The Finance Committee had a hearing on this article in February (Read about it here; at the time it was called Article 15.)  The committee was strong opposed to it.

The problem is that this motion requires every committee to send notification via first-class mail to every person (not just abutter) who’s property might be affected for every meeting.  Dozens of committees, hundreds of meetings, and thousands of persons!  It’s just totally out of scope.

At the hearing, we asked the proponent what the specific problems were that prompted this article.  She related several problems she’d had finding out about meetings related to Symmes and Summer Street construction.  The finance committee gave several recommendations on how to resolve her difficulties, including ways to narrow the scope of the article to a more reasonable and realistic set of meetings and people.

I am disappointed to see this substitute motion before Town Meeting.  I thought we’d made real progress in February in solving her issues without this “nuclear option” bylaw.  Evidently, our thoughts and advice fell on deaf ears.

Please vote “no action” on Article 27.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I scribble notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notepad for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

The meeting started a few minutes after 8. Jane Howard played the national anthem on the piano. James O’Leary, pastor of St. Camillus Church gave the invocation. A new member was sworn in.

Moderator Leone reminded that only town meeting members could be on the first floor (with exceptions). I noticed there were at least seven people in the audience at the start of the night – a real crowd!

Board of Selectmen Chairman Clarissa Rowe set the next meeting time for May 7.

Jane Howard announced the Spy Pond trail work for Saturday 9-1PM.

Article 2 – Reports.

• Finance Committee: Al Tosti gave remarks about the FinComm report. He thanked the state government for setting local aid amounts early this year. He asked the town meeting to carefully review page D1, the 5-year plan. He also called attention to C1, the summary of revenues and expenses. He noted that that the Minuteman High budget was a nice surprise this year.
• Noise Abatement Committee: [8:25] Frank Ciano gave the report, and talked for several minutes about leaf blowers. He was twice admonished by the moderator to stick to the report, and save the article debate for the appropriate time.

Article 19 – Housing Trust, continued. [8:31] We resumed debate with Town Counsel responding to Charlie Foskett’s question about risks. Mr. Maher said that the trust did incur liability for the town. Mr. Foskett repeated his statement that the proposed trust was excessive bureaucracy with a lot of liability. Mrs. Worden rose on a point of personal privilege to argue about some of the points made. This was an abuse of personal privilege. The moderator should have shut it down right away. Allan Tosti spoke against the proposal. He noted the several groups that work on affordable housing already, and noted that at the Finance Committee hearing that the AHTF representatives had said that all they were really looking for was a bank account. Selectman Annie LaCourt and Treasurer Stephen Gilligan spoke against, both because of trust’s powers with borrowing. [8:45] Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) Member Chris Loreti spoke in favor. He favors the trust because he thinks the town needs a more effective means of handling affordable housing. He had several questions about who would control affordable housing money if there was no trust – the answer was the Board of Selectmen. The 40B development on Brattle and possible “excessive profits” from the development were discussed by several speakers. In answer to a question, Planning Director O’Brien stated that all money available to the trust is also available to the town without the trust. In response to a question, Selectman Jack Hurd and Patricia Worden disagreed about whether the Affordable Housing Task Force (AHTF) had voted specific language, or just a warrant request. Loreti and Worden were insisting that the AHTF had voted specifically in favor of the trust and the proposed bylaw language. My previous conversations with other AHTF members indicated otherwise; several members were opposed to a trust but didn’t want to generate more hard feelings. That drove a compromise to the warrant, but not the actual language of the bylaw. Mrs. Worden is the secretary and claims that the minutes reflect that the vote was for the language. I note that the minutes went up on the town website only last week (1/3 and 2/28). I further note that the 2/28 minutes do not include a vote to accept the minutes of 1/3. I’m inclined to think that the minutes were recently written and posted on the town website without the review of other members of the task force. Certainly there is no posted record of the minutes being approved. Update: I’ve since been informed that my concerns were unfounded; the January minutes were approved in April by a 6-1-1 vote, and the February minutes were approved unanimously at the same meeting. Several speakers spoke a second time. David Levy of the Arlington Housing Corporation asked the meeting to consider the question: Will this trust fund facilitate the creation of more affordable housing in Arlington? He argued that it would not. He gave examples of federal and state money that the town already receives without the trust. [9:24]. The question was called, and the vote to create the trust failed, resulting in a vote of no action.

