Wow. Just because Lavendergate is against something then everything is broken. Stein is a loose canon and belongs in a special place where he is taught how to play well with others.

Fantastic letter Mr. Semple. It still bothers me CPA funds are used for housing. When the CPA question was on the ballot it was presented as a means to preserve open space and it won by a slim margin. Since it was voted on, the intended use of the funds changed. This means the current operations of the CPA is NOT what was voted on. I believe a majority of the people who voted for the CPA surcharge tax trusted the funds would be used to preserve open space and prevent development of open lands such as farms. Now the funds are used for the opposite reason to builds homes and many other projects that do NOT preserve open land. Some, if not all, farms preserved are being used to subsidize farming and as far as I know, the town receives nothing in return from the farmers that use these lands. In addition, the promised amount of matching funds from the State gets smaller every year. The CPA surcharge tax needs to be on the ballot again and presented fairly to the voters.

Sudburycitizentoo,
Why don't you share with us what you believe is not broken.

We have Kablacks conflicts
SPS school committee ignoring people
we have e-mail campaign smears using school lists
we have after hour parties with the liquor license board in attendance
we have OUI incidents w/ a town employee and a failed attempt to cover it up
we have LS hiding override money in postage meters
we have sweet contracts for town manager and town counsel renewed well before expiration just before an election
we have 2 Selectmen that now pass over a 3rd for chair rotation
we have citizens living tax free in town owned property
we have the budget completely changed an hour before town meeting
we have an ineffective board of selectmen
we have 2 school superintendents and full staffs
we have a school sup that was just given a brand new contract on early renewal with a salary increase even though there is a petition of no confidence with 200 signatures
Sudbury is unfarily paying more for LS than Lincoln
We have a LS school committee wh is dominated by Lincoln
we have a pro 40B leadership even with the Sudbury people voting against it
we have the Chair of the BOS arguing against the will of the people in Sudbury on Beacon Hill
we have elected officials that are unable to gather support for overrides

Other than these couple of things, everything in Sudbury is running very smoothly.

In response to various Town Meeting comments; The Town Meeting is beyond it’s time of being a fair and effective representation of the majority. Important articles should be voted on during a regular scheduled election day. Counting on an organized group to stack the Town Meeting is no real form of justice either way. In this most recent situation, the overwhelmingly number of attendee’s were people who were frustrated with the management of Sudbury. Perhaps, they are/were the silent majority. This time, these people went out of their way to fit the meeting into their schedules, make arrangements for sitters or simply to get a ride. The message was clear the majority of residents are disgusted with many of the town decisions being made. This time, the 3-5 Selectmen article was voted in approval. Other times there have been articles voted on that have a direct impact on the finances of the taxpayer or their neighborhood. It’s unjust to continue using the Town Meeting as a venue to see which group can show up in the larger number. Plus, there are 12,426 registered voters in Sudbury. It’s obvious the planners of the Town Meeting do not expect every registered voter to attend. Sudbury doesn’t have a facility large enough. What would happen if 50% showed? Not even Moderator Myron Fox could moderate 6,000 people.

pmotw thoughts continued....

If residents are bound to the traditions of a Town Meeting, then let it just be a FAIR presentation of articles with a question and answer sessions only. Voter turnout at the polls is always larger than the Town Meeting turnout. Give the majority a fair opportunity to be heard at the polls at their own convenient time of the day and not a fixed time in the evening.

Finally, special elections and special Town Meetings are becoming too frequent. It’s not reasonable to assume the average resident is always aware of the next special election/meeting or what they are about. I have not witnessed one election/meeting that could not wait a few months till the next scheduled election/meeting. These special election/meetings can be perceived as a venue to get articles passed without the approval of the majority. In addition, they have a financial impact on the towns’ budget.

I have been in favor of changing the Town Meeting for over 10 years. The more on board the better!

I understand that many people would prefer their government to operate silently and effectively, and not to have special elections or, more disruptively, special town meetings which consume entire evenings.

However, the September 24 special town meeting was required by the petition with over 200 valid signatures, as per MGL Chapter 39 Section 10.

Even without that petition, there would have been a special town meeting this winter sometime to vote on the Nixon roof proposal. The grant we are seeking for the Nixon roof from the Mass School Building Authority (MSBA) requires approval at both Town Meeting and an election. This was discussed in the warrant article 1 of the Special Town Meeting. To make the deadlines, these approvals had to occur prior to the 2013 election and town meeting.

We can debate whether Sudbury should move from Open Town Meeting to a Representative Town Meeting, but either way it won't remove the need for special town meetings and special elections.

Re: Ms. Brown;

Thanks for bringing up the Nixon roof. Question 1 reads as follows;

Shall the Town of Sudbury be allowed to be exempt from the provisions of Proposition two and one-half, so called, the amounts required to pay for the bonds issued in order to remodel, reconstruct, or make extraordinary repairs consisting of partial roof repair/replacement at the General John Nixon Elementary School at 472 Concord Road, including the payment of all costs incidental or related thereto?

Are we voting for a blank check and an unknown permanent override increase on our taxes? How does a question like this get on a ballot without any details? I can’t imagine any responsible individual voting for this.

Again, why can’t the town plan for these projects and stop with the requests for permanent tax increases?

