Letters

Published on September 05, 2008

Off the mark on role of town planning board

To the Bulletin: The Bulletin recently criticized three Planning Board members by name in its editorial implying these board members were anti-development because they didn't approve a project by New England Environmental quickly enough for the Bulletin's liking.

The Bulletin criticized one board member for "excessive scrutiny" that took "more than two hours before finally granting approval." Two other board members were criticized for needing more time to read complex legal materials supplied via email only hours before a hearing that had been planned weeks in advance. (I notice the Bulletin offered no criticism of NEE or the town planner for not providing these materials in a more timely manner.)

The Bulletin's criticism of particular board members seems aimed at intimidating them and others who might question developers and want more time to consider particular proposals. The Bulletin also seems to be usurping the role of the Planning Board identifying what the "right decision" was for this proposal.

I would urge the Bulletin to:

1) Refrain from announcing "the right decision" for independent town boards to make;

2) Sign your name to your editorials as you require of all letters to the editor;

3) Do not criticize board members for doing their job in a responsible and careful manner;

4) Do not perpetuate the idea that Amherst is "hostile toward business."

We live in a town where more than 98 percent of all special permits are allowed by the Zoning Board of Appeals and probably an even higher percentage are allowed by the Planning Board. The "hostile toward business" flag seems to be waved mainly to silence those who question what is appropriate development, implying they are somehow unpatriotic or working against the town's economic interests by not being a rubber stamp.

The Bulletin misses the point that giving free reign to development is not in the best interest of the town. Rather we need a careful balancing of development with other interests of the town: concern for the environment, traffic impact, preservation of open spaces and maintaining Amherst's rural, small-town quaintness. As a small business owner dealing with tourists on a regular basis, I know Amherst's charm and beauty are among its greatest economic resources.

Thank you to the members of our town boards who volunteer hundreds of hours serving our community, exercising their most careful judgment to preserve the character of our town.

Carol Gray
Amherst

Moving the election: It was the right decision

To the Bulletin: It seems the question is still being raised: "Did the Select Board make the right decision when it voted to change the date for the coming election?" This election is to fill a seat on the board. In my opinion, by any measure, it was the right decision.

I was chairman of the Select Board in 1973 when we scheduled a town election while the university students were on recess and away from the campus. We gave little thought at that time that the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had been ratified in 1971. This schedule was challenged by a group, some of whom were students, claiming the Select Board willfully discouraged participation by college students, many of whom were 18 and now eligible to vote. After several court hearings and appeals the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in 1975 that "the good faith efforts" of the defendants (the town) had sufficient justification to refuse to order a new election.

However, in the process of the Appeals Court hearing, the Select Board went on record in a statement adopted while the trial was in progress endorsing a policy "to hold municipal elections on dates that afford all registered voters an opportunity to personally participate therein by casting ballots at the polls.

The court later said that the town or any community having a very large proportion of students "would have to show substantial justification" for holding elections while students are in college recess.

Based on the policy adopted by the Select Board in 1975, and the cost and time devoted to such an issues, I believe that the Select Board made the right decision to schedule all aspects of the election at a time reasonably convenient for all eligible voters. Above all else, it is the right thing to do.

Merle Howes
Amherst

Killing coyotes not the answer

To the Bulletin: Your "wily coyote" editorial accurately reports the vital role that coyotes play in our ecosystems. And that "most coyotes are fearful of humans and keep their distance." Available data indicate that 41 coyote attacks on humans occurred during the period 1988-1997, the majority occurring in California and not involving serious injuries. Dog attacks on humans in California requiring hospital visits during a similar period (1991-1998) totaled 6,676. Most of these attacks were on children.

It's also true that "securing potential sources of food that attracts coyotes will only go so far." Another important point not mentioned in the editorial is the fact that people intentionally feeding coyotes are a major cause of coyote attacks.

In my opinion, hunting coyote is not a good management option. Better management approaches are available in progressive states like California, the state with the most experience in dealing with coyote attacks on humans and other animals. Reviewing http://www.dfg.ca.gov/keepmewild/coyote.html is a good starting point.

