.JPG)
www.eagletimes.com
2017-05-10 / Front Page
Selectboard puts creation of trails committee on hold
By TORY JONES DENIS
toryd@eagletimes.com
A map with information alongside the Toonerville Trail in Springfield, Vermont. — EAGLE FILE
A map with information alongside the Toonerville Trail in Springfield, Vermont. — EAGLE FILE
SPRINGFIELD, Vt. — After more than an hour of debate on Monday, May 8, a proposed Trails, Working Landscape and Island Committee proposal that would have focused on the Black River Islands and working landscapes has been put on hold until June.
The Springfield Selectboard is asking a community group seeking committee status to present a new proposal to the board, one that focuses only on trails and trail connections.
The committee or working group could be an alternative or a precursor to a Conservation Commission, according to the group’s proposal.
Town Manager Tom Yennerell said he thinks citizen input is important for this kind of work, but that he was concerned about a group going out officially, and as an “arm of the selectboard,” and interacting with landowners.
The work the proposed committee originally planned to do would include collecting all of the town’s existing trail and island plans; a look at the Black River Islands to “see what can and cannot be done;” acting as “cheerleader” for the continuation of what former selectboard member George McNaughton describes as the spinal trail system; and working with the state to figure out connections to that system, and also with talking to the public for feedback on regulations.
A group such as this would help “push the walkability” in and around Springfield, he said. Few projects excite people like the Toonerville Trail project, and the trail system is something that people “really, really love,” and would benefit from connectors, such as to Muckross, he said, adding that visitors and people looking to relocate want to use the trails, but many connections are not good between trail systems.
At this time, the town has organizations working on downtown improvements, neighborhood associations, and bringing in businesses, he said.
“What you don’t have is any committee or group that is specifically looking at that area out and around,” he said.
Springfield Trails and Greenways (STAG), formed in 1990, had focused on trails, but many members have gone on to other ventures, according to STAG founder Bettina McCrady, who was at the meeting with McNaughton in support of the new proposed committee.
Discussion among selectboard members on Monday swung from support of appointing a trails committee now and letting the members come up with recommendations, to holding off on any formal committee, to possibly creating a conservation commission that would look at trails, landscapes and the river as part of its regular work.
Selectboard member Michael Martin suggested the selectboard could appoint a trails committee that sunsets in three years, to “get our feet wet” with a group that would eventually evolve into a conservation commission.
Selectboard member Walter Martone was in favor of a formal committee, and that he liked having the citizen input that could ultimately lead to research to help obtain grant funding.
“This is too important a component to Springfield’s future to leave it to chance,” Martone said.
Selectboard member Peter MacGillivray was also in favor of a committee, and said he had concerns that existing plans for trail development may become “shelf candy.”
The municipality had asked the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) to assess the group’s proposal for a committee. VLCT’s legal opinion was that a selectboard-backed committee would not be necessary to do the type of work the group is proposing, such as research and collecting findings, and could potentially have liabilities, according to Yennerell.
The VLCT attorney also stated in his response, after reviewing the proposal, that liabilities could include violations of open meeting law, resulting in legal costs to the town, or the potential for misrepresentation to entities such as landowners. The attorney recommended that if a committee were to be formed, that it include a resolution for written rules, public notices, record keeping and ethics policies.
Making plans for the islands and river may go against the state’s Agency of Natural Resources wishes, according to Selectboard Chair Kristi Morris, who suggested the group come back with more specific goals.
Based on the VLCT opinion, the municipal staff recommended the group only focus on trails — but not as an official committee — and report back to the selectboard, at which point the other items in the group’s proposed resolution may be considered. The group would not have the authority to conduct its own public meetings, according to that recommendation.
Martone suggested that, regarding open meeting law, most people are aware of the rules and if not, “we could provide that information.” He also said he liked that with a committee, work would be done transparently and in public.
Many items the committee wants to address are part of the town’s strategic plan, he added.
“We can’t do it all. We need help to get some of these things done,” Martone said.
Richard Andrews, who authored the Green Mountain Club’s “Walker’s Guide to Vermont,” and “Day Hiker’s Guide to Vermont,” said at the meeting that Springfield has limited opportunities for walking on pleasant, aesthetically pleasing trails, other that the Toonerville Trail. Compared to nearby towns’ trails, the town is comparatively a “desert,” and improvements would be an amenity, he said.
McNaughton said the group wanted to keep the “working landscape” part in its plans, but that it would work on a new proposal — one that focuses on trails — if that meant the group could move forward. He volunteered to serve on a committee and draft a new resolution, whether it is for trails or otherwise, but said he felt the town would be leaving a lot “untapped.”
The selectboard decided by consensus to put the proposal on a future agenda for a June meeting.
Nice article, and discussion, no mention of what the cost will be to tax payers.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad this is the towns biggest concern right now
ReplyDeleteYears ago there use to be a footbridge that went across the Black River from rt 11 to Muckross, just north of the old 'Mills Falls'. Now that Muckross has become a VT. State park, I think reconstructing a footbridge in that location would be good for the VT.St.park and the Toonerville trail, and Springfield. (and could probably be funded by the ST.)
