro poll questions for coming weeks, too.
Another option would be to wait a bit. I assume the state will legalize and tax marijuana in coming years, and that new tax revenue might make these projects easier to finance.
Perhaps short terms efforts should be placed on convincing the state that this new tax revenue is needed sooner rather than later, rather than launching into a divisive community exercise pitting haves and against have-nots for another round of turmoil.
In other words, rather than look for a solution within the current financials, work to change the situation and the money available.
I’m still amazed there isn’t funding from Homeland Security for this. They pay for staff and equipment. They should help pay for a new place for it all to reside.
tax revenue from marijuana....
You sound just like the pro-gambling lobbists in many states that said the money would flow in once gambling was legalized. In CT, they wrapped themselves in the cloak of “it’s for the children.” Let’s just say, gambling revenue is way off in CT this year.
I don’t think tax revenue from marijuana is going to amount that much once it starts to trickle down to the communities.
I don’t understand why you think this is going to be a big generator of cash. Have you seen any numbers or projections?
Other states examples
The Selectboard would be happy with a 1% sales tx downtown on small items.
In other states, the tax on marijuana is closer to 25%, on a high priced items, and half goes to the locality where it was sold. Colorado and Oregon are raking in tax revenues.
I’m sure it would bring in more than any 1% local option tax on goods, and would be a tax many would be happy to pay. Tourists could pay for our new Police and Fire facilities.
I would tell them to go to hell
Let’s make something clear. Marijuana is simply an adult personal consumption choice and human right. It should never have been criminalized in the first place, and criminalizing marijuana consumers remains one of the great evil wrongdoings of governments in modern times.
While tax revenue and personal income revenue are important related issue to legalizing marijuana, it is first and foremost a moral issue to stop the harm being perpetrated by the criminal justice system.
If someone in today’s world tried to impose their anti-saloon sentiments on my consumption of fine brandy I would tell them to go to hell.
chill Vidda
Nobody is taking your right away here to drink or smoke. As a matter of fact, that isn’t the issue here at all.
But while you are here, perhaps you can answer my question regarding tax revenue projections of legalized pot in VT, as you at the forefront of legalization in the state.
Chill Boned – Exercise your neutrality button
I was chilled fishboy. When one reads your quote below it does suggest a misunderstanding of legalizing and frankly, your question appears to be asked from a negative context, not neutral. You wrote, “You sound just like the pro-gambling lobbists in many states that said the money would flow in once gambling was legalized. In CT, they wrapped themselves in the cloak of “it’s for the children.” Let’s just say, gambling revenue is way off in CT this year. I don’t think tax revenue from marijuana is going to amount that much once it starts to trickle down to the communities.“
First of all, I think, but please correct me if I’m wrong, but ‘numbers gambling’ in various state are state run operations?
In any case, legal marijuana will be sales taxed and license taxed as we do any retail business within private enterprise.
From Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/22/legal-marijuana-taxes_n_5863860.html
“Money may not grow on trees, but it apparently does grow on marijuana plants. If all 50 states legalized cannabis today, they’d be collectively raking in more than $3 billion a year in taxes.
That’s according to NerdWallet, a personal finance site, which forecasts a total $3.1 billion annual windfall for state governments that legalize the popular plant.
California would gain the most from legalization. NerdWallet projects the Golden State would generate more than $519 million per year, which the website points out would almost fund the entire 2013 budget for California’s Department of Parks and Recreation. New York would be second, with $248 million, NerdWallet said. Seven additional states would bring in $100 million or more from legalization, and 25 others would stand to make at least $20 million per year.”
As I said to you before, I asked
a question regarding the potential revenue stream for Brattleboro from a marijuana tax, pretty straight forward.
As far as I can see, gambling regs are different from state to state. In CT, we have casino gambling that the state gets a piece of the action on slots. CT also has lottery games. Gambling revenues goes towards the general fund that in turns goes for public health, education, libraries, public safety and many a pro-gambling poltical candidate ran for office saying that gambling would help the children of the state. That’s a fact.
Negative? Suspecious is a better word, I don’t see taxes from marijuana in VT being so big as providing a big check to towns. My understanding is in CO medical marijuana is not taxed as much as recreational marijuana. Further it has been said in CO some are still buying pot on the black market because it is more expensive buying via the state. VT is still a long ways from legal recreational pot.
I don’t claim to be an expert on this issue. But I don’t see how their is going to be a big revenue windfall for the town from this.
Render unto CT what is CTs
Even if Chris could give you a straightforward answer, and one that wowed you with a nice projected windfall for our town, it wouldn’t really matter. I think the legislature has a total of 173 members from both sides of the aisle. Even I could not speak for all of them and the different influences bearing down on them, and, declare as you just have that: “VT is still a long ways from legal recreational pot. “ How do you know that? Which legislators have you been talking to? How many polls have you taken or read?
Perhaps it might be better for you to render unto CT what is CTs and let us here in the Green Mountain state handle what is ours. I think still that your comments are not really neutral when it comes to marijuana issues. Nothing you’ve said changes that.
your assumption...
the I am against pot is false.
As for recreational use being a long ways off, no I don’t have a poll on that (i have seen poll that the VT public is in favor) but I know the state has commissioned Rand to do a study. That will take time and so will the discussion afterwards. Let me be specific, I think it is at least 3 years off. Many states seem to be taking the wait and see approach and will watched CO with a critical eye.
