WARRANT ARTICLE EXPLANATIONS
FOR THE NOVEMBER 14TH, 2006 SPECIAL TOWN MEETING
__________
ARTICLE 1
This article is inserted in the Warrant for every Town Meeting in case
there are any unpaid bills from a prior fiscal year that are deemed to
be legal obligations of the Town. Per Massachusetts General Law, unpaid
bills from a prior fiscal year can only be paid from current year
appropriations with the specific approval of Town Meeting.
__________
ARTICLE 2
This article is inserted in the Warrant for any Town Meeting when there
are unsettled labor contracts. Town Meeting must approve the funding for
any collective bargaining agreements.
__________
ARTICLE 3
This article is inserted in the Warrant for any Town Meeting when budget
amendments for the current fiscal year are required. For the current
fiscal year (FY2007), the warrant article is necessary to appropriate
additional revenue (from state aid and local receipts), amend the Water
and Sewer Enterprise Fund, appropriate funds for the Town Hall
Renovation, and re-allocated existing Pierce School capital accounts.
__________
ARTICLE 4
As part of the Coolidge Corner planning process, the Department of
Planning and Community Development (DPCD) has been working with the
Coolidge Corner District Planning Council (DPC) to evaluate existing
conditions and the opportunities and threats facing Coolidge Corner.
Threats identified included the danger of development that is
inconsistent with the built environment in the district; development of
an excessive density; development providing too little publicly visible
green space; and the dangers to the commercial core from encroaching
residential development and difficult access. Opportunities identified
included the possibility of upper story development over retail spaces
in the commercial core; possible scenarios for redevelopment of sites in
the commercial core; and the generally high quality of life.
In keeping with the charge of the DPC from the Board of Selectmen, Town
staff developed three possible zoning by-law amendments that would help
address these threats and opportunities in a more specific way than the
relatively crude tool of the Coolidge Corner Interim Planning Overlay
District. These three amendments were discussed at a DPC meeting in
August. At that meeting, the DPC recommended that Town staff delay
submission of one of the zoning articles, designed to encourage
upper-story development in the commercial core by relaxing parking
requirements, until further work was completed on a transportation
analysis. This article is one of the other two amendments, which the DPC
voted to submit to Town Meeting.
This by-law amendment creates a new zoning district that generally
permits residential development of three or fewer units on one parcel of
land. In many ways this new zoning district, the “F” district, is the
same as the existing “T” districts, with the exception of permitting
three dwelling units on one parcel of land rather than only two. This
proposed F district is similar to zoning districts in other
municipalities, such as the “3F” zone in Allston-Brighton, the “RB” zone
in Somerville and the “R3” zone in Arlington.
This article also expands a T-5 district slightly in the northwestern
part of the Coolidge Corner district, based on an analysis of existing
and appropriate uses on those parcels.
DPCD initially identified 117 parcels in three areas near Coolidge
Corner that Town staff felt would be appropriate for this zoning
district, all of which are currently in M (multi-family) zones. Some new
areas were added to the proposed F zones based on the recommendations of
DPC members; further planning analysis by Town staff; and a desire to
maintain relatively contiguous zoning districts. In all, 153 parcels
were added to the original list, although it is anticipated that some of
the parcels included in the proposed F zones might be removed after
further discussion regarding their overall characteristics and what
zoning is appropriate for those areas.
__________
ARTICLE 5
As part of the Coolidge Corner planning process, the Department of
Planning and Community Development (DPCD) has been working with the
Coolidge Corner District Planning Council (DPC) to evaluate existing
conditions and the opportunities and threats facing Coolidge Corner.
Threats identified included the danger of development that is
inconsistent with the built environment in the district; development of
an excessive density; development providing too little publicly visible
green space; and the dangers to the commercial core from encroaching
residential development and difficult access. Opportunities identified
included the possibility of upper story development over retail spaces
in the commercial core; possible scenarios for redevelopment of sites in
the commercial core; and the generally high quality of life.
In keeping with the charge of the DPC from the Board of Selectmen, Town
staff developed three possible zoning by-law amendments that would help
address these threats and opportunities in a more specific way than the
relatively crude tool of the Coolidge Corner Interim Planning Overlay
District. These three amendments were discussed at a DPC meeting in
August. At that meeting, the DPC recommended that Town staff delay
submission of one of the zoning articles, designed to encourage
upper-story development in the commercial core by relaxing parking
requirements, until further work was completed on a transportation
analysis. This article is one of the other two amendments, which the DPC
voted to submit to Town Meeting.
This bylaw amendment addresses the concern of the DPC and Town staff
regarding the use of Section 5.43 to provide relief from setback
requirements in the zoning by-law. Initially, DPC members and members of
the public expressed an overall concern about the loss of private green
space when new development is occurred. An analysis of this situation
revealed that the use of this Section 5.43 was a likely reason that
setbacks are smaller than the community would prefer.
Currently Section 5.43 permits relief from setback requirements by
Special Permit, provided that counterbalancing amenities are provided
elsewhere on the parcel. The only existing setback requirement that
cannot be waived by Special Permit under this section is a 15 foot front
yard setback in M zones. This amendment limits the type of
counterbalancing amenities that can be provided under this section to
the provision of significant green space at the street level. It adds a
minimum 7.5 foot side yard setback that cannot be waived to the existing
15 front yard setback. Finally, it expands these front and side yard
minimums to other residential zoning districts.
Note that, as written, this Section 5.43 would apply not just to the
Coolidge Corner area but to the entire Town. Alternatives to this
approach would be to create a special overlay in the Coolidge Corner
area subject to these more stringent requirements or to not amend
Section 5.43 at all. However, since the perceived misuse of this section
is most keenly felt in the Coolidge Corner area, Town staff felt it was
appropriate to apply consistent rules on waiving setback requirements by
Special Permit throughout all of Brookline.
__________
ARTICLE 6
The Coolidge Corner Interim Planning Overlay District (CCIPOD) was
created in the Fall of 2005 pursuant to enabling zoning legislation
passed by Town Meeting in the Fall of 2004 that authorized the creation
of Interim Planning Overlay Districts. The CCIPOD was approved for a
period of one year, which was the maximum time permitted under the
enabling legislation in Section 3.03.4. The CCIPOD generally restricted
residential development in the M zones near Coolidge Corner to no more
than 2 units, or up to 5 units by Special Permit. It also required that
all development in the CCIPOD that requires a Special Permit meet new
design guidelines.
It was anticipated that this one year period would be sufficient time to
develop new zoning tools for Coolidge Corner. The Department of Planning
and Community Development has worked with the Coolidge Corner District
Planning Council (DPC) during the past year to develop such zoning tools
and also complete other portions of a plan for Coolidge Corner. As a
result of this work, the Department of Planning and Community
Development has submitted two other zoning articles. One of these other
zoning articles tightens the ability of the Board of Appeals to waive
setback requirements in residential zones; the other article creates new
three-family zoning districts in threatened areas near Coolidge Corner.
At its August meeting, the Coolidge Corner DPC meeting voted 12-0 (with
2 abstentions and 8 members not present) to also propose an extension of
the CCIPOD and its reference to the DPC. The Department of Planning and
Community Development agreed to draft and submit such an extension at
the request of the DPC.
This proposed language would amend the enabling language in 3.03.4. by
permitting a six month extension to any Interim Planning Overlay
District, to a total of 18 months. It will also extend the CCIPOD by
this six month period, until Spring 2007 Town Meeting.
__________
ARTICLE 7
This petition is submitted by the owner of the land to be affected by
the proposed zoning change to rezone a portion of the parcel of land off
West Roxbury Parkway to L-0.5 to allow for the expansion of the abutting
commercial parking lot by forty-six (46) feet from the property line to
include nine (9) additional parking spaces. The additional parking
spaces will serve the adjacent commercial use by providing needed
parking for patrons and employees, and to lessen street parking in the
neighborhood. A single family home will be on the remaining residential
portion of the parcel to be affected by the zoning change.
__________
ARTICLE 8
This warrant article is meant to make certain that customers, clients
and patrons of retail establishments have access to the parking spaces
designated for retail use. Some developers have interpreted the original
language to mean that if there are enough overall spaces for the
development to meet the By-Law, they need not allocate the appropriate
number of spaces for the retail use. In addition, in the recent proposal
to expand 1309 Beacon Street, the developer claimed she met the
provisions of the current By-Law even though she intended to reserve
over 30% of the required retail parking spaces for employees. Using the
same logic, one could designate all the required retail parking spaces
for owners and employees and have none for customers. This
interpretation would be a violation of the spirit, intent and
implications of the By-Law.