There was a break of about 15 minutes.

Article 20 – Trench Safety. [9:41] John Maher explained that this is required by the state. There was a question about if it applied to private property, which it did. Ed Trembly gave a lengthy speech against the article. He argued that this applied to even small trenches, the means of protecting the trench (steel plates) were too expensive, and the cost of required permits were excessive. Several speakers agreed. Several speakers talked about protecting children from being buried. It was noted a trench permit would be in addition to a building permit. The new rule passed, 90-60.

Article 21 – School Principals on Permanent Building Committee. [10:24] Approved unanimously after a question.

Article 22 – Alcoholic Beverages. Voted no action.

Article 23 – Entertainment Bylaw. Voted no action.

Article 24 – Summer Street Noise. Selectman Clarissa Rowe explained that this had been referred to the Noise Abatement Subcommittee. Barbara Cutler asked that it be referred to the Disability Commission instead. I was unable to determine why she made this request.

Article 25 – Leaf Blower Noise Bylaw. Selectman Clarissa Rowe explained that the selectmen had modified their vote such that leaf blowing would be permitted noon-6PM on all weekends and holidays (as opposed to only Saturday in the original vote). She noted that this was a result of the work of the Noise Abatement committee. [10:36] Stephen Gilligan introduced Mr. McCarty of Crosby Street who asked for 13 minutes. He spoke for most of that time, arguing that the town should not permit the crankiest elements to dictate town-wide behaviors. He said that proponents of the restriction have small lawns, and shouldn’t make life hard for people with large lawns. Carol Band said the proposal does not go far enough and proposed an amendment to ban all gas-powered leaf blowers, permitting electric ones. Paul Schlictman spoke in favor. The meeting adjourned to continue discussion on Wednesday.

Article 35 is one of several similar articles before Town Meeting this year and previous years.

To me, it shakes out this way: I don’t want to discriminate on the basis of age.  If you can do the job, then you should be eligible for the job.  My vote will go towards anyone who can do the job, regardless of age.

Bogus issues:

• Bogus 1: Town Meeting is not telling the chiefs who to hire.  We’re not telling the chiefs who to interview.  We’re just permitting people to enter the pool of applicants.  If you stand up and accuse town meeting of telling the chiefs what to do, you’re wasting my time.
• Bogus 2: If you didn’t apply before you’re 32, then you don’t want the job enough.  How many people out there have the same career goals as when they were 20?  25?  32?  If, and this is a big if, IF you can do the job, who cares when you realize when you wanted to do it?  I welcome any 33, 35, 40, or 50+ applicant who can do the job.  I leave it to the chiefs to solve the “if” and figure out who can do the job and who can’t.

Issues that I disagree with (but at least have a leg to stand on):

• Use the state physical standard law instead: A number of knowledgeable people have told me this is a bad idea.  The law is flawed. There is no money to fund the standards testing. The current physical standards are just as idiotic as age testing.  I haven’t yet seen a fact-based explanation of why this would be preferred.  If you think this is a better option, please be prepared to defend it.
• Exceptions: A number think we shouldn’t grant exceptions to some people while we deny them to others.  I agree.  My answer is to offer exceptions to anyone.  Until the state fixes the blatant age discrimination of this law, and offers a viable alternative, I’ll vote for any non-serial-killer who seeks the exception.  I’m not suggesting that Town Meeting is a good forum to evaluate fire and police candidates.  I’m saying that it’s a better forum than the birth certificate.  Another flaw in this argument: if this option is so obscure, then why do we have so many of them?

The state law is flawed.  Town Meeting can’t fix that law.  Until it is fixed, we should increase the applicant pool as much as we can.  Let our officials choose the best of the bunch, regardless of age.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I scribble notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notepad for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

The meeting started a few minutes after 8. Charles Gallagher played the national anthem on the piano. Reverend Christine Elliot of Calvary Church, United Methodist gave the invocation.

Moderator Leone reminded that only town meeting members could be on the first floor (with exceptions). He described the voting procedure for the Assistant Town Moderator later that day.

Board of Selectmen Chairman Clarissa Rowe set the next meeting time for May 5. She also announced that the Amber Alert had been resolved and the baby found.

Gordon Jamieson gave a series of announcements about recycling and other environmental programs within the town.

