Fee for use of town common unwise

By BOB ACKERMANN

Published on January 04, 2008

The current Town Government Act for Amherst describes the Town Manager's role in a little over 2,000 words, and that of the Select Board in a little over 600 words. These portions of the ATGA are so sparse that they provide little more than a light sketch of the possibilities inherent in our form of municipal government. Depending on how the sketches are filled in over time, our municipal government could change dramatically without any referendum on whether we, the residents of Amherst, would approve of the change. Thus, it would be our charge to stay alert to signs of change if we are interested, and to react to them as we might wish.

There is no mention of policy making in the Town Manager's section of the ATGA, but section 3.21 of the Select Board section states that the Select Board shall initiate policy proposals as well as consider and make decisions on policy. In the absence of similar language in the Town Manager's section, one might be tempted (I am tempted) to assume that town policy is the domain of the Select Board, with the Town Manager charged with daily implementation and adaptation of policy to situations as they arise.

At a recent Select Board meeting, a group that intends a cannabis reform event on the town common appeared before the board to protest that it had been informed that those using the common must now comply with a new town policy requiring payment for police details during their events. The Select Board seemed not to know of this policy, which the Town Manager revealed was one that he had crafted and was implementing. The Select Board, which is charged with the oversight of the common as a public way, appropriately asked for information about this from the Manager.

The Town Manager also introduced an element of caprice into the policy by noting that he might grant waivers to those groups to whom he might wish to grant a waiver. Again, the Select Board appropriately asked for a statement of waiver policy that might take the arbitrary flavor out of any exemptions. These issues will not have been resolved by the time you read this. The Town Manager signaled that he was willing to grant a waiver to the cannabis reform group, noting that he liked the rock music at last year's event, but the group responded with an exhilarating turn of principled logic (at least for me) by stating that they did not want a waiver because accepting a waiver would implicitly agree with the proposition that the town had a right to charge this fee for the use of the common, which it contended was not consistent with the tradition of free access (apart from scheduling) to town common.

Is it not so? Is it not that the common has always been a place for those without any other place (and those with other places) to walk and act and perform freely? A fee for police details would change that to a situation in which a form of tax would make the common accessible only to those able and willing to afford the tax, while refusing those who are too poor to take part. In particular, student groups (such as this one) would face a considerable barrier to the use of the common, and I respect the view that groveling for an arbitrary waiver is not the dignified route to the use of the common associated with its glorious history as a public institution. In short, fees would turn the common into just another town park, the use of which in connection with fees would seem perfectly appropriate, and we would be without a common.

I am sure I will be told that diminishing resources force the imposition of fees wherever possible. Down that road lies a "common" enclosed in a security fence, with coin-operated entrance and exit turnstiles. It would even save on maintenance costs! I am prepared to live with a majority opinion about that, but not with any other resolution of the future of the common. It is as much mine as anyone else's.

Bob Ackermann is a retired professor.