__________
ARTICLE 9
The intent of this zoning amendment is to limit rebuilding in S and T
zones by imposing new setback requirements for buildings which have been
torn down.
___________
ARTICLE 10
This Article is proposed to clarify that an application to the Building
Department to demolish a structure is not exempt from the Design Review
process provided by Section 5.09 of the Zoning By-Law.
Design Review provides for “individual detailed review of certain uses
and structures which have a substantial impact upon the character of the
Town and upon traffic, utilities and property values therein, thereby
affecting the public health, safety and general welfare thereof.” Design
Review applies, for example, to exterior changes on lots near the Town’s
major thoroughfares: Beacon Street, Commonwealth Avenue, Boylston
Street, Harvard Street, Brookline Avenue, and Washington Street. When an
application is made to the Building Department for a project requiring
Design Review, the Building Commissioner is supposed to deny the
application. The applicant then must file for a Special Permit, opening
a process that allows for public input, an advisory report from the
Planning Board, and a public hearing at the Board of Appeals.
A demolition in the areas of Brookline covered by Design Review can have
substantial impact. Several of the specific areas addressed under Design
Review can affect neighbors in demolitions no less than in other
projects: Preservation of Landscape, Open Space, Circulation, Surface
Water Drainage, Special Features, Safety and Security, Microclimate
(Paragraph 4 of section 5.09 of the Zoning By-Law, “Community and
Environmental Impact and Design Standards”). For example: the demolition
process itself may pose hazards; the structure’s foundation after the
demolition could pose a continuing nuisance; the space opened up by the
demolition could provide miscreants with a shortcut between a major
thoroughfare and a neighborhood that was previously screened from the
thoroughfare; the temptation to fill the new open space with unapproved
parking spaces may be intense.
In practice, nevertheless, an application to demolish a structure has
been treated as exempt from Design Review. As a result of this exemption
in practice, neighbors and other members of the public might have no
opportunity to have their concerns heard about the consequences of
demolishing an entire building on one of the Town’s major thoroughfares,
even though they could comment on a proposal to add a dormer to its
roof.
Arguments that demolitions are exempt from Design Review have included:
a permit to demolish is not the same as a “building permit” for
determining the scope of Design Review; the Demolition By-Law provides
the process in Brookline for dealing with applications for demolitions;
an owner’s decision to dispose of a structure and generate open space
need not be subject to review. Although such arguments may ultimately be
found to be invalid even under the present By-Laws, Town Meeting can
close this loophole now by stating explicitly that demolitions are not
exempt from Design Review.
The right of a property owner to demolish a structure will not be
removed by this clarification of the Zoning By-Law. The proposed
amendment will simply ensure a chance for neighbors in areas of Town
covered by Design Review to be heard on and protected from untoward
consequences of the demolition.
___________
ARTICLE 11
The undersigned residents of Brookline propose rezoning the industrial
strip between River Road and Brookline Avenue to the zoning of General
Business-1 because of (1) its proximity to the Olmted Park; (2)
continuing pollution problems of the park and the river caused in part
because of industrial activities; and (3) because of the hindrance these
industries and their vehicles offer to the recreational use of the park
strip by walkers, joggers, and bicyclists. We feel that the decision to
retain industrial zoning in this area by the Brookline Redevelopment
Authority in the early 70’s was a mistake. The character of the area has
been determined by the relocation of small industries in the wake of
development. Renewed attention to the Olmsted heritage in Brookline and
its value for our community and the larger community and the prospect of
improvements in the lower village and substantial funds for Olmsted
restoration, dictate that everything should be done to arrest blight in
the lower Village.
___________
ARTICLE 12
Acceptance by the Town of Section 20(6) of Chapter 32 of the General
Laws would grant members of Brookline’s Retirement Board a stipend of
$3,000.00 per year. The Legislature added this provision to Chapter 32
in 1995, calling for these payments to retirement board members upon the
acceptance of the provision by the appropriate local legislative body.
The stipend has been approved for 56 of the 106 retirement boards.
Among nearby cities and towns, stipends have been approved for the
retirement boards in Arlington, Belmont, Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea,
Newton, Quincy, Somerville, Waltham, and Watertown. Nearby communities
that have rejected stipends for their retirement boards are Natick,
Wellesley, and Winthrop.
The Retirement Board unanimously voted to support the acceptance of this
provision.
___________
ARTICLE 13
Every day, municipal Boards of Health and Health Departments effectively
protect Massachusetts’ communities from infectious disease and
environmental hazards through a variety of preventative measures.
However, an event that threatens the public health could overwhelm the
public health resources of a municipality in the Commonwealth, even if
the event does not constitute a declared emergency. For example, an
infectious disease outbreak may require immediate action to prevent the
development of a major epidemic. Additional public health expertise and
personnel could be critical to addressing and controlling such an event.
To enhance emergency preparedness and response capabilities, the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) recommends that
municipal Boards of Health and Health Departments enter into mutual aid
agreements with cities and towns within their Emergency Preparedness
Regions, and with other neighboring communities if appropriate. Only by
sharing resources, expertise and equipment across borders will local
health authorities be able to respond effectively to situations that can
threaten public health and interrupt critical services.
The cities of Newton, Boston and Cambridge as well as the Towns of
Wellesley, Needham, Watertown, Dedham, Arlington, Belmont and Westwood
have all entered into similar agreements. If approved, this warrant
article would authorize the Board of Selectmen to enter into an
Agreement with other cities and towns for such purposes.
___________
ARTICLE 14
Scientific Studies document a positive correlation between Thimerosol
and increased risk for Autism and Alzheimer’s Disease. Health
initiatives should “Do No Harm” to human health. Scientific data will
respectfully be submitted to the Town of Brookline’s dedicated and
conscientious Advisory Committee members.
****************************************************************************
“Finding one cow in the U.S. with Mad Cow Disease, from Canada, prompted
the Federal government to spent millions of dollars examining other cows
to see if they had contracted it. However, the government spends $59.00
in research for every case of autism diagnosed in this country,”
(Mercury on the Mind by Donald W. Miller, Jr., M.D.).
Vaccines and Autism
Date Micrograms mercury Autism cases Percent increase
1950 100 1 /10,000 children
1981 135 1 / 2,600 children 385% increase
1996 246 1 / 350 children 2,857% increase
2003 850 1 / 400 girls *2,500% increase
2003 850 1 / 100 boys *5,000 % increase
2003 850 1 / 68 families
• Mercury on the Mind, Donald W. Miller M.D.www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller14.html
• * 2003 Approximates: 1950 data equal male:female ratio approximates
• * 2003 25micrograms industry standard x #vaccines: www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller14.html
Flu Shots and Alzheimer's
“Hugh Fudenberg, MD, an immunogeneticist and biologist with nearly 850
papers published in peer review journals, has reported that if an
individual had five consecutive flu shots between 1970 and 1980 (the
years studied), his/her chances of getting Alzheimer's Disease is ten
times higher than if they had zero, one, or two shots. When asked why
Dr. Fudenberg stated that it is due to the mercury and aluminum buildup
that is in every flu shot. The gradual mercury and aluminum buildup in
the brain causes cognitive dysfunction. [vii]”
• (1) Dr. Fudenberg at the NVIC International Vaccine Conference,
Arlington, VA September, 1997 transcribed/quoted with permission.
• (2) John Hopkins Newsletter Nov 1998.
• (3) www.ghchealth.com
“Alzheimer's disease was discovered in 1906, again in America, where
dentists used mercury-laden amalgams to fill cavities (dentists in
Europe largely avoided them). Today, more than 4 million Americans now
have Alzheimer's disease. It afflicts half of people over the age of 85
and 20 percent aged 75 to 84.
The first symptoms of this disease are difficulty concentrating and
variable degrees of memory loss, leading ultimately to devastating
mental deterioration. The brains of people with Alzheimer's disease
shrink by 25 percent and have distinct pathologic hallmarks (neurofibillary
tangles, amyloid plaques, and phosphorylation of tau protein). Brain
cells grown in the laboratory develop the same three pathologic findings
when exposed to nanomolar (3.6 × 10-10 molar) doses of mercury, an
amount approximating that found in the brains of people who have a lot
of amalgam fillings.”