ReplyDeleteSure, sure. But the taxpayer foots the bill for these trivial little projects either way. First they get stuck with the construction cost, then an eternity of maintenance costs. All so a tiny minority of the population can use it for their recreational purposes. Screw that. It's time to impose user fees. If you want to use it, then pay for it. Quit asking the rest of us to subsidize your good idea fairy's quaint little projects!
DeleteThe parks people found some of the footings for the footbridge.
ReplyDeleteI expect the average taxpayer's share of the cost will be in the range of $0.0025.
The property tax loss which will have to be borne by Springfield's taxpayers averages about $3 per worker or $1.75 per resident, a pretty cheap price to have access to a state park.
$3's here $3's there after a while all those $3's add up to a lot of money
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump is HUGELY in favor of users' fees. They have the highly-desired effect of separating the deserving from the undeserving. All the parks in Christendom used to be exclusively for the use of the gentry; the grubby children on their way to the factories could only look at the men at play. Users' fees made it clear who was who, and kept things that way.
ReplyDeleteAs for a lot of $3's adding up to a lot of money, I pointed out several years ago that to fight the "heroin epidemic" in Springfield by spending $260,000 to hire four more cops (Chief Johnston's recommendation) meant each household in Springfield would pay the equivalent of two cups of $1.39 coffee per week. When everybody chips in, good things become easily affordable.
More cops is not the answer. Chief Johnston and his men are doing a commendable job arresting dealers and addicts. The root problem is, no fear of hard time. A liberal appointed judiciary that's given us a revolving door justice system. You see Chuck, we now have a utopian existence due entirely to the selfish motivations of progressive ideals. Alternatively, the opiate epidemic would disappear almost over night if we adopted the either Malaysia's or the Philippines effective solution. You see liberals can't cope with responsibly when it becomes ugly.
ReplyDeleteI see plenty of comments on Dutarte's kill-em-all solution, but nothing yet on it's success in ending their 'epidemic'. Any news?
ReplyDeleteGiving the Philippine police permission to kill anyone they think looks like an addict or a pusher is not solving an addiction problem.
ReplyDeleteAs the tobacco companies will freely tell you, they make more money when they make more customers; therefore, they add compounds to their products (e.g., cadmium, antifreeze and maple flavoring) to make customers want to buy more-- i.e., to get them addicted. So, the first step in getting control of an addiction problem is to REMOVE THE PROFIT MOTIVE. As was learned from the Prohibition era, the criminality of an activity increases the return on the investment. I asked at the opioid abuse discussion at the library last week why Vermont didn't see waves of booze peddlers arriving, as we had seen the waves of opioid peddlers. The Chief laughed and said it was because it's available in stores.
Which points to the second necessary step: CONTROL THE TRADE. Ensure its quality (no more Fentanyl deaths). Kill any attempts to adulterate it with addiction-enhancing ingredients (no more creation of future addicts). Kill all advertising (no more seduction of non-customers). Guarantee a lucrative income to all employees (no incentive to earn more by pilfering and selling the stock on the street, which would mean losing a really great lifelong job). And offer the product at an affordable price (no more waves of crime for the 27% of users who are addicts).
And the third step: Pour the money that used to go into enforcement into education, prevention and treatment efforts. As was pointed out at the meeting, prevention starts with giving kids a reason to expect theirs will be a good life. Why shouldn't we spend $10,000 a year per child to prevent him/her from growing up to cost us $50,000 a year in prison?
And, 6:12 AM, don't conflate "selfish motivations" with progressivism. You're thinking of neoliberalism.
RE: Giving the Philippine police permission to kill anyone they think looks like an addict or a pusher is not solving an addiction problem.
ReplyDeleteAw, logic would dictate that barring a source of supply, the expanding web of addicts and dealers would instantly cease. There is no other as effective solution. None. Think the opiate epidemic here is bad now? Without draconian measures it will continue to accelerate. Only a fool would consider otherwise. Please Chuck, spend a few days at our hospital ED to learn the ugly truth of your folly.
So, 8:32, why is our hospital ER not clogged with alcoholic overdoses? 1. It's legal. 2. The purity of the product is regulated. 3. People who have a problem and would like to deal with it don't get arrested if they admit they're users. 4. The product is so cheap they don't have to commit crimes in order to sustain their habit. 5. While the profit motive is there, sellers do not make exorbitant profits in return for taking exorbitant risks, so their incentive to create more addicts is reduced (in fact, the state liquor stores cannot advertise liquor, although beer and wine ads evidently are permitted). 6. Selling is a regular job, which can be lost if the employee pilfers the stock and sells it on the street or sells to the unauthorized. The higher the pay, the greater the incentive to stay straight. 7. Ditto for the store owner. 8. We are saving billions in the law enforcement costs that would be necessary if alcohol were again made illegal. 9. Legalization in other countries has shown that usage rates do not rise after an initial spike and subsidence following legalization.
ReplyDeleteFinally, you can't stop the sources of addictive substances. If God swept up all the heroin into the sky, addicts would simply turn to something else. Who'd have ever thought PCP would become a substance of choice for abusers?
What in recent history would suggest that cutting off the source of supply, rather than cutting off the demand is an efficient way of controlling use?
ReplyDelete