Please take note: Bloggingbelmont’s new home.

Some of you may have noticed some weirdness with the B2 blog in recent weeks, as I’ve haphazardly gone about the process of moving this from a hosted WordPress blog over which I have very little control (thus the bloggingbelmont.wordpress.com URL) to a new home on its own domain over which I have much more flexibility to expand the features of the site. This is closing the loop on a process that I started way back in July, and frankly it’s not complete yet — I’m still going through and migrating links within the blog to point to the new domain. Some of you have commented in recent days, and I’ll make sure to copy those over to.

In any case, from here forward, make sure you’re pointing your browser to http://www.bloggingbelmont.com to enjoy the latest news and views from Bloggingbelmont. Thanks for helping to make this blog a success. I look forward to telling you more about the fun new features to come.

Municipal Light Dept. falling short on Green Choice Program

Having set the bar low for adoption of its new Green Choice renewable energy program, it now appears that the Belmont Municipal Light Department is in danger of tripping over it. According to BMLD CEO Tim Richardson, just 87 customers have signed up for the voluntary green energy program — less than 1% of BMLD’s 9,600 customers, and short of BMLD’s already modest goal of signing up 100 customers for the program. Total renewable energy purchases for the town, so far, in 2008 have been around 100 MWHr (Megawatt Hours) of green energy.

Green isn

Green Choice (brochure and sign up form are here) was first introduced in May by the BMLD, in response to community calls for more renewable options in its energy portfolio. The program allows BMLD residential and business customers to buy renewable energy certificates (RECs) representing proof that 1 megawatt-hour (equivalent to 1,000 kilowatt-hours) of electricity was generated from renewable energy resources including wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. This being the electrical grid, you can’t know for sure that the megawatt you consume came from a green source, but the idea is that as more consumers queue up for RECs, energy providers are forced to go in search of them. That, in turn, creates demand for the green energy facilities that generate RECs (along with green power).

Under Belmont’s Green Choice program, you can purchase 100 kilowatt-hours’ worth of green power for $6. There’s no cap on the number of RECs you can buy (BMLD notes that the average household uses around 800 kilowatt-hours of electricity each month). It’s also worth noting that the $6 is in addition to the base BMLD rate per kilowatt hour.

So what’s behind the slow adoption — is it a failure on the part of BMLD to promote a well intentioned and forward looking program. Or is this simply economics: why should customers pay more for something when its not clear what (if anything) they’re getting in return besides a clear conscience? What’s clear is that the BMLD is falling down on what, to date, has been its flagship effort to spark more use of renewable energy sources and put the town on a greener path. Environmentalists in town, who backed the idea of Green Choice were already skeptical of BMLD’s goal of signing up just 1% of customers, saying that it showed a lack of heart in really promoting the program. Now, as the Department falls short even of that, some are saying that much more needs to be done to promote conservation and clean energy sources within town.

Rep. Brownsberger: Thoughts on Question 1

Over the past couple weeks as I’ve been blogging about the pending state vote on Question 1, the effort to do away with the state’s income tax, I’ve received a lot of feedback from readers – both for and against Question 1. Frankly, the “for” comments have outweighed those against. A consistent theme in those is echoed in the recent comments by “LoudELF”:

“I personally don’t see the wisdom of sending money to the state, only to have it given back to my town for police, fire, schools, roads, etc. Why not have my town decide what needs doing, and administer it right there? The state needs people to administer all of these things which are redundant to what the towns on this. Voting yes on #1 allows for more efficiency, and for cities and towns to better determine their fate and their budgets.”

It’s a hard idea to refute — why send our money in to Beacon Hill when we can “cut out the middle man,” so to speak, and just spend our dollars locally as we need to? I’ve tried to address this line of thinking in my posts, and certainly the folks over at Vote no on Question 1 have some useful statistics on what services Belmont receives from the State that we’d be unlikely to replace. But I also reached out to our State Rep. and former Selectman, Will Brownsberger, to get his thoughts on the debate. Will was nice enough to write back with his thoughts, which I’ve included below.

“It’s quite true that resident Belmontians pay more in total income taxes than the community receives in local aid. I’m not sure what the multiple is, but based on old data, I know that it is substantial. It is not, however, sensible to think that the only value that Belmontians get from the state is local aid. Belmont is not an island. Human services, criminal justice protection, state road and park maintenance, etc. would be gutted by the proposal. Even if Belmont schools, police, and fire, are saved by a huge override vote, our quality of life will suffer, directly and indirectly in a host of ways.

