LETTERS

Published on April 28, 2006

What's the problem with parking tickets?

To the Bulletin:

I disagree with Philip Garrow's perspective on parking (Bulletin columns, April 7 & 14). Aggravation with parking fines comes from poor parking habits, not the availability of parking spaces!

I've never found downtown parking to be problem. I can't always park right in front of the store I want, but I don't mind walking through town a little (and maybe I'll find something to buy along the way). Or I take the bus into town. Or ride my bicycle. In 15 years, I've gotten only one or two parking tickets. Parking for up to four hours is available in the center of town; you just need to decide how long you need to park, pay your money, and then live up to your parking 'contract.'

I most strenuously disagree with Garrow's unfounded attacks on bicycles. Bicycles legally share all town roads and bicyclists are rarely a safety hazard. It's inattentive drivers who create safety hazards. Motorists turning, pulling out, and opening doors into traffic (including bicycle lanes) without looking are serious safety hazards for other motorists as well as bicyclists and pedestrians.

And unless you are a big delivery vehicle actively unloading, there is no reason to park in traffic lanes. Irresponsible behavior, even by non-student Amherst-property-owners, should not be excused. I suggest that anyone who accumulates an aggravating amount of parking tickets either learn to park more responsibly or leave their car at home and walk, bus, or bike into town.

Steve Roof
Amherst

Kelley's quest gives golf course publicity

To the Bulletin:

I would like to thank Cherry Hill Golf Course opponent Larry Kelley. In part due to his never-ending quest to shut down the course, and the corresponding press coverage of his efforts, we find our name in the news quite often. This 'free advertising' has resulted in over 40 new memberships this season, and an increase in daily fee play as well.

As our resources are limited, we often have to do without traditional advertising. As we move forward this year, we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge him as one of the reasons for our recent success. So, thanks again, Larry, and keep up the good work.

John Coelho
Belchertown

Condos should have been built at Cherry Hill

To the Bulletin:

Here is one property tax-paying resident who does not use the Cherry Hill Golf Course. That would leave me to simply go there for the beautiful view as often as I could to 'recoup' my tiny share of the bill paying for the course.

I remember that there were two reasons for obtaining Cherry Hill. One was to prevent the building of more condos; the second was for conservation purposes.

Unless there are the usual conservationist reasons to 'preserve' the land that this course is on, then I see that the reason is indeed the beautiful view!

It is time to revisit the housing situation in Amherst and allow more condos to be built! Condos are an excellent way for people to acquire equity and pay taxes. This would be the way to run a business! Times have changed, the economic outlook has dimmed, and economic changes must be made.

Irene Dzioba
Amherst

Amherst should broaden tax base

To the Bulletin:

The only alternative to cutting the budget is growing the tax base - unless you qualify for a casino license.

Tax rates can only increase 2.5 percent, and if the local economy was stable and no new tax base was being created, the schools would immediately start to shrink. They are growing at 8 to 9 percent in financial terms, and there is no end in sight. The rest of town government grows at a rate greater than 2.5 percent, so that exacerbates the problem.

Looking for several millions of dollars worth of new fees is not credible. You can't write regulations fast enough to generate those kinds of numbers. Not that many people want a fishing license any more. You can't use Inspection Services to generate money for the police.

The assessor's office is out looking at new construction before the roof goes on, and is placing values that would make most elderly citizens have a stroke. The entire process is forcing up the cost of building, which inflates the tax base on top of the cost of materials and services. The materials and services performed are value-added components that have deep economic implications in this area.

If you strangle the developing tax base, you don't only strangle developers. You strangle insurance companies, mortgage companies, Realtors, lumber yards, banks, construction workers, health plan providers, and transportation services.

Bob Rivard
Amherst

Select Board wrong on affordable housing

To the Bulletin:

By rescinding the decision to apply for grant money that would preserve the farmhouse on Longmeadow Drive and convert it to two affordable rental units, the Select Board played right into the hands of the small group of residents who have sought for three years now to derail the building of 27 affordable units at that location. The ZBA approved the plan three years ago but this opposition group has kept the project tied up in lawsuits.

'Downsizing' from 27 to 10 units is not in the town's best interests. Further, building costs of only 10 units is economically unfeasible. There is no possible 'compromise' here, even if conditions allowed for a discussion to take place - which they don't, since the project's future lies with the courts at this time.

Experience has shown time and again that opportunities for developing affordable housing come along rarely (here was a terrific opportunity to get two units), but if you don't have the means (we did - grant money to pay costs), the will (we did - the Town made that clear three years ago and town counsel gave the go-ahead for this grant proposal), and the leadership (therein lies the rub!) to take advantage of opportunities, they will disappear.

Penny Pitts
Amherst

Using health rules to limit growth is illegal

To the Bulletin:

I admire my neighbor Don Ogden for publicly declaring that, in his mind, Article 3 on the Leverett Town Meeting warrant is an anti-development measure (Bulletin letter, April 21).

However, trying to use Board of Health regulations to limit growth is ineffective in the following ways. Most importantly, it is illegal. The state has very carefully made the Board of Health and its regulations as powerful as the State Legislature in order to protect it from outside influence. Its decisions must be made only considering issues of health and safety. Pro- or anti-development cannot be considered when writing new regulations.

These new regulations are well written and protect the health and safety of the citizens of Leverett. Trying to regulate growth with Board of Health regulations is unproductive because technology will advance, rendering these sort of restrictive measures obsolete.

If growth is the concern of Don and others, put some heat on the Planning Board. Sponsor an article calling for a moratorium on building permits. It would be more effective and more to the point.

Kitze McCormick
Leverett

Nuclear expansion makes us guinea pigs

To the Bulletin:

The 20 percent power uprate at Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is a live experiment, and we are all guinea pigs. It is akin to the Chernobyl experiment, when engineers decided to see how much energy could be produced during a power down test.

The decision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ignore excessive steam line vibration that occurred immediately after boosting power 5 percent last month is an outrage against public health and safety. How much closer to explosion and implosion do the NRC and Entergy Corporation want to get?

Perhaps the bureaucrats and executives and their families should be required to live next door to the plant while they experiment. The fact that Entergy is in bankruptcy lends no credibility to its corporate promises to be careful. Our federal and state representatives ought to focus maximum attention on stopping this crazy experiment.

Peter d'Errico
Leverett