Article 5 – Sign Permitting, part two. Dick Smith moved to reconsider Article 5. He said he had originally voted against it because he didn’t think there had been enough time and debate of proposed amendments. Town Counsel John Maher said that he believed the proposed bylaw was indeed legal, and had consulted with the attorney general’s office. Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) Member West explained several amendments that the ARB would propose if the article is reconsidered. He talked about the importance of “esthetically pleasing” signs in town. A speaker was against the original motion and advocated not reconsidering; another was just against reconsidering. A speaker advocated a revote given the questions on the eligibility of certain voters in the first vote. The question was moved. 105 people voted to reconsider the article, and 72 were against. Since reconsideration requires 2/3 vote in Arlington, the article was not reconsidered. The ARB sits on the right side of the hall (facing the front), and I generally sit in the right-hand seats. When standing votes are counted, someone counts the “front of the room” and other people count the sections of the seats. Based on what I saw/heard tonight, it looks like the ARB had been counted twice; Stephen Gilligan was counting them in the “right seats” and the front counter was counting them as “front seats.” If that was true on Monday (and I can’t confirm that), then the “yes” vote on Monday was inflated by duplicate counts of the ARB who all voted to support their motion.

Article 2 – Reports. The article was taken from the table. Charlie Foskett gave the report of the Capital Planning Committee (just in paper, with the verbal to come later). He also asked the Symmes Advisory Committee to be dissolved since the ARB is running the show now. The committee was dissolved.

Article 6 – Neon Signs. With Article 5 failed, Article 6 was voted no action.

Article 7 – Blade and Bracket Signs. With Article 5 failed, Article 7 was voted no action.

Article 13 – Sandwich Board Signs. ARB Member Roland Chaput explained that the article was not ready and would be back next year. Voted no action.

Article 14 – Truck Signs. ARB Member Roland Chaput attempted to explain the article. He said it was to prohibit trucks-as-signs, where the sign was their whole purpose of existence. It would not affect trucks-with-signs, like a regular advertisement on the side of a work vehicle, and the truck actually carried people and equipment or cargo. There was a question about whether it regulated political speech, and Counsel Maher again said that limiting such speech was a bad idea. Note to any reading ARB members: please make sure to write political speech exceptions into future signage articles. Zoning that limits political speech is wrong, it is not enforceable, and it makes it hard for people like me to vote for your articles. And this isn’t a newsflash, either – a quick check of my notes shows that the issue has been in 2004, 2005, and 2006 Town Meetings. There were questions that lead Kevin O’Brien to say that this bylaw only applied to vehicles parked on private property. Chaput later said that it applied to any vehicle that wasn’t moving – private or public property. I spoke to this and gave a series of questions to lead people through this conflict. Really, a very frustrating point. The ARB did not have their act together. They did not have a common understanding of the effect of their proposed bylaw change! Based on what I heard, I think Kevin O’Brien has it right. This zoning change would not affect the sign-trucks that drive through town, or even park on Mass Ave. The bylaw would only affect trucks parked in private lots. Think of someone who isn’t allowed to have a billboard on their property, but parks an 18-wheeler instead and paints it. That would be illegal under this proposal. Several speakers spoke against the article and asked questions about the effect of the bylaw. Several of the speakers said some pretty silly things. One person suggested this bylaw would violate the Interstate Commerce Act; he didn’t have the vaguest clue what he was talking about, and was just trying to scare people into voting against the article. Another suggested that if this article passed some truckers would be unemployed and end up in soup kitchens. Tommy Caccavaro said that “If you don’t like the way Arlington is now, you should move out of town.” Really? If I want to help make Arlington a better place, I should move out? Sorry, I’m sticking around. Gregory Flaherty of the Zoning Bylaw Review committee, and a proponent of the original article spoke. He said that he had thought the bylaw affected trucks on public road. Now that he understood that he didn’t, he thought the article was moot. The article failed. I voted against. The political speech problem, the confusion about what the effect was, and my basic aversion to regulation made this an easy vote.

Article 4 – Election of Assistant Town Moderator. Rich Carreiro and William Logan each spoke for a few minutes. After the break, Rich Carreiro was announced the winner 122-60. I may have the vote count wrong by a few votes.