Also, it’s not true that if we passed the income tax cut, overrides would sail through. It’s the homeowners who have more limited incomes and are already having trouble paying their property taxes, who are most likely to vote against an override. They won’t benefit much from an income tax

cut.”

“Finally, there is a moral dimension to this vote. It is morally wrong to abandon the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, the abused children, the working single mothers who can’t afford health care for their kids and the many others who depend on the state for assistance in one form or another. That’s really what we are talking about — it’s not about optional services and it’s mostly not about waste. No one with a realistic vision of the real human cost of this proposal could vote for it. That’s why many church communities are becoming active on the issue.”

Room to improve on green initiatives in Belmont

One of the issues that’s facing our town (and state and nation) in the coming years is the environment and how people can learn to live more lightly on the land and leave a smaller environmental footprint. There are goings on all over town – from green development at the Senior Center and other planned projects, to energy saving efforts by the BMLD. But simple acts like recycling are where the rubber meets the road for most town residents when it comes to the environment. That’s why I took the time one recent morning to sit down with Deb Lockett, who sits on the town’s Solid Waste Recycling Committee, to talk about progress in increasing the town’s recycling rate and other environmental initiatives in town.

Deb Lockett

Deb’s a great asset to the town — a dedicated environmentalist who is working on projects such as a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) program to retrofit school buses with emission control devices that reduce diesel fumes that pollute the air and contribute to health problems like childhood asthma. Here’s her take on some items that are at the top of the town’s environmental agenda

Recycling

Through the Solid Waste and Recycling Advisory Committee, Deb is among a group of people working with the town to increase its waste recycling. Lockett says there’s room for improvement — echoing the evalutions given by others of the town’s efforts. As it stands, all four of Belmont’s elementary schools (Burbank, Butler, Wellington and Winn Brook) and the Chenery Middle School have active recycling programs. The High School, however, doesn’t yet have a formal program beyond basic paper recycling. Lockett said that a full-bore recycling program there could have a huge impact: getting students more directly involved in issues that effect the environment and, not least, saving the town around $70 per ton in waste disposal costs. As it stands, Lockett said she is waiting for buckets to be delivered that will put a recycling recepticle in every classroom, and for posters to be hung around the school. Even more important: she and the town will be looking for hard data from the custodial crew there on the progress of the program, once its up and running. Shocking as it may seem, Lockett said there is no true “model“ program in the state that Belmont or other districts could base their recycling program on — each town, in essence, develops a program unique to their school and town. Time is an issue, too.

“I think the teachers and principals have so much on their plates, that (recycling) seems like just one more thing for them,” she said. Lockett and the Solid Waste subcomittee are working with BHS staff to try to develop a systemic process that will carry forward from year to year as students come and go. Beyond that, Lockett and others say that there’s a powerful economic argument for recycling, especially in these lean times. “For every ton (of recyling) we divert from the waste stream, we’re saving $71,” she said. However, as it stands, schools don’t get charged for what they throw away — nor do they get credit for what they’re saving through recycling. That needs to change, but Lockett says it will take leadership at the top to make it happen.

Anti-idling

Having just participated in a $16.5m program on improving the quality of exhaust from school busses, this issue is one that is close to Deb’s heart these days. She says that, so far, the efforts of Sustainable Belmont and other groups within town have some tangible results: a grant was obtained that resulted in signs being posted in areas identified as “hot spots” or idling zones that notify drivers that idling is illegal. Police Chief Richard McLaughlin also placed a letter in the Citizen Herald that called attention to the idling problem, and a state law that forbids idling.

But more needs to be done, Lockett said. First of all, the signs that have been posted around town have created some confusion, with wording that implies that idling is only forbidden when its in excess of five minutes. “It’s not like you get five free minutes of idling,” she said.

Sure, it seems like the kind of nit-picking that confirms the general public’s worst suspicions about “do gooder” environmentalists, but Lockett said that idling contributes enormously to air pollution. At most of our schools (like the Wellington), idling from cars dropping off students has caused engine exhaust to get sucked into the school’s HVAC system, degrading air quality in parts of the school. Lockett said that Sustainable Belmont had ordered more signs, which would have been deployed around town, but the town wanted to proceed very cautiously and did not allow more than 35 to be hung. As a result, densely settled areas, such as Grove St. have only three signs are posted, rather than the 5 or 6 needed, reducing their overall effectiveness, Lockett said. The group has also put notices in the paychecks of town employees and coordinated letters to the editor to try to raise awareness of the environmental consequences of idling. “Would you drive into your garage, shut the door and leave the engine running?” Lockett asks. “No, because you’d die. But when you’re idling you’re doing essentially the same thing to the environment.”