Mercury on the Mind by Donald W. Miller, Jr., M.D.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:8FWk7p2aC5kJ:mercuryexposure.org/index.php%3Farticle_id%3D175+Thimerasol+Alzheimer%E2%80%99s&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*Why isn’t everyone affected?)
“The amount of damage a given dose of mercury can do to the brain (and
also the heart) depends on one’s age, sex, and genetically determined
ability to excrete mercury. Young children with still developing brains
are more susceptible, and males are more vulnerable to a given dose of
mercury because testosterone enhances its neurotoxicity. Most important,
however, is one’s genetically programmed ability to rid the body of
mercury. The brain has a house-cleaning protein that removes dangerous
waste products, which comes in three varieties: APO-E2, APO-E3, and
APO-E4. The APO-E2 protein can carry 2 atoms of mercury out of the
brain; APO-3, one; and AOP-E4, none. The genes we acquire from each
parent determine which two we have. People with two APO-E4 proteins (and
thus no APO-E2 or -E3) have an 80 percent chance of acquiring Alheimer’s
disease. And according to one study, autistic children have a huge
preponderance of APO-E4 protein in their brains.”
• Congressional Record, Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness,
“Mercury in Medicine – Taking Unnecessary Risks,” review of thimerosal
and autism Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness, Congressman Dan
Burton, Congressional Record, May 21 2003, E1011-E1030.
• Mercury on the Mind, Donald W. Miller M.D.www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller14.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaccine manufacturers have started removing thimerosal from vaccines.
And for the first time since the state began keeping records on this
disease, California has had a decrease, of 6 percent, in the annual
number of children over the age of 3 who have been diagnosed with
autism. This occurred in children born in 2000, when the phase-out of
thimerosal in vaccines began. Iowa has passed a law banning thimerosal
in that state, and California has done the same thing for pregnant women
and children under 3 (the bill awaits the governor’s signature). But
pharmaceutical companies still add thimerosal in their Flu vaccines; and
pediatricians are vaccinating children with their remaining supply of
thimerosal-containing vaccines, which the FDA has chosen not to recall.
Why the silence on Autism and Alzheimer’s Disease?
SafeMinds president, Lyn Redwood, presented testimony at a Congressional
hearing held on September 8, 2004 that exposes malfeasance by the CDC
and FDA related to thimerosal. It is titled "Truth Revealed: New
Scientific Discoveries Regarding Mercury in Medicine and Autism" and is
posted on their website, safeminds.org. See also this organization’s
84-page Report to Congress titled, "A Brief Analysis of Recent Efforts
in Medical Mercury Induced Neurological and Autism Spectrum Disorders"
(September 8, 2004).
Mercury on the Mind by Donald W. Miller, Jr., M.D.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:8FWk7p2aC5kJ:mercuryexposure.org/index.php%3Farticle_id%3D175+Thimerasol+Alzheimer%E2%80%99s&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum Hydroxide and Parkinson’s ALS (Lou Gehrig’s), & Alzheimer’s
If two dozen once-jittery mice at UBC are telling the truth postmortem,
the world’s governments may soon be facing one hell of a lawsuit. New,
so-far-unpublished research led by Vancouver neuroscientist Chris Shaw
shows a link between the aluminum hydroxide used in vaccines, and
symptoms associated with Parkinson’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS,
or Lou Gehrig’s disease), and Alzheimer’s.
Vaccines show sinister side By pieta woolley Publish Date: 23-Mar-2006
http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=16717
Explanation:
Scientific Studies document a positive correlation between Thimerasol
and increased risk for Autism and Alzheimer’s Disease.
Scientific data will respectfully be submitted to the Town of
Brookline’s dedicated and conscientious Advisory Committee
Article:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:SQmej9ygoGIJ:www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/vaccines/toxic.html+Thimerosal+Alzheimer%27s&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9
Mothering Magazine/ Toxic Overload: Assessing the Role of Mercury in
Autism
By Boyd E. Haley Issue 115, November/December 2002
From 1996 to 1997, J. Curtis Pendergrass, PhD, did some experiments in
my research laboratory at the University of Kentucky that confirmed the
toxicity of thimerosal in vaccines. The results appeared on our website
(www.altcorp.com), where they attracted the attention of some parents of
autistic children.
These parents informed me that increased mandatory vaccination of
infants was, in their opinion, the cause of an apparent epidemic of
autism. This was the first time I had heard of this situation. The
rationale for considering vaccinations as the cause of their children's
problems seemed sensible and worth an investigation. I would like to
state here that I am a very strong supporter of the national vaccine
program, and that nothing in this article should be construed to imply
that parents should avoid getting their children vaccinated. But I do
recommend avoiding vaccines that contain thimerosal.
My laboratory was well experienced in mercury research. We had earlier
demonstrated that mercury, when exposed to normal human brain tissue
homogenates, is capable of causing many of the same biochemical
aberrancies found in Alzheimer's diseased (AD) brains.1-4 Also, rats
exposed to mercury vapor show the same major protein aberrancy as AD
brains. Specifically, the rapid inactivation of important brain enzymes
occurs following the addition of low levels of mercury or exposure to
mercury vapor, and these same enzymes are significantly inhibited in AD
brains.5 Also, mercury exposure to neurons in culture by other
researchers, at a concentration lower than that found in many human
brains, has now been shown to produce three of the widely accepted
pathological diagnostic hallmarks of AD.6,7
Therefore, we hypothesized that exposure to mercury is involved in the
etiology of AD, or at least would exacerbate this disease. We also
proposed that other heavy metals, such as lead and cadmium, which act
synergistically to enhance the toxicity of mercury, could be involved.
Additionally, we proposed that exposure to organic-mercury compounds
like methyl mercury from fish and ethyl mercury from thimerosal would
also enhance the toxicity of any exposure to mercury. The early work of
Dr. Pendergrass confirmed this with pure thimerosal, with some
interesting additional observations. First, in human brain samples the
exposure to mercury dramatically reduced the viability of a major brain
protein called tubulin, but had little if any effect on another major
protein, actin. Both tubulin and actin are critically important for the
growth of dendrites or maintenance of axon structures of neurons.
Exposing neurons to mercury rapidly results in the stripping of tubulin
from the axon structure, leaving bare neurofibrils that form the tangles
that are the diagnostic hallmark of AD. Thimerosal, like mercury, also
rapidly reduces the viability of tubulin; in addition, however, it
abolishes the viability of actin. This likely represents a major
difference in the mechanism of mercury versus organic-mercury (more
neurotoxic) toxicity. However, both mercury and organic-mercury inhibit
tubulin viability and would work in concert to damage neurons of the
central nervous system.
We therefore decided to investigate vaccines with and without thimerosal
present as a preservative, using human brain tissues. To date the data
have been very consistent: the toxicity of the vaccines is primarily
dependent on the presence of thimerosal and, in my opinion, would be
classified as severely toxic to numerous brain proteins. In the spring
of 2001 these data were presented to the Institute of Medicine
Immunization Safety Review Committee, which concluded its analysis by
suggesting that thimerosal involvement in autism was a plausible
hypothesis. Since then I have formed a collaboration with one of my
colleagues, Mark Lovell, PhD, who uses cultured neurons in some of his
experiments. Using his cultured neuron system, we studied the extent of
neurotoxicity of pure thimerosal and of vaccines with and without
thimerosal present. The experiments were done as follows: Neurons were
grown in culture for 24 hours. Then pure thimerosal or vaccines were
added to test cultures. The death of neurons was observed for the next
24 hours and compared to the death of neurons in the absence of
toxicant.
The results were almost identical to the results observed with brain
tissues: vaccines with thimerosal present were much more toxic than
thimerosal-free vaccines. Pure thimerosal was toxic at the low nanomolar
level--an extremely low concentration, about 10,000 times less than the
thimerosal concentration found in most vaccines. These results leave
little doubt about thimerosal being the toxic agent in the vaccines.
However, many vaccines contain aluminum ions that have neurotoxic
properties, and aluminum was once considered a factor in AD etiology. So
we tested aluminum in the same system.
Aluminum is not nearly as toxic to neurons in culture as is thimerosal.