Article 15 – Home Rule Legislation for Affordable Housing. Clarissa Rowe and Chris Loreti explained that this legislation would enable the town to make deed restrictions on affordable housing in the Symmes project be permanent, not temporary. Those restrictions would apply to families with income up to 120% of the median household income. I spoke against the article because I questioned wisdom of the public policy that provides housing pricing restriction for such a large fraction of the population. I did not want to make that policy permanent. I want to do that speech over again, but with more preparation! I had half of my argument researched, but hadn’t realized how threadbare the other half was. Here’s the short version of what I’m trying to say: It’s one thing to try to provide affordable housing to the small, poorest fraction of the public. It’s another to try to subsidize housing for 2/3 of the population. This proposal does the latter, and it makes the policy permanent. Brian Rehrig, speaking after I did, said that I was opposed to the affordable housing policy. He was both right and wrong. I wasn’t trying to fight the whole policy; I was trying to fight this expansion of the policy. In the final analysis he is correct. I think a better solution for affordable housing is to build more housing. Simply subsidizing some segments of our existing housing stock is an expensive dead-end. But that’s the big picture. In the very specific scope of this article, I was trying, very poorly, to fight an expansion and extension of the policy. I have a slew of other thoughts on this debate, and how I could have made a better case, but I’m running out of time tonight. Several speakers were in favor of the policy. They preferred that there be no “windfall” when the affordability expires. They wanted to preserve the “benefits of the Symmes agreement.” Alan Jones made an amendment to remove some of the more inflammatory language from the first article. Kevin Koch made an amendment to make all of the affordable housing restrictions permanent. Koch’s argument failed. Jones’s argument carried. The main motion carried, 155-3.

Article 16 – The Selectmen are still discussing this, and the article was tabled.

Article 17 – Town Meeting Warrant Opening/Closing. Clarissa Rowe and Town Meeting Procedures Committee Member John Worden explained that the Selectmen were at least partially addressing this through their own internal rule changes. The warrant will remain open until closer to Town Meeting. Voted no action.

Article 18 – Permit the Moderator to Limit Debate for Certain Issues. Worden explained some of the reasons for a it. A series of speakers were opposed to it. The reasons ranged from it being not needed, harming a core value of town meeting, violating the sense of free speech, and preventing debate on important issues. The article failed.

Article 19 – Creation of Affordable Housing Trust. Selectman and Affordable Housing Task Force (AHTF) Member Jack Hurd explained that the Board of Selectme’s recommendation of no action. The article has language problems, as also noted by the Finance Committee. He said that any incoming money would be collected and protected in a proper fund. A vote on a trust would come in the future. Patricia Worden proposed a substitute motion that would create a trust fund, and asked for an extra 4 minutes for her speech, which was granted. Over the next 14 minutes she accused the Board of Selectmen of neglecting their fiduciary responsibility, accused the Finance Committee of not responding to her questions about potential liability, denied that a trust would have any liability for the town, demanded that the AHTF be dissolved, claimed that she had information that a developer on the Brattle Street 40B development had an “inside track,” and claimed that the town would lose a million dollars or more over the next year if the trust was not created. She also said that the Community Preservation Act was not relevant to the discussion. She believes that the trust fund, controlled by trustees, was the appropriate governmental vehicle (along with the Arlington Housing Authority) to manage Arlington’s affordable housing work. Charlie Foskett spoke next and said that the trust would certainly carry liability for the town. He invited members to look at the authorizing legislation and make their own judgement. He suggested that the trust’s power to hire, fire, enter contracts, purchase property, and manage property were activities that inherently carried liability. He asked a question of Town Counsel, but the meeting adjourned before his answer. I will absolutely be voting no action. I’ve talked to several members of the AHTF, and they all believe that a special account will be enough. There will be no money lost. The trust is not needed. As far as I can tell, only the Wordens think this is a good idea.

Out-of-town readers: Yeah, it’s Town Meeting time again. That means you get more Arlington information than any reasonable non-resident would want. I’m going to try to deliver at least one non-Arlington post per Town Meeting post – something to keep you amused as I blather on.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I scribble notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notepad for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

I got to the meeting very late tonight. I was supposed to get in from JazzFest in plenty of time, but the low ceilings over Logan caused many delayed flights, including mine. Really, I didn’t need to spend five hours in Charlotte today . . . I didn’t land until 9:15, arriving at Town Hall just before 10. I’m sorry and disappointed that I missed some business tonight. Some things I’ve seen before – ceremony and swearing in, for instance. However, I’m sorry that I missed Selectman Clarissa Rowe’s State of the Town. I’m sorry I missed the opening comments from our new Moderator John Leone. And I’m sorry that I missed Article 5!