Further actions need to focus on reducing the number of kids getting driven to school — either by encouraging walking or car pooling, Lockett said. The BPD might step up its activity, as well — issuing warnings or even tickets to motorists caught idling, she said.

Opponents: Question 1 would sap $11.2m from Belmont

I got a lot of responses to my post from the other day about the pending ballot initiative to eliminate the State income tax, which was sponsored by former Libertarian candidate for Governor, Carla Howell. Both were along the same lines:

1) That ‘opponents are using scare tactics to convince people to vote against Question 1,’ and

2) The disingenuous claim that ‘we don’t know what the impact will be, and anyone who says we do is lying and trying to scare you’ (see item #1)

In that vein, “ncitizen” wrote that “No official statement has been made by the legislature that states where if any cuts will be made. It would make life easier for both sides if they did then we could argue the merits of the cut.”

Of course, the fact that the state hasn’t spelled out exactly what cuts it would make hardly means that elected leaders are scaremongering.  If someone came along and told you that you were going to lose 40% of your income next year, you might not be able to say exactly how you’d tighten your belt, but you’d be able to paint a picture in broad strokes, which is where we are now and what we’re hearing from our elected leaders and other stakeholders (Chamber of Commerce, teacher and transportation unions, public health experts, librarians and legislators).

A chorus of warnings

In the meantime, lots of groups have come out with very detailed pictures of how the state might be forced to act should this ballot initiative pass. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (headed by our own Town Moderator, Mike Widmer) is just the latest. Their report concludes that passage of Question 1 would be a disaster for the state and its citizens. Then there’s the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, which has designed an interactive Question 1 Budget Game that lets you try your hand at eliminating 40% of the state budget without slashing existing programs like healthcare, education, and local aid.

As fed matching funds leave the State, a vicious cycle of cutting

One of the interesting revelations of the budget game is what a vicious spiral we would find ourselves in, were Question 1 to pass. Why? Because so much of the federal aid we receive is contingent on the level of state aid. For example, the Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) receives $590m in combined state and federal aid. Just so’s you know, this is money that’s used to provide child care subsidies for 69,000 low-income children and fund a Universal Preschool program that sustains 502 pre-school programs and 8,500 low-income children.  Even if the Patrick Administration were to try to zero out EEC’s budget in a post-Question 1 world, it would only save the state $137 million, not $600 million. Why? Because as we cut state aid, we’d lose federal matching dollars as well. In other words, as we slashed programs to try to shrink our budget, we’d also watch federal dollars being sucked out of state and back to Washington D.C., in response to our lack of good faith, leaving Massachusetts poorer and more desperate than ever.

In search of hard numbers for Belmont

(Updated) No on Question 1? You betcha!

With all attention on the Presidential race, races and questions lower on the ballot are getting much less attention than they might otherwise. That’s especially true here in Massachusetts, where a whopper of a ballot initiative, Question 1, threatens to blast a hole in the State’s finances. For those of you who haven’t yet heard of Question 1 should familiarize yourself – in a hurry.

The text of Question 1 is fairly straight forward — voting “yes” would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. A “no” vote leaves the state income tax unchanged.

The question, which was put on the ballot by libertarian Carla Howell, Chairwoman of The Committee For Small Government and is similar to a previous proposal that failed but attracted significant support at the polls. Howell and supporters claim — without citing specifics — that removing the personal income tax, which would translate to an average savings of $3,700 for state taxpayers, and slash state revenues by approximately 40%, would “create hundreds of thousands of new Massachusetts jobs” while not raising property taxes or other taxes and that it wouldn’t require cuts to essential government services.

That last assertion is vigorously disputed by pretty much everyone who works in government at the state or local level. Opponents note that:

The $12 billion in lost revenue goes to support, among other things, critical services such as public safety (fire, police, paramedics), education, infrastructure improvement (roads and bridges), and healthcare for the sick and disabled and the elderly. In other words, the money would need to be replaced, or those critical services would be sacrificed — unsafe streets, crumbling bridges, crowded and ineffective classrooms, you name it.

