Political warfare is such a mentally draining process and can often take away from the real issues that need to be addressed. While indeed some of the recent unsavory events (May 9th, Town Manager contract, etc.) highlight the need for transparency and improved process, one really need look no further than the Town demographics to demonstrate that GROWTH is the underlying issue and needs to be met in kind with an expanded BOS to keep up the pace. Sudbury is not a sleepy little hamlet. We as a town have created the current situation and we have the power to pull in the reigns on a runaway horse. And we do it for the future citizens of Sudbury. We are stewards of 01776.

Great post Bryan. I agree that the request from the Town Planner to gavel a Selectman was most disturbing on a number of levels, in addition to the other items you mentioned.

Terrific article Mr. Semple.

Bob Haarde's treatment of town employees borders on bullying and he seems to wear that disrespect as a badge of honor. I applaud Jody Kablack as I would applaud anyone in that situation.

*******CORRECTION**********

My blog implies the housing production plan could have been submitted earlier than it was. While I disagree with what appears to be a lack of proactive action to contain 40B development in town, the characterization above in the blog is not correct. An email today from the housing office pointed out the various reasons why they could not submit the plan earlier than when they did. I strive to be as accurate as possible in my blogs, in this case, I missed the mark.

Here is the link to the community housing office explanation on the housing production plan.

http://sudbury.ma.us/departments/CHO/news3892/

Thanks for the update Brian but I would like to note that this plan should have been in process well before the timelines on the community housing website. The town consistently refers to the "master plan" which far outdated at this point but my point is, significant work should have been done prior to 2011. I have seen meetings where our town planner has answered "what's the rush" to requests for fast tracking the submission of this plan.
Had the housing plan been fast tracked prior to 2011, we would have had more time and the ability to stem some of the developments that have been approved in the cluster region of 40B near and around the Landham Road intersection. Preventing cluster regions is one of the reasons 40B was initiated in the first place. What we have now is a planned segregation of lower income folks to one area of the town. Had our officials really had the town's back as well as the folks these developments are targeting, the housing plan would have been done earlier.

Agreed. There is just no real planning done in this town. We have 5 banks from Sudbury Farms to Mill Village. Do we really need that many? The town of Newton actually limits the amount of banks in their downtown and favors small business owners.

We're going to have 250 units of new housing from King Phillip Street to Landham Road. ( a few hundred yards) Is that really needed? Now they want 250 more units on the Malone propery? Why is it that the only thing being planned in this town are new units of housing??

"Thrice"- Just to be clear, I am most certainly not Jody Kablack and you most certainly are not some one I can take seriously. It is hard to imagine who does Siobhan, I have no clue who you think I am and why you think I live in California(???) but I am a longtime Sudbury resident who has raised my family here and I pay very close attention to what is going on. For the record, I am just someone who doesn't take what I read on the Patch as gospel and concerned enough to bother to watch a selectmen's meeting for myself. I call them as I see them and have come to the conclusion that I have after watching on a regular basis--even before Bob was a selectman.

If the comments on Sudbury Patch could be less maligning and more objective and use this forum for the respectful transference of information and respectful opinion then maybe we could all have a sense of community going into the Special Town Meeting. I am a big proponent of the move from 3 to 5 and would also like to see term limitations and a recall provision but I say this without the need to point fingers and make accusations as I may have done months ago. I pulled away from the Sudbury issues in order to gain perspective and what I see is the group who have worked so hard to bring this warrant article to vote are actually being as divisive as the subject of their scrutiny. If we were to let the article speak for itself and keep in mind the change in our town over the past 15 years I truly believe the responsible citizens will be open minded and objective and not need to point fingers to vote for more responsible and growth-minded governance. We need to think about the future of our town now and not focus on the mistakes of our past. We can learn from our history while focusing on a positive and future-based reason for change.