However, we had earlier observed with mercury that the presence of other
metals would enhance toxicity. Experiments were done to determine if
aluminum would increase the toxicity of very low levels of thimerosal.
The results were unequivocal: the presence of aluminum dramatically
increased the rate of neuronal death caused by thimerosal. Therefore,
the aluminum and thimerosal combination found in vaccines produces a
toxic mixture that cannot be compared to situations where thimerosal
alone is the toxic exposure.
The enhanced toxicity of thimerosal created by the addition of aluminum
represents a problem with all forms of mercury toxicity. Synergism of
toxic metals is well known. A slightly toxic solution of lead, mixed
with a slightly toxic solution of mercury, results in a very toxic
mixture. This is similar to the enhanced adverse reactivity to
thimerosal found in optomological solutions, when subjects were
prescribed to take the antibiotic tetracycline. For some reason,
tetracycline increased the ocular toxic reaction to thimerosal. We have
done some experiments to determine if certain antibiotics could also
increase thimerosal-induced neuronal death in the neuron culture system.
Our preliminary results indicate that this is the case, especially with
tetracycline and ampicillin. Further research is needed in this area for
accurate evaluation. But our results support previous reports and
indicate how important it is to check out the effects of other compounds
on the exacerbation of mercury and organic-mercury compound toxicity.
One of the conundrums of autism is why there is an approximate ratio of
four boys to every girl who gets this disease. Dr. Lovell therefore
tested the possibility that this could be hormone related. The latest
results were quite marked in their effects. Neurons that were
pre-incubated with estrogen demonstrated substantial protection against
thimerosal-induced neuron death. In contrast, the addition of
testosterone caused a very large increase in thimerosal-induced neuron
death. A low nanomolar level of thimerosal that gave less than 5 percent
neuron death in three hours could be increased to 100 percent cell death
by the addition of one micromolar level of testosterone. Testosterone
alone at this level also showed less than 5 percent cell death. The
opposing effects of estrogen and testosterone may explain the
gender-based four-to-one ratio. Most important, the tremendous
enhancement of thimerosal toxicity by testosterone points out the impact
of synergistic effects when addressing mercury toxicity.
Those involved in promoting the use of mercury in medicine and dentistry
favor the old adage "Dose makes the toxin," and pick a supposedly safe
level based on testing young, healthy mammals that have been exposed to
mercury compounds. The synergistic enhancement of thimerosal toxicity by
testosterone and aluminum demonstrates that no one can pick a
concentration of mercury or organic-mercury and say with confidence,
"This is a safe dose for human infants"--at least not with our current
level of knowledge.
MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) has been widely discussed as a vaccine
involved in autism-related problems. Our studies did not find MMR
vaccines (no thimerosal added) to be nearly as neurotoxic as thimerosal-containing
vaccines. So how does this fit into the observations of measles virus in
the intestines of a large percentage of autistic children?
My theory, and it is only a theory at this time, is based on the fact
that thimerosal is an inhibitor of the brain protein tubulin. One of the
jobs of tubulin is to support the axon structure of nerve axons;
exposure to thimerosal, or mercury, destroys this capability. Tubulin
also has another job: it is involved in formation of the meiotic spindle
on which a cell splits in two. In other words, tubulin is needed for
cell division, and cell division is needed for development of an immune
response. Inhibit tubulin function with thimerosal injections, and you
inhibit the immune response.
I have been told that the MMR vaccination is often given at the same
time that three thimerosal-containing vaccines are given. Inhibit the
immune response with the thimerosal-containing vaccinations, and an
infant has less ability to respond to the measles virus in the MMR
vaccination that is injected at the same setting. This might explain the
presence of measles virus in about 80 percent of autistic children.
The research results we have obtained on the toxicity of thimerosal are
not really surprising. This ethyl mercury-releasing compound was known
to be neurotoxic through the publication of several research articles,
some quite old. Any competent biochemist would look at the structure of
the compound and identify it as a potent enzyme inhibitor. What is
surprising is that the appropriate animal and laboratory testing was not
done on the vaccines containing thimerosal (and aluminum) before the
government embarked on a mandated vaccine program that exposed infants
to the levels of thimerosal that occurred.
At this time it appears that exposure to thimerosal is the most likely
suspect in vaccines that may be involved in causing autism and related
disorders. The final verdict will come with observing the rate of autism
now that thimerosal has been removed from the infant vaccine program.
Let us therefore give credit to those who have worked to remove
thimerosal from the vaccines given to infants and emphasize that
continued testing of all vaccines is imperative to obtain the safest
national vaccine policy possible, including a thimerosal-free flu
vaccine for our elderly citizens.
NOTES
1. S. Khatoon et al., "Aberrant GTP-Tubulin Interaction in Alzheimer's
Disease," Annals of Neurology 26 (1989): 210-215.
2. S. David et al., "Abnormal Properties of Creatine Kinase in
Alzheimer's Disease Brain," Molecular Brain Research 54 (1998): 276-287.
3. E. F. Duhr et al., "HgEDTA Complex Inhibits GTP Interactions with the
E-Site of Brain-Tubulin," Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 122
(1993): 273-288.
4. J. C. Pendergrass and B. E. Haley, "Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically
Blocks Brain-Tubulin-GTP Interactions: Similarity to Observations in
Alzheimer's Disease," in Status Quo and Perspective of Amalgam and Other
Dental Materials, International Symposium Proceedings, L. T. Friberg and
G. N. Schrauzer, eds., 98-105 (Stuttgart and New York: Georg Thieme
Verlag, 1995).
5. J. C. Pendergrass et al., "Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits Binding
of GTP to Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in
Alzheimer's Disease Brain," Neurotoxicology 18, no. 2 (1997): 315-324.
6. G. Olivieri et al., "Mercury Induces Cell Cytotoxicity and Oxidative
Stress," J. Neurochemistry 74 (2000): 231-241.
7. C. C. W. Leong et al., "Retrograde Degeneration of Neurite Membrane
Structural Integrity and Formation of Neurofibillary Tangles at Nerve
Growth Cones Following in Vitro Exposure to Mercury," NeuroReports 12,
no. 4 (2001): 733-737.
Boyd E. Haley, PhD, is a professor and chair of the department of
chemistry at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. His research on
biochemical aberrancies in Alzheimer's disease led to his identifying
mercury toxicity as a major exacerbating factor, perhaps even a causal
factor. Haley has testified before numerous government agencies on the
effects of mercury toxicity from dental amalgams and vaccines.
For more information on vaccines see the Mothering Reprint: Vaccines:
Mercury, Autism and Chronic Disease
___________
ARTICLE 15
What prompted the reinstatement of the pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
and to sing our national anthem as part of the opening ceremony at Town
Meeting, I that we are at war, whether one is willing to admit or not.
In times like this we must be united. Where there is unity there is
strength. We must act as one, be united as one, with the common cause to
protect and stand by our country. In a world filled with unrest and
uncertainty, we must show the world we are behind our government. If our
enemies don’t like a leader they assassinate him. At this time there are
enemy cells within our country. For those of you who don’t believe this,
what happened in New York on 9/11. The flag is a symbol of our great
country. That is why we display and pledge to the flag with pride. Show
the Nation and the world, Brookline believes in All For One And One For
All. Vote for the Pledge of Allegiance, and to sing the national anthem,
at the opening ceremony at Town Meeting as it was before 1983. There
shall be no obligation or requirement imposed upon any individual Town
Meeting Member or person present to participate in any way of they do
not desire to do so.
___________
ARTICLE 16
It seems to have become the rule, rather than the exception for Town
Meeting Members to be greeted by a flurry of changes to the Articles in
the Warrant on multi-colored papers usually on the weekend before the
opening of the Town Meeting.
Once in a while these changes arrive on the day before the opening of
Town Meeting or only become available to those attending Town Meeting as
a pass out.
The practice has become so prevalent on complex or important matters
under consideration that Town Meeting Members (the elected
representatives of the Town’s People), do not, in many cases, have a
reasonable time to consider same.
Many Town Meeting Members feel that Town Meeting has to a degree become
a “rubber stamp” for approval of matters as proposed or amended at the
last minute. Most elected Town Meeting Members serve voluntarily without
compensation and the ‘powers that be’ don’t seem to be respecting the
value, experience, time and knowledge these people bring in serving the
Town. If appointees or elected Members to boards or committees
responsible for Articles will not be available or make adequate time to
present completed proposals, they should not be put into such positions
of responsibility.