Guy Lanza
Amherst

Pass Question 2

To the Bulletin: On Nov. 4, Massachusetts voters will have the opportunity to pass Question 2 into law, creating a civil, rather than criminal, penalty system for the personal possession of an ounce or less of marijuana - much like a speeding ticket. This would replace the current criminal penalty system, which causes the creation of a permanent arrest record - known as a CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information) report - and leads to the loss of driver's licenses, the inability to get a school loan or find a job and the loss of housing and professional licensure.

According to Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, Ph.D., Question 2 will also save Massachusetts police departments $29.5 million a year in arrest and booking costs alone - funds that can be used to fight serious and violent crimes. Question 2 does not change any other marijuana laws, including penalties for sales or for driving under the influence.

Eleven other states have passed similar laws and, according to the National Research Council, have not experienced any greater use rates compared to the rest of the country. Additionally, World Health Organization researchers just published the most comprehensive, international study to date on drug consumption rates in 17 countries. They found that the United States, despite its harsh marijuana laws, has the highest marijuana use rate in the world, and concluded that the enforcement of draconian criminal laws has little impact on use.

Finally, Question 2 is stricter than current law regarding juvenile offenders. Under Question 2, if a person under the age of 18 is caught possessing an ounce or less of marijuana, the citation must be delivered to a parent or guardian. In addition to the $100 fine, the young person must complete a drug awareness program and community service. Question 2 requires immediate consequences specifically related to possession of an illicit substance, but it does not result in a CORI or criminal record that would create potentially lifelong barriers to schooling, housing and employment for young people.

Question 2 is a modest reform proposal that will greatly benefit Massachusetts. For more information, please visit www.SensibleMarijuanaPolicy.org.

Whitney A. Taylor
Yes on Question 2 - Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy campaign manager
Boston

Put nondonors at the end of the line

To the Bulletin: Regarding ARHS grad's kidney transplant leads to gold (Aug. 22), Cheryl Rainford was very lucky to get a kidney transplant. More than half of the 99,000 Americans on the national waiting list will die before they get a transplant. Most of these deaths are needless. Americans bury or cremate about 20,000 transplantable organs every year. More than 6,000 of their neighbors die every year as a result.

There is a simple way to put a big dent in the organ shortage - give organs first to people who have agreed to donate their own organs when they die.

Giving organs first to organ donors will convince more people to register as organ donors. It will also make the organ allocation system fairer. People who aren't prepared to share the gift of life should go to the back of the transplant waiting list as long as there is a shortage of organs.

Anyone who wants to donate their organs to others who have agreed to donate theirs can join LifeSharers. LifeSharers is a nonprofit network of organ donors who agree to offer their organs first to other organ donors when they die. Membership is free at www.lifesharers.org or by calling 888-ORGAN88. There is no age limit, parents can enroll their minor children, and no one is excluded because of any pre-existing medical condition. LifeSharers has 11,639 members, including 205 members in Massachusetts.

David J. Undis
LifeSharers, executive director
www.lifesharers.org
Nashville, Tenn.

Kudos to Hayden

To the Bulletin: As Aaron Hayden steps down as chairman of the Amherst Planning Board, I'm writing to express appreciation for his leadership.

When Aaron started as chairman, the Planning Board was often misunderstood by both sides, as either being anti-business or as interested in paving every inch of our community.

As an experienced member of the Master Plan Committee, with intimate understanding of broad community wishes, Aaron succeeded in collaborating and achieving win-win progress while he balanced building and preservation needs and managed diverse and competing ideas. An amazing feat. One measure of Aaron's success is the support Planning Board initiatives received in Town Meeting from some of the Planning Board's most vocal detractors.

Aaron Hayden's leadership has made a huge difference in creating a responsive and constructive Planning Board and has helped the Comprehensive Master Plan achieve early success. Aaron's is exactly the kind of leadership the Select Board needs at this critical time of budget woes and Master Plan implementation. I applaud his running for Select Board this November.

Thanks, Aaron, for your past and future service to our community.

Cinda Jones
Cowls Lumber, president
North Amherst