Article 5 – Sign Permitting. The article would change the criteria for putting up signs in Arlington. As I said, I missed the debate on this article, so I can’t report comments on it. However I can report on the outcome of the vote, and some of the related technical matters. Rich Carreiro posted this nice summary to the Arlington email list. Please note that I’m only posting an excerpt of what he said:

The ARB’s recommended vote received 122 votes in favor and 62 against. Since it was a zoning article, it requires a 2/3rds supermajority and therefore failed (by either one or two votes — I can’t remember if an exactly 2/3rds vote is a pass or a defeat).

When we came back from the break, the Moderator instructed the tellers in future standing votes to ignore anyone not standing in front of a chair in one of the main banks of chairs, because some tellers were (justifiably, IMHO) complaining about having to figure out who was and wasn’t TMMs amongst the people standing at the back wall of the hall. Note: I include Rich’s comments about legitimate voters because it comes up again in Article 12.

This lead some people on the losing side to complain and ask for a re-vote. The Moderator held firm and eventually pointed out that the standing vote already been taken, the only escalation possible would be if 30 or more people requested a roll-call vote. That didn’t happen.

At this point, a person (Dick Smith) who had voted on the prevailing side, served notice of reconsideration. Specifically, he said something like “I announce my intent to move reconsideration at a later, probably this Wednesday.” There was some confusion over whether he was making a motion to reconsider right then and there, but that was worked out and the Moderator announced that a notice of reconsideration had been served.

Presumably Mr. Smith will make his motion to reconsider Article 5 on Wednesday as he stated, but I don’t believe he is bound to that, and can in fact make his motion at any time before TM dissolved.

A motion to reconsider requires a 2/3rds vote to carry. If the motion to reconsider carries, Article 5 will be back before us as if we had never taken a final vote on it. If the motion to reconsider fails, Article 5 is dead for the year (the by-laws only allow an article to be subject to a motion to reconsider once).

I walked in just after the motion for reconsideration was proposed – I heard the questions about it, but nothing before that. I’m sure that Rich has this accurately described. There was a contentious debate; there was a very close vote; there will be an attempt to reconsider the vote. When votes are close, the losing side tries to lobby a few votes and change the outcome. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. It’s not dirty pool; it’s the way the system is supposed to work. Furthermore, anyone who cries foul because “people went home at the break” should reconsider their position. If you can’t show up at Town Meeting, then you aren’t counted. I say this knowing full well that I missed the original Article 5 vote. I’m not complaining that someone tried to pull a fast one by calling a vote while I wasn’t there. I’m apologizing for missing the vote.

Article 6 and Article 7 – Postponed. (Or maybe tabled – I didn’t have my notepad out of my bag yet).

Article 8 – Updating Regulation of Temporary Window Signs. Mr. West of the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) explained the ARB’s recommendation. The proposal is to limit the size of the posters to 25% of the window and to require businesses with temporary signs to refresh the signs at least every 30 days. Paul Schlictman brought up the illegal flag-sign outside Verizon’s office; he made his point that the rule is unlikely to be enforced, just like the current rules. Cindy Friedman, through a couple questions, drew out the fact this would affect (prohibit) the signs that are common in the Democrat’s election office on Mass Ave, and Town Counsel Maher gave his opinion that the political sign element was unenforceable. Chris Loreti of the ARB spoke in favor of the change. I paraphrase him: “The ARB likes seeing windows. We want you to see inside the buildings.” There were questions about the $20 fee, and it was determined to not apply to this type of window. Evidently the fee is for more than 60 day signs. The funniest part of the night for me was this revelation: the $20 fee is not held in an account, or deposited to the General Fund. It is kept. . . . in a filing cabinet. There were a couple speakers against the article who spoke in favor of the property owner’s rights and decision making capabilities. I understand the motive of this. There’s an ethnic food store right near my fraternity house in Cambridge that covered all the windows with posters when they opened in the early 90s. The store is still there, and so are the original posters, now yellow, faded, and nasty-looking. A thirty day renewal cycle would sure make the storefront look better. But I’m not sure I want to prohibit these business owners from doing what they want. If the ARB had a really stripped down proposal for old posters, I might vote for it. The actual proposal is far outside my comfort zone. I’m not going to vote to limit political speech. I’m not going to vote for the 25% restriction. Furthermore, I’m unhappy that the ARB is saying things like “We like to see windows, and we like people to see inside the building.” That is a level of zoning that I do not approve of. The motion was moved, and the article was defeated by a voice vote.

