Article 26 would be a step backwards
Now is a bad time to reduce Town Meeting’s authority.
If you care about self-governance, vote ‘no’ on Article 26. This bylaw amendment would take away Town Meeting’s power. Instead of the current 10-year maximum, the town manager, with Select Board approval, could approve 30-year leases of public land without Town Meeting approval.
Now is a bad time to reduce Town Meeting’s authority. First, recent decisions by elected boards have been unpopular or received significant public backlash. Second, a Town Meeting Study Committee aims to make Town Meeting more inclusive and responsive. Third, several significant properties (MCI-Acton, Starmet, Peabody) are ripe for new uses, and leases will likely shape the future of these neighborhoods. Do we want an appointed or elected few to make these decisions? Wouldn’t it be better to have hundreds or thousands of voices on these crucial decisions regarding private use of public property? Article 26 would be a step backwards.
The deputy town manager suggested that Town Meeting approval for long-term leases delays or hinders capital investment. Yet ironically, Town Meeting’s overwhelming vote in April 2024 led to the first successful public bid for telecommunications services in a decade, and a 10-year lease.
Will Town Meeting approve purchase of a nearly $2 million high school bathroom building? Will it vote to rezone 12 mostly wooded acres for senior housing? Would it approve a lease allowing a telecommunications antenna in a residential neighborhood, a few hundred feet from bedrooms? Mounting evidence demonstrates human health effects from RF radiation (visit 704nomore.org for more about state and local control over siting), and public property owners can legally make contractual (as opposed to regulatory) decisions based on such evidence. I don’t know how Town Meeting will vote, but the law allows citizens to weigh in on spending, zoning, and leasing. Let’s keep it that way.
Gail Hire
Nancy Road