Most of us have become accustomed to meeting deadlines as a part of our
lives; such as getting to school on time, getting to jobs on time,
doctors and other professionals meeting and keeping obligations and
getting to the polls when they are open for voting.
Of course there will be some reasonably excused absences but we are
faced with important business not being done or properly addressed or
given proper consideration. We usually have only two Town Meetings
annually in the spring and in the fall. The Ton’s People we are elected
to represent are not well served in this situation.
___________
ARTICLE 17
A deadline is a measure of compliance. A judge’s ruling that someone
must pay damages comes with a set date, signifying a deadline, after
which, if not paid, the person may be ruled as non compliant and other
legal measures can be taken. If the judge did not set a deadline, there
would be no legal incentive to cause the individual to pay. Without a
set deadline, the individual would never have to comply with the judge’s
ruling. Therefore without setting deadlines, many legal actions are
ineffective.
In turn, to insure that requirements are met, Town Meeting’s rulings for
reviews of warrant articles by a Moderator’s Committee needs deadlines
as well. Current by-laws allow Town Meeting to cause a Moderator’s
Committee to review warrant articles, but given the lack of set
deadlines, Moderator’s committees are not legally required to ever turn
in their recommendations.
Lack of deadlines subverts the public process as no other person can
submit a warrant article on the same issue, as long as it’s still under
review in a Moderator’s Committee. Lack of deadlines has enabled one
Moderator’s committee to review a warrant article on Clean Elections for
three years.
Given common legal procedure requires deadlines to insure that
requirements are being met in a timely manner, it’s important that
deadlines are created to expedite the review process and insure that
Town Meeting’s requirements for the committee’s submitted
recommendations are actually met. Therefore, this proposal recommends
the standardization of a Moderator’s Committee review to the reasonable
time period of 280 days, equivalent to nine months, to achieve the
objective of returning the warrant article to Town Meeting within,
approximately, a year’s time.
BENEFITS
This proposal is win win. It gives town officials the opportunity to
increase the public’s trust in the legislative process, while remaining
fiscally conservative.
Additional benefits are:
1. The warrant article returns to Town Meeting in one year.
2. 280 days allows reentry into the warrant 75 days before Town Meeting
one year later.
3. With passage, it allows the public to access the benefits of the
warrant article sooner.
4. Time limits eliminates hindering, procrastination, and delays.
5. Professionals would be less likely to prioritize work on a
Moderator’s Committee last when having to deal with other more time
sensitive commitments of work on a Moderator’s Committee would be less
subject to delays.
6. The public is likely to find the one-year timeframe acceptable.
7. A reduction in delays may increase the public’s trust and
appreciation of the work done in Moderator’s committees.
8. It’s likely to reduce complaints and calls from the petitioners to
town offices with questions regarding the article’s return to Town
Meeting.
Standardization of a process involving legislative review process can be
expected to increase the public’s perception of Town of Brookline’s
professionalism, efficiency, and ability to make a good process even
better.
___________
ARTICLE 18
This warrant article is the product of the analysis and deliberations of
the Moderator’s Committee on Campaign Finance (the “Committee”), which
was established by the Fall 2003 Town Meeting and “charged with
reviewing the financing of campaigns for election to the Board of
Selectmen and, if appropriate, proposing measures that could be taken by
the Town to limit campaign donations, to limit campaign spending, and to
minimize the influence of special interests.” The Committee has held
approximately forty meetings, thoroughly analyzed all campaign finance
reports filed by candidates for the Board of Selectman since 1988,
researched state and federal legal issues pertaining to the enactment of
municipal campaign finance reform measures, solicited input from Town
Meeting Members and other Town officials through two questionnaires,
heard from a series of experts in relevant fields, conducted a public
hearing, and extensively discussed potential approaches for reform.
In preparing the article, the Committee took into account a wide range
of factors, including its findings and concerns regarding the nature of
campaign finance in Brookline, the effectiveness of current state
requirements and restrictions, the views of Town Meeting Members and
their constituents, the legal limitations on the Town’s ability to enact
campaign finance restrictions, the need of campaigns to raise and spend
funds in order to reach voters, the burdens placed on campaign
committees and Town officials by campaign finance restrictions, and the
local political culture.
The Committee’s warrant article proposes the enactment of a By-Law
amendment dealing with the financing of campaigns for Town office,
particularly the office of Selectman. Section A provides definitions.
Sections B and C concern the disclosure of campaign finance information.
A hallmark of campaign finance law is the requirement that candidates
file reports providing information on contributions received by and
expenditures made by their campaigns. Such filings are publicly
accessible and thus offer voters an opportunity to evaluate the sectors
and interests from which a candidate has received financial support. The
article would extend the disclosure requirements of state law to make
them more effective.
First, Section B would require candidates to file a Town Campaign
Finance Report modeled on the state report already in use, but
containing additional information of interest to voters. Under state
law, a candidate must list the occupation and employer of donors
contributing $200 or more to the candidate’s campaign, unless the
campaign could not obtain such information after making two requests.
Voters can use this information to evaluate the potential influence that
may be held by certain donors or interests. In fact, the Committee used
it to conduct an analysis of campaign donations of $200 or more by
source category, which is summarized in Appendices A-D. An additional
benefit of this disclosure requirement is that it may make a candidate
or officeholder more careful to avoid the appearance of undue support
for those interests that have been particularly generous to his or her
campaign. A problem with the requirement, however, is that it does not
enable voters to see the occupations and employers of those who have
given $200 or less. The contributions of such individuals are not
insignificant to a campaign. Moreover, a number of smaller contributions
from members of the same business or sector may raise the same issues in
the mind of a voter as a single large contribution. Accordingly, the
Town Campaign Finance Report would call for candidates to furnish the
occupation and employer of each contributor who has given more than $50
but less than $200 to the campaign.
Another piece of information not required under state law that would be
required by the Town Campaign Finance Report is the number of
contributors who have given an aggregate amount of $50 or less. The
provision of such information would enable voters and analysts of the
Town’s campaign finance practice to determine whether candidates have
received widespread support or only support from a limited number of
contributors.
Finally, the Town Campaign Finance Report would require contributors of
more than $50 who are close relatives of the candidate (parent,
step-parent, parent-in-law, child, step-child, child-in-law, sibling,
step-sibling, half-sibling, sibling-in-law, or spouse) to be identified
as such. Voters have an interest in knowing the degree to which
candidates are self-financing their campaigns, and they may view
donations from a candidate’s close relatives as little different from
donations from the candidate. While campaign finance reports filed
pursuant to current state law reflect the extent to which a candidate’s
campaign is self-financed, they do not reflect the extent to which the
candidate has received contributions from close relatives. The
requirement contained in the proposed Town Campaign Finance Report would
address this shortcoming in state law.
Under Section B, a candidate would be required to file a Town Campaign
Finance Report at the time of filing any state report and at one
additional point in time when it will be particularly useful to voters.
Currently, state reports must be filed by the eighth day preceding the
Annual Town Election, by the thirtieth day following the Annual Town
Election, and by January 20th of each year. The Committee concluded that
none of these reports is filed close enough to the election to provide
an accurate picture of the sources of a candidate’s funding but also far
enough in advance to enable the public and local news media to analyze
the information and take it into account in evaluating candidates.
Section B would therefore require the filing of another Town Campaign
Finance Report fifteen days before the Annual Town Election.
Section C would require the Town Clerk to post campaign finance reports
on the Town website within two business days of their filing. The
rationale for this provision is that the effectiveness of disclosure is
determined to a major degree by the ease and convenience with which the
public and news media are able to access the information being
disclosed. The Town Clerk, a Committee member, has stated that his
office is willing to scan and post campaign finance report forms.
Section D would direct the Town Clerk to provide information to
candidates regarding state and Town campaign finance requirements and
restrictions. This provision is based on the notion that campaign
finance requirements and restrictions are only effective if candidates
are aware of and understand them. The Town Clerk would be required to
note in particular that the mandates of the Town’s By-Law are in
addition to all mandates imposed by state law.