As for your assertion that even if Chris could detail the projected revenue stream, “that it wouldn’t matter,”
that statement makes no sense.
Trail of weighted skepticism?
Perhaps it’s your trail of weighted skepticism I’m picking up on.
The Rand report is due Jan 15th. Sen. Zuckerman already has a bill prepared. We have governor and gubernatorial candidates will to sign the bill. It’s true we have a handful of (influential) holdout in the assembly and a strong (overly involved) police presence opposed to legalization. It really is up to the good sensible people of the legislature to get it passed. Three years? Maybe.
At least our group, Marijuana Resolve played an active role in securing decriminalization that effectively removes adult marijuana consumers out of criminal justice harm’s way.
Chris or no one else can really “detail the projected revenue stream.” Even the Nerd report, with a good projection, could prove not to be true, especially in the sense that marijuana will do better than they indicate.
Take Chris’ poll.
I am not...
going to address your comments regarding my “trail of weighted skepticism.” Despite me stating over and over I am not against ,marijuana legalization, you assert otherwise.
As for the Nerd report, I agree with your view here. I found this source to be interesting regarding potential tax revenues (or lack off.)
http://taxfoundation.org/article/taxing-marijuana-washington-and-colorado-experience
Brattleboro would do better instituting a local 1% tax than waiting around for a pot tax to trickle down to the town for the police/fire buildings.
I
Nonmedical and medical uses - just to clarify
Once marijuana is legalized, like alcohol, it can then be used for nonmedical and medical uses, dependent on the personal use choices of adult purchases.
It is misleading when people say that we are legalizing marijuana for recreational use. (That’s not directed at you, fishboy, it is the common view that is misleading, and it generally adds a type of stigmatism to the overall discussion. One never hears the term “recreational alcohol.”)
symmatics
Well the fact is , it is already legal for medical use in VT and it is illegal for any other “use.” And the only other use I can think of marijuana is use for is recreational use. I regard that statement not as a type of stigatism but rather a statement of fact. If you say that marijuana can be used for industrial use, my understanding is that product is hemp, not marijuana and is being persued as a seperate issue. I see your group delineates between the marijuana and hemp.
It is my understanding medical marijuana in CO carries a lower state tax vs recreational marijuana. The current tax collected from medical sales in VT probably covers only supporting the sale of medical marijuana and there is no money left over to disperse to towns.
Vermont's Potential Take of the Pot Pie
Projected Revenue from sales and excise tax for Vermont is $10- $15 million annually.
Is the VT state legislature reading this?
Who needs medical marijuana?
Just legalize it and it works best for nonmedical and medical consumption based on the adult choices consumers have the right to make.
From the same link above: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/22/legal-marijuana-taxes_n_5863860.html
More than "trickle down"
The town is run by the Selectboard and may in fact have a way to benefit from marijuana state taxes, similar to the way the town can benefit from street and highway funding from the VT – DOT.
A poll
We’ve added a poll for this week regarding the options. You can choose your top three facility solutions and we’ll use instant runoff voting to see where things stand.
"At the forefront of legalization in the state"
I love the word semantics…well, not really.
My dear Fishboy, I think it’s time and important for you to have the last word in this dialogue between you and me. I do hope our readers have gained some insights from me, because, as you write above, that I am “at the forefront of legalization in the state (VT).”
Since I’m planning to write on this topic of legalization now, and over the next eight months, I’d like to turn my attention over to my powers of observation, if I may I say so, to a broader audience, and more specifically, a Vermont audience.
Of course, I’ll miss the rough and tumble with the man from the sea down in the Ocean State, but it has not been without its interesting points.
The floor is yours, and, until meet we meet again, happy trails to you.
i don't understand
why you bothered to get involved with this specific topic at hand. Instead of participating, you wanted to push your own particular agenda. Again the subject was Marijuana tax and how it can pay for the Fire/Police building and not your moral right to smoke marijuana. Too bad, I think you are quite knowledagble on the subject. Sure, we have gained some insights, but is it any different from what you have posted before? No. We all get where you stand.
As you have said to others that have “crashed” your posts, if you want to discuss something other than the topic at hand, start your own thread. No need to get pissy. Oh yes, I too enjoy the rough and tumble, as Bob Hope said “You might have been a headache but never were a bore…
Bis wir uns wildereshen.
Peas in a Pod?
Name calling seems boorish itself. I thot that vidda responded to fishboy specifically enough to show that that millions of dollars were likely to benefit the state (project) coffers. I don’ts see how the marijuana tax could “pay for” the police/fire project anyway. I thot the subject of the marijauan tax was nowhere near that local project, and the bratt budget was already in place and largely settled so the fishboy question was moot from the start. I do agree that vidda is in the forefront and pretty knowledgeable about what is neede to get it done…especially the alcohol model analogy
Railroaded
A selectboard member whining about the board not getting its way because it was “railroaded” by Town Meeting representatives and voters pretty much nutshells the wall of ignorance and hostility Brattleboro residents face when trying to exercise their limited right to self-governance.
Good for Gartenstein for the reality check.
Gartenstein
I think Mr. Gartenstein intentions are solid without conflict of interest and if it wasn’t for his equalizing stance there wouldn’t have been any SSSC process from ever occurring in the first place, although I believe he suddenly made a tilted effort to appease BASIC on his final decision rather than hearing the resounding public approval of the Elm Street location as a whole unfortunately leaving us the present skate park location in limbo, open ended and contingent on many questionable restrictive factors.