There's a discussion of the ballot questions in the warrant. In addition to the ballot question, there is a summary which includes the amounts under consideration, an argument in support and an argument in opposition.

You should have received a paper warrant mailed to your voting address. It's also available on the town website here: http://www.town.sudbury.ma.us/departments/Selectmen/doc8153/2012STEWarrant.pdf

Last ditch, there is a copy of the warrant posted outside the polling place when you go to vote--but I like to take a bit more time to consider the question than that.

Bryan, frustration one would have if such an event took place and was endorsed by Town government is understandable. But if you refer to the Dec.2010 Housing roundtable, I'm not certain your characterization is completely accurate. That WAS an information session, but hardly a marketing event to promote 40B development. Rather, it was a inter-board/committee communication event, shared with the public for the purpose of discussing current development activity, (the Housing Production plan, impending 40B and Sub-division developments) as well as other legislative tools and financial incentives used as options to further diversify towns' housing stock. Participants included people from the following: the Boards of Appeals, Selectmen & Planning, Community Preservation Cmte, Sudbury Housing Auth., Sudbury Housing Trust, Invited Guests, and the Public. I know because I attended the session, as then Vice Chair of the Planning Board, and worked side-by-side in a group with Selectman Haarde.

I think it's important to note that while as individuals, people may have (and certainly are entitled to) their own personal opinions regarding proposed legislation, reforms and voting, that should not influence their ability to discuss the pros and cons for and against. As Boards and Committees, (save the BOS) such endorsements don't generally occur, however. I'm not a fan and have never supported 40B, as an individual, but as a Board member, I couldn't just ignore it - like it or not.

Eric,
First, I always respect your opinion, your approach and your efforts for Sudbury. However, to even infer the anything put on by the Sudbury League of Women Voters is not a 100% Democrat agenda is inaccurate. The LWV is so biased towards Democratic ideals they can't even bring themselves to see an Independent or Republican point of view. They are extremely one sided.

By the way, I am unenrolled and usually vote Democrat but the Sudbury Leauge of Women Voters turns me off because of their one sided viewpoint. They are The Fox Channel of the Democrat party for Sudbury.

I don't understand the need for people to appeal to comments and respond with which political party they agree with. To me, these issues are about Sudbury and they have nothing to do with being a democrat, republican, independent or a libertarian. It's unnecessary to prove anything about your political party affiliation. It may even further divide people on issues. Save it for the State and National elections.

By the amount of blogging going on here today by a certain somebody would it be fair to say that flower sales are down this holiday season?

Here comes the pitbulls!LOL

sudburycitizentoo,
"Here comes the pitbulls!" Sounds like something the British regulars would say when the Patriots were coming after them. The people of Sudbury have had enough of the few governing for the few.

I think a muzzle may be required....for sudburycitizentoo. Perhaps a distemper shot too!!

I think you have some very serious anger issues- Have you thought about seeing a Dr? Its very sad you feel you need to be so rude and insulting to everyone who posts here- I truly feel sorry for you-

truth hurts you should actually feel sorry for sudburycitizentoo's family (if he or she even has one), because THEY have to live with him or her...imagine what that would be like EVERYDAY.

CPA funds were used to build retainer walls on route 117 for town planner friend on the corner of pantry and 117. These rock walls were retaining 2 inches of sidewalk.

In addition to the sidewalks on 117 which the project was approved (for sidewalks), CPA funds were used to fund corresponding rock walls and fences along route 117 that could also questioned. If the residents complain, Bill Place builds!

Continuing with the 117 project, CPA funds were used to pay a resident to build a wall on his own property!! I was once told that the business the property owner submitted his invoice wasn't a registered business with the state (defaulted) and the invoice was only submitted after someone asked for it. I'm also told that NONE of the 117 project items were bid, rather various invoices submitted on the same or various days for different amounts which at face value appear to be within state procurement regulations. I know who looked at all this and can see if they can be passed to the Patch for coverage. Then others can decide whether or not to continue to defend this cookie jar fund.

The CPA has a good purpose and if used in a balanced way could bring all the good it was intended. It has, however, become a slush fund to gain easy funding approval via town meeting which is easily stacked by our local liberal establishment.

Why can't CPA funds be used to fund the Fairbanks restoration, including roof?

btw, I am perplexed why we have to continue referring to our neighbors and their rancorous behavior. Can we just agree to ban the word!!!

I'm not an engineer and don't play one on tv so while I don't feel qualified to judge the validity of retaining walls, they are often necessary when sidewalks go in because the topography and runoff characteristics of a property are changed. If there's abuse and patronage being supported by the CPA it should be routed out.

@pmotw - Poch's right on the CPA and CRs. We don't subsidize farmers by allowing them to continue their by right use of the land, but we do avoid significant increase in cost of services by not having develpments built. Who cares about a few hundred bucks we could get for charging them to harvest hay when we stave off loosing $20-25k per house on school costs versus taxes paid to the town.

Wow- that's kinda harsh. I'm not interested in promoting any baseless accusations SC - keep me out of your pettiness. I've been in this town for quite a while now and follow event pretty closely. I'd certainly put him in the category of most reasonable town leaders. Most of what I've seen has been well spoken and more importantly, well reasoned and done in public. Unlike a lot of the trash talking that goes on in these news blogs.

SC--theres a sale at Petco for leashes.

Sudburycitizentoo-be sure to get one for yourself!