Section E would establish a penalty for tardiness in filing the new Town
Campaign Finance Report. This penalty would be in the amount of 1% of
the total amount raised by the candidate during the reporting period for
each day by which the submission deadline is exceeded. The Committee
recognized that campaign finance restrictions are only effective to the
extent that they are adhered to by campaigns. Unfortunately, however,
the requirements of state law are often not strictly adhered to, and the
penalty prescribed by state law is only $10 per day and is rarely if
ever imposed. The penalty arrived at by the Committee would ensure that
reporting timeliness is taken seriously and that campaigns are penalized
in proportion to the amounts they have raised.
Section F would establish contribution limits that are lower than those
imposed by state law. State law currently allows candidates to accept
contributions of up to $500 per calendar year from a single individual.
The Committee would lower this cap to $250. Its recommendation is based
largely on its findings that: there is a strong correlation between
amount raised and victory at the polls; the amounts raised and spent on
campaigns are high and rising, as reflected in the last column of
Appendix B; and campaigns are financed greatly by large donations from a
small group of contributors. Lowering the cap on individual donations
would reduce the actual and perceived influence over a candidate that
any one contributor or donor category may have; minimize the discrepancy
in influence over the political process between wealthier contributors
and less wealthy contributors; and likely reduce the total amount
required to run for office successfully. The Committee arrived at the
figure of $250 because it is consistent with the following: the state’s
implicit recognition that contributions of $200 or more deserve special
scrutiny, as evinced by its requirement that candidates list the
occupation and employer of those who give at that level; the level of
restrictions imposed by comparably-sized municipalities in other states;
and the Committee’s conclusion that a $250 limit would clearly enable
candidates to reach voters without being heavily financed by large
contributions. Appendix E, Effects of Lowering Contribution Cap,
reflects the Committee’s analysis of the effects of different donation
caps.
Section F would also prohibit campaigns from accepting more than $75 per
calendar year from any one non-resident contributor. The analysis
reflected in Appendix E revealed that, in addition to the fact that
there is a correlation between funds raised and victory at the polls, a
large proportion of campaign contributions frequently comes from outside
Brookline. In 13 of the 35 campaigns since 1994, more than 20% of the
funding came from non-residents – and in five campaigns, 35% or more, up
to a maximum of 65%. (See Appendix F, Non-resident Funding of Selectman
Campaigns.) The Committee believes it is inconsistent with our
democratic system for those who do not reside in Brookline to have such
a great influence over the outcome of its elections and the decisions
made by its government. Moreover, the Committee recognized that there is
at least a perception that out-of-town contributors are at times
motivated to donate to Brookline campaigns by a personal financial
interest in issues considered by Town officials. The figure arrived at
by the Committee is based in part on the fact that respondents to its
Town Meeting questionnaire, on average, wished to see candidates accept
no more than about 30% of their contributions from outside Brookline.
The $75 figure is 30% of the $250 figure discussed above.
Finally, Section G proposes the creation of a Town Committee on
Campaigns. Such a committee would promote public awareness of campaign
finance issues by analyzing and reporting on information supplied
through campaign finance reports. It would also further the effort to
reform the financing of campaigns for Town office by receiving public
comment and, as appropriate, proposing new measures for consideration by
Town Meeting. Additionally, it could help reduce the need for large
contributions and expenditures by providing alternative vehicles for
campaigns to reach voters.
The Committee expects to supplement this explanation with a more
extensive discussion of its work, its findings, relevant legal issues,
the various recommendations it has considered, and the rationale behind
the proposals that it has included within its warrant article.
Appendices
A - Which occupational
categories provide the most campaign donations of $200 and more?
B - Donations of More than $50
from Attorneys and the Real Estate Industry to Selectman Candidates
C - Donations of More than $50
from Retirees, Brookline Business Owners, Selectmen, Miscellaneous, and
Unidentified Sources to Selectman Candidates
D - Donations of More than $50
from Candidate, Family and Non-residents to SelectmaN Candidates
E - Effects of Lowering
Contribution Cap
F - Non-resident Funding of
Selectman Campaigns
___________
ARTICLE 19
The proposed amendments to article 5.3 (Demolition Delay By-law) will:
• Make the bylaw more consistent with the MHC’s model Demolition Delay
law.
• Make the bylaw more fully consistent with its current administration.
• Strengthen its wording.
• Make technical corrections to eliminate errors or omissions. (e.g.
Section 5.3.14)
• Add, expand, correct, or clarify the definitions of key terms.
(Section 5.3.2)
• Eliminate “timing out” of the demolition delay through demolition
permit applications when there is no immediate intention to demolish.
(Section 5.3.9)
• Limit speculative demolition. Demolition would have to be tied to
construction of a specific replacement project. (Section 5.3.9)
• Extend the delay period from 12 months to 18 months for buildings
listed on or formally determined to be eligible for listing the National
Register of Historic Places. (Section 5.3.9) This would have affected
about 10% of the 191 cases cited below.
• Add an anti-arson clause. (Section 5.3.16)
• Add a Demolition by Neglect clause. (Section 5.3.17)
Background
Brookline’s Demolition Delay By-law was originally passed in 1987 to
help protect buildings of significant historic or architectural
character in the town that are not located within one of the town’s
historic districts. Its language closely followed Cambridge’s Ordinance
and was one of the first to impose a delay of up to 12 months, which has
since become the typical length. The second case to come under
Brookline’s by-law was a developer’s proposal to gut the Coolidge Corner
Theater and turn it into a mini-shopping mall. It took almost the full
12 months for the community to develop, implement, and fund the strategy
which saved the Theater. Today such a near loss of this Brookline
treasure would seem inconceivable.
After nearly two decades of experience in Brookline and statewide, the
Commission believes it is time to update our existing by-law. Today 75
Massachusetts cites and towns have demolition delay by-laws. The
Massachusetts Historical Commission (“MHC”) has now developed a widely
used model Demolition Delay law. Other towns have strengthened their
existing demolition delay by-laws though new administrative regulations
or amendments — e.g. Newton has adopted anti-arson language. (Unlike
Local Historic District by-laws, which are based on MGL 40c, there is no
specific enabling legislation or legislated model for demolition delay
laws.) Also, Brookline’s new comprehensive plan also calls for
strengthening our Demolition Delay By-law.
Over the years Brookline’s administration of the by-law has developed
with experience. For example, design review of replacement buildings, as
one form of mitigation, is used when appropriate—paralleling the
practice in Cambridge and elsewhere. At the same time, difficulties have
come to light, such as developers applying for a permit and then “timing
out” the delay with no attempt to work with the Commission to see if it
might be possible save the building or incorporate it into their
project.
Brookline’s experience with demolition delay In the seven years from
FY-98 to FY-05, the Commission reviewed 191 applications for the
demolition of houses, garages, carriage houses, commercial buildings, or
portions of buildings and a greenhouse. Of those, 136 were found to be
Non-Significant with no delay imposed. Almost all the Non-Significant
structures were soon demolished.
Of the 55 structures found to be Significant, 28 or just over half, were
eventually demolished. In some of those cases there was meaningful
mitigation, such as:
• Professional documentation of a ca. 1800 house with half-timber-like
construction.
• Design review of several replacement buildings.
• Saving the most significant building of a group on Beacon St. in
exchange for letting others be immediately demolished and assuring
design review of the replacement.
Significant structures have been saved as a result of this law, ranging
from an 18th century carriage house from Isabella Stewart Gardner’s
estate, now relocated to the Gov. Shirley-Eustis House, in Dorchester,
to an all porcelain enameled steel, post WWII “Lustron” house. They also
include, of course, the Coolidge Corner Theater.
The process for establishing each of the three recent Local Historic
Districts also began with hearings under the Demolition Delay law in
response to threats of multiple demolitions.
However, far too many demolition permits are taken out on a speculative
basis. Even in our historic districts it is possible for a developer to
allow a building to undergo demolition by neglect, with the town
powerless to stop it. These amendments will help the town to better
preserve its architectural heritage.
Brief descriptions of the reason for the proposed changes in each
section:
5.3 Recaption the By-law to properly describe its purpose.
5.3.2 In addition to the expansion and addition of sections, the
definitions have been reorganized in alphabetical order.
5.3.2.a & d Both add definitions from the MHC model Demolition Delay
law.
5.3.2.h Makes definition of Demolition more consistent with usage and
experience in Brookline and elsewhere (e.g., applying the original
definition to the proposed gutting of the Coolidge Corner Theater was a
little “assertive”) and adds reference to Demolition by Neglect.
