To the editor:
Last year, the Town Meeting voted to not approve the (3A) zoning provision, allowing for some affordable housing in compliance with a State law. Following the vote, many of the No voters vigorously asserted that the Town Meeting had spoken, and it was therefore improper to revisit the issue. However, there then was a major change in circumstances in that the State Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the State law was not just an advisory edict if the Town wanted certain State grants, but rather is a mandatory State law that can be enforced by the State Attorney General. It then became clear that leaving the No vote in place would amount to law-breaking and would likely lead to Court intervention and sanctions. Thus, this year’s Town meeting was appropriately asked to revisit the issue.
This year’s Town Meeting just voted to approve the 3A zoning provision by a clear margin. This occurred at a Town Meeting attended by an unprecedented number of voters, after all Town voters on both sides of the issue had been given every opportunity to attend. Yet, some of the same No voters who previously said that Town Meeting votes should be respected now are petitioning Town officials to schedule a ballot vote to overturn this Meeting’s democratic decision. They are using an obscure law that has never been used before, and violating the tradition of our Town being governed by Town Meeting, which has come down to us since colonial times.
The obscure law being used by the petitioners nowhere says that it can be applied to zoning provisions – only to other things, such as changes to Town bylaws. Also, the petitioners seem to be seeking a re-vote this spring, although the ballots for our spring election have already been printed, and they have missed the deadline. Thus, I hope that Town officials will deny the petition on legal grounds.
In any event, by dragging out this issue, the petitioners are doing a clear disservice to this Town. The zoning change at issue is a minor one, designed by the Town planning board to do the minimum necessary to comply with the State law. There has been an undue level of resulting hysteria, and the issue has brought out the worst in some who have engaged in heated rhetoric and intimidation, rather than the usual respectful dialogue which I had been proud to see on many other controversial decisions addressed by our Town. The Town Meeting has spoken. It is time to move on.
Jeffry Fowley