Article 9 – Bylaw housekeeping. Kevin O’Brien explained a couple housekeeping updates. Approved unanimously.

Article 10 – Outdoor Restaurant Parking Requirements. ARB Member Bruce Fitzimmons gave the proposal. The change would permit restaurants to have outdoor seating without providing the parking spaces that would be required for permanent seats. It was approved unimously without discussion.

Article 11 – Shared Parking. ARB Member Bruce Fitzimmons explained that this would permit businesses going through an ARB environmental review the opportunity to satisfy their parking requirements through a long-term business arrangement rather than owning the parking spaces. The example given was that a restaurant and a bank might share parking since their hours don’t overlap. There were a few questions. One was about liability: the liability is not covered by this change and must be negotiated by the parties sharing the spaces. There was a question about whether the “signs were just the horizontal ones, or the vertical ones too.” The moderator explained that this was the parking question, and signs would be discussed in the appropriate point. This question was totally out of the blue. Anyone following the meeting understood that this question was way, way too late. As I heard it I said to myself, “Wow, she’s this clueless and she has a vote. I hope she’s generally more savvy than this.” She was sitting right in front of me and I watched her a bit. She had a heavy accent, and I was idly wondering whether the source of her confusion was a language problem, inexperience, or something else. I mention this because she reappears in Article 12. The article was approved unanimously.

Article 12 – Green Buildings. ARB Member Chris Loreti presented the article. He talked about LEED building standards. He said that this proposal wasn’t a requirement for LEED certification, just to require a checklist review. It only was necessary for ARB environmental reviews. The first question was how long it takes to fill out the checklist; Loreti did not know. This was the first question asked, and it should have been the first question the ARB answered. How can I assess whether or not to add a new requirement to the permitting process if I don’t know how much it costs? During the debate it came out that certification costs tens of thousands of dollars, and the checklist would be cheaper than that. That is not enough information. Selectman Annie LaCourt moved for a postponement because Sustainable Arlington was not present, and the motion was defeated. I voted against the postponement. If you want to speak to Article 12, you should be there for the first meeting. At the very least you should arrange a delay with the presenters. She explained that Sustainable Arlington wanted a stronger article, one with requirements to design, not just fill out a checklist. Tommy Caccavaro spoke against this as too costly for developers. Loreti defended the change as something that would just make the developer look at options, and not actually require anything. Selectman Clarissa Rowe talked about being a landscape architect and she saw the tens of thousands of dollars spent on LEED, and how she supported the article. She threw me for a loop. At first I heard her emphasize the cost and I was thinking “Clarissa Rowe, opposed to a pro-environment article? Wow, that’s unexpected.” And then I heard her support and I was confused. Eventually I realized “She knows it’s expensive but thinks that’s just fine.” A head-scratching speech all around. There was disagreement about how green or LEED-compliant the regular Mass building code was. There was a question about what triggered an ARB environmental review; the answer was long, but it involves the main streets of Arlington (Mass Ave, Broadway, etc.), large buildings, etc. but rarely regular homes. There were several comments on the cost of LEED certification and checklists. I wasn’t convinced this was a good idea. I need to know the cost. Some people thing this went too far; others think it doesn’t go too far. That would generally be a sign of a good compromise. In this case, I think it was a decision made in ignorance. The change was approved 103-38. Here is where our confused questioner from Article 11 comes in. During the vote, a woman (I didn’t recognize her) sitting next to the confused questioner (CQ, for short) asked “Are you a Town Meeting member?” CQ said she wasn’t. The first woman immediately told the CQ that the CQ had to leave the room – CQ wasn’t a town meeting member. CQ hesitated. Stephen Gilligan came by, counting votes. CQ finally stood up, and was counted in favor of the change! Again, the woman told the CQ to leave the room. The woman tried to tell Stephen Gilligan not to count the CQ, but I’m not sure if he understood what had happened. The CQ left the room. Whether the CQ vote counted or not, the actual outcome was not in doubt. But I have to wonder about Article 5!