Brookline’s new Comprehensive Plan also calls for expanding the
definition of Demolition.
5.3.2.i Adds definition of “Demolition by Neglect” (See 5.3.17 below.)
5.3.2.j Makes definition of Demolition Permit consistent with practice
5.3.2.m Adds definition of Mitigation which was always implicitly
encouraged by 5.3.10 but not previously defined and is also now more
explicitly recognized in 5.3.11.a.
5.3.2.n Adds provision for significant historic public spaces — for
cases like the Coolidge Corner Theater.
Eliminates a potential loophole which could have excluded buildings that
were demolished or partially demolished without a permit application.
5.3.4. Spells out requirements for application, based on MHC model
Demolition Delay law.
5.3.3, 5.3.5, 5.3.7, 5.3.8, 5.3.10, & 5.3.11.a Each adds language
consistent with the Commission’s current practice.
5.3.5 Adds language which makes stripping a building to the bare frame
without complete demolition to avoid being subject to review or the
application of artificial siding wherein all of the trim is removed or
covered subject to delay but only with respect to buildings listed on,
or eligible for, the National Register.
5.3.9 b Derived in part from MHC model bylaw, it is intended to limit
speculative demolition applications and to require that demolition not
occur until construction of an actual replacement project is ready to
proceed.
5.3.9.c Without penalizing a genuine non-building use, it is intended to
limit speculative demolitions that leave a cleared site without any
immediate replacement building under the pretext that no future building
is intended for the site.
5.3.9.d Clarifies that a demolition permit expires like any other
Building Permit issued by the Building Commissioner. It is based on
Cambridge procedures that were in use when Brookline adopted Cambridge’s
ordinance language but were not were not well spelled out in their
ordinance nor in Brookline’s original bylaw language. It is consistent
with the MHC model bylaw and with general practice.
5.3.11.b Adds a clarification
5.3.14 Eliminates erroneous caption and sentence based on Local Historic
District practice which never had any relevance to the operation of the
bylaw. Adds caption and administrative language from MHC model bylaw.
5.3.15 Adds correction, clarification, and administrative language from
MHC model bylaw, and re-orders sentence for clarity.
5.3.16 Adds an anti-arson clause, relative to improperly secured
buildings, adopted from language in Newton’s Demolition Delay ordinance.
Determination with respect to whether owner took reasonable steps to
secure building is solely under the final purview of the Building
Commissioner.
5.3.17 Adds a demolition by neglect clause drawing on models from
elsewhere in the country per research by MHC. It gives the Preservation
Commission and the Building Commissioner acting jointly a means of
requiring a building owner to secure and maintain the integrity of a
Significant Building, as opposed to the building code whose provisions
only allow the Building Commissioner to require that the owner remove
the building or make it safe. Enforcement under this clause can only
occur with the concurrence of the Building Commissioner. The
Preservation Commission cannot enforce this clause on its own.
5.3.18 & 5.3.19 Unchanged but renumbered
___________
ARTICLE 20
This article:
• Specifies penalties for defacing property with graffiti
• Specifies penalties for possessing graffiti implements (e.g. aerosol
paints, markers, etc.)
• Permits the Town to remove graffiti found on private property, with
the owner’s consent, at no cost to the owner
• Requires property owners to either consent to Town removal of graffiti
or to independently remove graffiti. Failure to do so within 10 days
then allows the Town to remove the graffiti and charge all associated
costs to the property owner.
The cities of Boston and Cambridge both remove graffiti from private
property with the consent of the property owner. Numerous other
communities across the U.S. also do so, including Providence, Rhode
Island; Concord, California; St. Louis, Missouri; Fullerton, California;
and Washington, DC.
The text for this article was developed from example legislation
developed by The National Council to Prevent Delinquency as part of the
Anti-Graffiti Project.
Over 30 examples of graffiti were discovered along the eight blocks of
Pleasant Street on one weekend in late August 2006 as this article was
being prepared. While the majority of these incidents were on public
property including a light pole, “No Parking” signs, mail boxes, and a
police call box, a few incidents were on private property including
fencing at a single family home, fencing at a two-family home, the brick
walls of a condominium building, and sides or fronts of 4 different
retail establishments. At the same time, other graffiti was noted on a
Brookline Housing Authority facility, the exterior of a restaurant in
Washington Square, and on a traffic control device in Brookline Village.
Graffiti Hurts, a Keep America Beautiful program, states that “Immediate
removal – within 24-48 hours – is the key to successful graffiti
prevention.” Unfortunately for Brookline, much of this graffiti,
particularly that on private property, has been in place for over three
months which, according to Graffiti Hurts, makes it 20 times more likely
to reoccur. This article assists the private property owner and empowers
the town to eradicate graffiti quickly and decrease the likelihood it
will return.
According to a 2002 U.S. Department of Justice publication, "Graffiti
contributes to lost revenue associated with reduced ridership on transit
systems, reduced retail sales and declines in property value. In
addition, graffiti generates the perception of blight and heightens fear
of gang activity.” Graffiti Hurts adds that “The appearance of graffiti
is often perceived by residents and passers-by as a sign that a downward
spiral has begun, even though this may not be true.”
___________
ARTICLE 21
This article modifies existing Town Articles 10.2 Prosecutions and
Enforcement and 10.3 Non-Criminal Disposition to include Article 8.5.9
Defacing Property and Graffiti.
This change is necessary to support section 8.5.9.4 which calls for a
fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) for each offense.
___________
ARTICLE 22
There are many who believe these leaf blowers are not only an
ear-rending nuisance but even pollute the air as they blow up dust and
particles from the ground. Many cities and towns throughout the nation
have actually banned these machines altogether. This article is a modest
inroad toward the solution of the problem. For many years the Town has
done without them. Why now tolerate them? Whatever advantages they may
offer to the operators of these machines, they do not at all outweigh
the degree of stressful noise and pollution which they inflict on our
neighbors.
___________
ARTICLE 23
This warrant article would enable the Town to acquire the state surplus
property formerly known as the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Fisher Hill Reservoir located on Fisher Avenue in Brookline. It is being
resubmitted for approval by Town Meeting since the Home Rule petition
approved by Town Meeting in May, 2005 failed to get bill number, and the
formal legislative session has ended.
The Parks and Open Space Director and the Director of Recreation have
both met with state representatives. They have also communicated with
the representatives’ offices about ten times to express the importance
of passing this bill within the current legislative session. Although we
have clearly articulated the urgency, the public process and the town
wide support to acquire this property, there unfortunately has been no
movement on this bill within the House of Representatives. This will be
our third attempt at getting approval from the legislature.
Background:
This Article is a Home Rule petition that authorizes Town Meeting to
file legislation with the State authorizing the Division of Capital
Asset Management (DCAM) to transfer the State-owned former MWRA
reservoir on Fisher Avenue to the Town of Brookline. This 10-acre
property, located on the top of Fisher Hill, was identified over a
decade ago by Dan Ford, former Chair of the Park and Recreation
Commission, as a rare opportunity to increase public open space in
Brookline. Purchase of this property offers the Town a unique
opportunity to create a park that provides passive walking areas,
natural wildlife habitat and an active playing field.
DCAM will appraise the property only after legislation approving a sale
is passed and signed by the Governor. Once the site appraisal is
complete, Town Meeting will be asked to review and authorize funds for
the purchase of the property. In June of 2001, the State Division of
Capital Management (DCAM) notified the Town that the State-owned former
reservoir property on Fisher Avenue had been declared surplus property.
The Town was offered the property for a direct municipal use. The Town
requested and was granted permission to review use alternatives for the
site.
In the Spring of 2001 a Master Planning Committee was established by the
Board of Selectmen to evaluate the reuse potential of the 10-acre
State-owned site on Fisher Avenue as well as the 4.8 acre Town-owned
underground reservoir site immediately across the street from the state
site. The Committee evaluated several types of municipal uses for both
sites, including affordable housing, active recreation, passive
recreation, open space, and public amenities such as a skating rink or
public pool. In December, 2002 a presentation was made to the Board of
Selectmen with the Committee’s recommended uses for both properties.
The recommended use for the State-owned site was a scenic amenity and
public park that incorporates an athletic field, passive recreation, and
open space. The design was to be compatible with the character of the
neighborhood, be handicap accessible, provide a reasonable amount of
parking, provide wooded areas and habitat, protect the historic
gatehouse, and provide pedestrian access.