Kirsten, I saw several of the group you refer and I'm not so sure I agree they are divisive. The comments said to me yesterday were "it's better for Sudbury", "it allows more voices within the structure political process". There will always be a few who carry a message stronger than others, but those who appears to be directly behind this initiative are steering clear of divisiveness. This topic, unlike so many others in town like overrides, give the opportunity to bridge our community not divide it. This give the opportunity of those who only care for the schools to express insight into town matters.

Perhaps you encountered voices different than those I did. In my experience, they've been professional and sincere in their messaging.

As to these blogs, it's easy to separate those attempting to stir the pot from those who are attempting to keep the facts on the table. This should be a vote based on facts.

Vote 3-5. It's been proposed for decades and time to move forward so we can protect 01776 for the greatness it is or perhaps was.

While I find the good-governance arguments persuasive, I'm concerned about the statement on the FB event page for the Town Meeting: "With new blood on the board, the rest of our agenda will get the fair hearing it deserves, and we'll be able to proceed from there." Admittedly, I haven't been following the arguments closely enough, but I'd appreciate it if someone could post or point me towards a set of specifics of this agenda.

From Boston.com: - "Sudbury Residents Propose Change to Board of Selectmen"

"Nearby communities with five-member boards of selectmen include Wayland, Concord, Acton, Maynard, Stow, Carlisle, Boxborough, Northborough, Framingham, Wellesley, Lexington, and Hudson."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2012/09/22/sudbury-residents-propose-change-board-selectmen/roVn9bL5oiFkOId84iPuSO/story.html

Carl, I appreciate your comment and agree. No blood needs to be shed. This is about bringing new ideas and discuss to some decade old ideas. I'm not sure there are any residents who think we don't need a police department, but we have long lost the ability to sell the idea to the residents because of the farce our override lobbying developed into. The BRTF was so poorly handled, far too many soured on the current regime. To me, in the end, after 10 years of skyrocketing taxes, a lack of goals (hence lack of accountability) and our increasingly divisive community are MANDATES that we need to change the conversation to achieve things those currently in power are unsuccessful at delivering. Unfortunately, the events of the last 12 months have added insult to injury and rendered too many of these people ineffective. If the majority wants to keep reelecting them, so be it. But I'd like a chance to expand the conversation, and make it a productive one with a few new ideas.

Discount the "new blood" as poor choice of words, I ask for your support in voting yes to 3-5 for the sake of today's Sudbury families and the hopes that SOME people here today make it their lifetime community. Otherwise, we are largely on a path away from multi-generational residents and "the 99%" will be educate and evacuate.

Please attend Town Meeting Monday 9/24 @ L-S High School 7:30. Vote YES to 3-5 Selectmen.

If people really want more variety in downtown, and a stronger commercial tax base (reduces residential taxes), why don't they get behind solutions to the septic problems that limit downtown development - that seems like a more useful/practical approach than 3->5. You'll even find a willing partner in the local CoC, if you can convince them that -this- time the Town really cares about expanding business.

Whether a "Grass Roots Initiative" as Mr. Troiano describes or an "Astroturf Initiative" as some suspect, voting to go from a 3 to 5 member BOS is responsible growth addressing and forward thinking citizen initiated town management and something we will be proud of.

completely Agree, Kirsten! Well Said!

Vote Yes Monday 9/24 on 3-5 Selectmen!

From the town website, the selectmen will meet prior to town meeting tomorrow at 7:00 PM in the superintendents conference room to discuss town meeting articles. I suspect this is when we will see if the other selectmen's "not opposed to it " turns into something different. Anyone know the where this superintendents conference room is? How many people it holds?

Scott was listed as Superintendent Principal as at the time, he didn't meet all the qualifications of full-blown super. He is and I believe at the end of his current contract, they'll have a basis to drop the superintendent / principal title.

I just received an email from Carl Offner. Here's a guy that has no conscience. He brings National Level bitter divisiveness to Sudbury's local issues. And he calls other Sudbury residents radicals?