As your City Councilor, I take a balanced approach to providing resources for essential services and invest in responsible government, while holding the line on costs and increasing property taxes.
Dan Allie
That is why I supported Public Works Director Dave Billup’s 6-year water and sewer rate plan. It provides this vital department with the resources it needs to maintain our aging infrastructure, while making necessary improvements, such as the new water metering equipment proposal currently before the Finance subcommittee.
These meters will save the city and ratepayers money, help identify issues that otherwise might go undetected, increase revenue and more than pay for the bond. This type of forward thinking is the reason I strongly advocated for the infrared technology to repair potholes. I am glad to report that training for city employees on this equipment has begun.
Unfortunately, this “out of the box” thinking is all too rare in government.
Politicians, unelected bureaucrats and non-government agencies continue to grow and develop programs, one after another, rather than just provide the funds as promised, or that people have paid for in taxes.
This is certainly true when it comes to transportation and maintaining our roads. Property taxes and fixing the roads remain the two top issues most people are concerned about. This work should be a priority, because a majority of Westfield residents drive every day on roads that are falling apart, and are becoming increasingly unsafe. They include seniors living on fixed incomes, working families and college students who cannot afford the unsustainable cost of car repairs due to constant wear and tear.
Each year, Westfield receives about a million dollars in Chapter 90 funding and residents pay $4.5 million in excise tax. It is time that this money is spent on scheduled road maintenance. People are tired of paying for services they either don’t receive or did not want in the first place. Anybody know where we can sell some water cannons, or slightly used hand rails? (Some assembly is required)
Currently, the council is considering adopting a policy as part of an application process to the state’s “Complete Streets” program. There are many concerns with the state creating another program encouraging cities to adopt a policy that will apply to all new construction, in order to receive a relatively small amount of funding; rather than just providing the funds to fix the roads and sidewalks. Obviously, part of the goal is for cities to adopt the “policy”, knowing that many local officials will not actually read lengthy proposals, or ask, “Who wrote it?”
When I read the 64-page proposal, I asked the city council to send it to the Public Health and Safety Committee, and requested a meeting with the mayor and department heads.
I am not advocating that we reject every program the state comes up with, but I believe we owe it to ourselves and the residents and taxpayers to raise questions and red flags when we receive such proposals. We need to consider them carefully, and ask ourselves, “Where did this proposal originate from and what are the unintended consequences, if we do not do our homework?”
After all, the state has a history of
- Changing the rules down the road, or attempting to “line up with enabling legislation of the world” as it did with the Business Improvement District;
- Changing the funding formula, as it did with Local Aid and education funding, which cost Westfield roughly $5,000,000 in the last six years;
- Decreasing funding as more communities participate, as it did with the Community Preservation Act,
- Eliminating state funding all together, thus creating unfunded mandates, as it did with the Quinn Bill,which now costs Westfield taxpayers $775,000 a year.
A policy or ordinance mandates “that something will be done”. It takes authority away from local officials, and can create a negative reaction from some residents. As you can see in the items listed above, these programs and broken promises usually lead to higher property taxes.
I had serious concerns with the proposed language in the Complete Streets proposal, such as:
- Appointees to each Board/Commission should include at least one member who demonstrates or pledges specific support for bicycle, pedestrian or Complete Streets principles and facilities.
- Cost alone shall not be considered a valid reason for rejecting further pursuit of such principles or options.
- Complete Streets design recommendations shall be incorporated into all phases of all publicly and privately funded projects, as appropriate.
People should be appointed to serve on boards and commissions on the basis of experience, expertise and a willingness to serve the community or to represent a ward. It is hard enough to find good people to serve, never mind require that every board have someone committed to some political ideology or agenda.
Cost is a factor in every decision each and every one of us makes everyday. Remember, this is government we are talking about; For example, one set of traffic lights at Southampton Road School are projected to cost over $500,000. The funding for adopting Complete Streets would not even cover this one expense.
Phrases such as, “shall…all phases…all publicly and privately funded projects does not leave a lot of room for discussion. … as appropriate?What does that even mean?
Who writes this stuff? What is their intent with pledging support,mandating it be incorporated into all projects and not considering costs? This is not how we should create public policy in America.
Complete Streets is a Smart Growth program, and another United Nations Agenda 21 program, similar to the failed model of the Business Improvement District. Agenda 21 restricts land use and attacks property rights at the state, local and regional level, and its programs have been completely banned in a number of states. However, Massachusetts, the Pioneer Valley and Westfield are up to their eyeballs in such programs.
The Public Health and Safety Committee voted to move this proposal to the Legislative and Ordinance Committee. We voted to recommend the Council reject these three tenets from the proposal. I would like to thank Maryann Babinski and Bill Onyski for their work on this issue, and encourage everyone to ask their city councilors to carefully consider this program.
I, along with many others worked hard to educate the public, expose and Repeal Automatic Gas Tax Hikes. When we started, only 5 percent of Massachusetts’citizens knew what the state had done. Automatic tax increases, or “indexing” is a dangerous taxing mechanism.Never be surprised at what schemes politicians can think of.
Only after Governor Baker’s commission reviewed the MBTA, did we discover that most of the three cent gas tax increase was being funneled into the MBTA. So much for “the lie” that our roads would fall apart if we did not have automatic increases. The money was not even going to fix roads. We took on powerful special interests including the Chamber of Commerce and AAA on the ballot question.
To add insult to injury, Governor Patrick had stripped out $100 million dollars out of road funding to cities for purely political reasons. When Governor Baker restored that funding on his first day, not a dime of the $660,000 Westfield received went to fix our roads, but instead filled in a gap on the bike trail. The work on Papermill Road was paid for with the supplemental pothole money Baker provided after one of the worst winters in years.
I have no intention of voting for this program. If Westfield wants to change its sidewalk ordinance, for example to allow bicycles on sidewalks in areas outside of the downtown area, then councilors should write our own ordinance.