On January 7, 2003 the Board of Selectmen established a Design Review
Committee to work within the guidelines set by the Master Planning
Committee to develop a plan and program for the park with associated
costs. The Design Review Committee held public meetings over a period of
nine months and developed a preliminary plan and cost estimate for a
design that incorporates all of the required elements. The total
estimated budget for land acquisition, improvements, and playing field
development is $4.6 million, with $1.35 million coming from the Town and
the balance coming from the development of the old Town-owned reservoir
site across the street. (This article does not request funding nor does
it mandate that the Town appropriate funds for the stated purposes.)
If Town Meeting authorizes the Town to file legislation with the State,
as authorized twice previously, the following will take place:
Legislation will be filed by the Town’s local legislative delegation;
If approved by the Legislature, it will move on to the Governor to be
signed;
DCAM would then be authorized to begin the appraisal process;
DCAM would draft documents for the transfer of land to the Town;
At a future date, Town Meeting would be requested to appropriate funding
for the purchase of the property; then the sale would be finalized. The
time frame for the legislation to pass and for development of the sale
documents is estimated at 12-16 months, or more.
The Park and recreation Commission recognizes the great opportunity to
expand the Town’s existing inventory of parks and open space and
therefore requests FAVORABLE ACTION on this article.
___________
ARTICLE 24
No. 317, 321, 327 Hammond Pond Parkway, 36 and 39 Glenland Road
(contiguous lots) are all under one ownership. The existing sewer and
drain easement encumbers the lots at 317, 321 and 327 Hammond Pond
Parkway and inhibits the redevelopment of these lots for residential
purposes as approved by the Board of Appeals. In connection with the
approved redevelopment and relocation and replacement of the existing
sewer and drain, the Town needs to authorize the Board of Selectmen to
abandon and extinguish all or portions of the existing easement. Over
the years this section of sewer has been a maintenance problem for the
Town in that the sewer pipe has cracks and fills with silt and sand.
Periodically, the Water and Sewer Division must flush out the debris and
free the line. In addition, the line is very flat which lends itself to
having solids build up in the line causing blockages. A new larger pipe
to be installed by the owner in a relocated easement would solve the
aforementioned problems.
___________
ARTICLE 25
It is LEGAL to assess a properties value in several ways. Historically
Brookline Lodging Houses have been ‘assessed’ based on ‘INCOME’. (for
over 20 years).
But the last reevaluation period switched to ‘arms length sales’ and
‘comparable value’ to boost town revenues. Will it serve the town
favorably? Would random audits of all Lodging Houses generate a more
favorable revenue stream while preserving the long term lodging houses
using the ‘INCOME’ formula? We need answers! Qui Bono - who benefits?
Brookline can do better, and should! Exactly what are the facts? We
should not operate in a vacuum but investigate which method would
generate the most revenue for the town, while preserving the shrinking
supply of safe, LEGAL, affordable housing. The Assessing Department is
the economic engine of every town and should be fully staffed.Ê Is it?
Brookline provides housing to BC, BU, MIT, Harvard, HSPH, MGH,
BI-Deaconess, Brigham, Dana Farber, Children's, Forsyth, Simmons,
Berkeley, Saint Elizabeth's Hospital and the entire LMA, and many, many
others.
If this NEW assessment scheme does not revert QUICKLY to the former
income method Brookline demographics will be missing many diverse
people, as Lodging Houses will not be able to provide long term housing
and survive. They will be sold, developed / condoed out or become
another Toni, Bed & Breakfast.
Should not this town show the same care and concern for people that it
directs to endangered wildlife and wetlands? We do have a practicable
alternative to this draconian shift. Plus additional revenue is
available with careful auditing of all Lodging Houses earnings
statements. A ballpark check would be the rooms taxes paid to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts that could trigger closer review by the
Assessor.
___________
ARTICLE 26
This “speaking” Resolution is largely is self-explanatory, especially
the “Resolved” clauses. For the sake of both consistency and political
impact, the text is closely modeled on that passed by the Cambridge City
Council on May 8, 2006.
___________
ARTICLE 27
Brookline’s K-6 WL Planning Committee was formed during the 2004-2005
school year to explore and recommend options to re-implement the study
of world languages at the elementary level starting in the 2006-2007
academic year. The committee, made up of 27 members including classroom
and world language teachers, administrators, parents, and community
members met bi-weekly from January 2005 to June 2005. Additional
meetings were scheduled as needed. Two subcommittees were established to
conduct internal and external research regarding the implementation of
an elementary world language program. The internal research subcommittee
interviewed building principals, curriculum coordinators, classroom
teachers, and world language teachers. They organized a successful
public forum with experts in international business, second language
acquisition, bilingualism, and elementary world language programs.
Several members of the internal research committee also met with parents
and presented findings and updates on the committee’s work at PTO
meetings. The external review subcommittee contacted more than 30 school
districts across Massachusetts and the greater Northeast that have or
had an elementary language program. Data was collected and analyzed from
approximately 23 of these districts. Members visited communities with
successful programs including Bedford, Wellesley, and Needham. Christine
Brown, of the nationally acclaimed language program in the Glastonbury
Public Schools in Glastonbury, Connecticut spent a day in Brookline and
met with various constituencies to discuss the success of the
Glastonbury program as well as the future of a language program in
Brookline. Committee members also attended the Northeast Conference for
the Teaching of Foreign Languages in New York.
The committee’s work culminated in a report that outlines a proposed
program model, program goals, class schedule, language choice, program
implementation plan, staff and training requirements and overall budget
designed to meet the expectations of the Massachusetts Foreign Languages
Curriculum Framework as well as the nationally established standards for
foreign language education. The full report is available as a PDF file
at http://www.brookline.k12.ma.us/PSB/TEACHING+AND+LEARNING/Curriculum+Areas/WorldLang/K+-+6+World+Language+Proposal.htm.
___________
ARTICLE 28
Article 19 of the 2006 Annual Town Meeting proposed a bylaw requiring
committees and subcommittees created by vote of Town Meeting to hold at
least 50% of their meetings during evening hours. There was a lot of
sentiment in favor of the basic idea, but there was also concern about
various issues that would arise if meeting schedules were mandated by
Town Meeting, and the Article failed to pass.
This Article proposes a resolution in which Town Meeting would not
require, but would urge that at least 50% of Town committee meetings
should be held in the evening. While it is non-binding, the proponents
hope that these committees, subcommittees, and other bodies will honor
the preferences of Town Meeting in this regard. Because it is
non-binding, many of the concerns expressed regarding Article 19 of the
Annual Town Meeting would not apply.
Since it is a non-binding resolution, the proponents also decided to
expand its scope to explicitly include sub-committees of the Advisory
Committee, since those subcommittees often have meetings in the early
morning, at times inconvenient to many people who want to attend.
As the proponents of Article 19 said last spring, “It is important that
Town Meeting Members be able to attend at least half these committee
meetings, and that, when an expert or consultant will attend to offer
professional opinions, advice, or information, that all such meetings be
held exclusively during evening hours, and in full compliance with all
Public meeting, Public Records, and Conflict of Interest laws.”
___________
ARTICLE 29
The Board of Selectmen have been in charge of the Refuse Disposal Fee
since it was created in 1989 for a money emergency. In these 18 years
about $40 Million have been collected but now there is an absence of
clear information as to how the $40 Million has been expected or saved.
The Town Administrator said he could not simply report on how this money
was disbursed or saved. The Town Meeting has not received a report on
how the previous year's (FY2006) collection of $2,100.00 of Refuse
Disposal Fee was disbursed. Bills sent 4 times a year to half of the
Town's taxpayer because of a past urgency but there has been no
discussion about the current urgency or the current needs for this
supplemental money. Is one department supplemented or several or none?
Is the current collection kept in surplus accounts?
The Board of Selectmen are asked to report to Town Meeting about this
year's spending of the supplemental Fee money and its urgency. Town
Meeting about is to request a report for the current fiscal year
(FY2006) especially and for the past 18 years or act on anything
thereto.
___________
ARTICLE 30
Any reports from Town Officers and Committees are included under this
article in the Combined Reports. Town Meeting action is not required on
any of the reports.
|