PJ’s Paradox: planning for the future in a troubled economy

Reading the comments that B2’s loyal readers leave is usually more interesting than reading my blog posts. While I’m usually content to leave them as comments, occasionally readers suggest ideas that are so interesting they deserve their own post (and follow on discussion). So it was with a comment the other day from PJ on the recent “Lights out on lights out” post. I’m reprinting PJ’s question/proposition here and will respond. I also welcome other ideas and feedback.

Paul…Imagine you are the Mayor of Belmont this Spring. You have campaigned on fully funded FDK, Comprehensive Road Improvements, a new Wellington, a new Library,new Underwood Pool, and new Police Station. It is mid April and you have asked the Town to approve a $4.5m override that will not pay for any of these things above but rather will just cover existing services we have today. The vote comes back and it is defeated by 10%. You now have to cut $4.5m from the budget. What are you going to cut? One caveat… you don’t enough have time to generate new commercial revenues be it Cushing/Waverly square development. — PJ

(I should add here that PJ closed with a suggestion that the town levy a fine on all political yard signs as one way to generate revenue — questionable on 1st Amendment grounds, if nothing else. )

This is a great question because, horrible as it sounds, its quite plausible. Belmont has shown an antipathy towards Prop 2 1/2 overrides. At the same time, the town has been kicking the can down the road with its structural budget deficit for just about as long as possible. There are very few available sources of free cash left to patch over the hole in our budget — at least without affecting our bond rating negatively, decimating needed programs or crossing the line of fiscal propriety. In short: things have come to a head in Belmont, just as on Wall St. and the next few months will require the town to make some hard choices.

Changes afoot on Board of Selectmen?

Rumors are swirling about town that there could soon be a vacancy on the Board of Selectmen, with current Chairman Angelo Firenze declining to stand for another term. But Firenze tells BloggingBelmont that he hasn’t made up his mind yet and is still weighing his options.

“I am (sic) have not yet made any decisions and will not until after the first of the year,” Firenze wrote in response to an e-mail inquiry by BloggingBelmont. “I have always believed never to make a decision until you need to.”

Firenze said the rumors about his intentions to step down after his term is complete had cycled back to him, as well

“I have now been told that since I have not categorically said that I am running, my response has been translated by some to mean that I am not running and that I am out searching for someone to replace me. Politics is amazing in Belmont!”

For now, Firenze says he is keeping his options open.

The three member Board of Selectmen are paid, elected positions. Each member serves an overlapping, three year term. Firenze first joined the Board in November, 2004, in a special election held to fill the vacancy left by Anne Marie S. Mahoney. He is now the senior member of the Board and has served as Chairman since April, 2008.

Lights out on lights out

As reported in today’s Sunday Globe, it looks like the town’s plans to turn off its street lights is back on the shelf. If you’ve been following this in the town paper and online, you know that Town Administrator Tom Younger worked up a plan to shut off street lights on most of the less traveled side streets in town, while keeping them on along main thoroughfares and busy intersections. The plan, as written, would have shut off around 1,600 street light, reduced energy consumption and saved money — around $178,000.

But the plan has been receiving steady criticism from residents since it was introduced. The biggest concern — voiced both by residents and the town’s police force — has been that the reduced lighting will increase crime. The idea here seems to be the “broken windows” argument — that dark streets signal reduced activity and invite criminals who want to strike without being observed. Given the recent spate of property crimes in the town, that’s not an unrealistic fear. As a jogger, I know that darkened streets also increase the dangers to pedestrians, so I can’t say I’m heartbroken about the reversal of plans on the streetlights.

The question now is: what next? In lieu of shutting street lights off, I wonder whether its time to replace the street lights with more energy efficient bulbs (compact florescent, anyone?) that will save the town money. And, while the town should do all it can to reduce energy use, the biggest savings will come from the Municipal Light Department encouraging more conservation at home — through peak use pricing and other incentives for residences to use energy efficient appliances, switch to solar and so on. My 2c.

Eats roads for breakfast…

After months of back and forth and, sadly, a failed Prop 2 1/2 Override vote to fund comprehensive road reconstruction in town, repaving, such as it is, kicked off this week across town.

I’m not usually one who stops to marvel at heavy equipment, but this bad boy going by on Cross St. yesterday morning almost rattled me out the front door. I must say, it was pretty cool to see this monster up close, as it rolled by, stripping the pavement right off and leaving a trail of unpaved dirt in its path. Cool stuff, even if it made for a hectic start to the week.