Any topic

[Unregistered]

The Teachers Union gave up over a million dollars in concessions last bargaining period. So thank you to the Teachers Union for coming to the table and bargaining in good faith. And thank you to all the teachers who educate our children. Instead of always bashing our Teachers, Police Officers and Firemen why don't we support them.

no. youll get back what you "gave up" down the road. I know. I saw your contract.

After reading The Boston Globe last week about the "Fireman" who worked 15 days out of the whole year, or the one fired that owed 500 workdays, rehired and now owes nothing, Ill bash the Unions whenever I can.

[Unregistered]

no. youll get back what you "gave up" down the road. I know. I saw your contract.

After reading The Boston Globe last week about the "Fireman" who worked 15 days out of the whole year, or the one fired that owed 500 workdays, rehired and now owes nothing, Ill bash the Unions whenever I can.

Union contracts are choking municipalities and the state. Salaries are one issue, benfits are an even bigger issue. We are continually asking residentes to due with less of everything, while taxes continue to go up, and those residents own pay and benefits decline. It really does not make sense. If salaries and benefits don't get adjusted, the reductions in headcount will continue. Residents will get less and less service, while the salaries and benefits of the remaining employees continue to be superor to anything avaialable any where.

I can understand that those employed with the state and towns don't want to give anything up, but this is no longer sustainable. The tax payer will continue to become more and more enraged, as those employed by them make more than they do. The taxpayer will not continue to stand for fewer and fewer highly paid employees, with less and less service, and higher and higher taxes.

Something has to change.

[Sparky]

Regarding the Walpole Woodworkers land... The article indicates the asking price of $7M from 15 months ago has been reduced to $4.5, since the owners have been negotiating retention of the frontage. Seems like a good business decision to buy. Worst case if the intended projects don't come through, the town has a valuable limited asset (given its location) that would retain its value or likely appreciate in coming years.

Sometimes people complain that a town should be run more like a business. It sounds like that's what they're trying to do here. A good business would not let a timely opportunity like this pass just because it would require money during tough economic times.

"Don't you see what's going on here? Potter isn't selling. Potter's buying!"

[Unregistered]

How do you determine that 4 Million is a good price just because it was reduced. Maybe 1.5 Million is a good price?
I actually think 4 Million is too high especially if we don't have access to East Street/27.

Also, the town has to address the issue of the old buildings. That was not done when they proposed a new police station on Robbins Road. There is still no good solution for the old Library. What would happen to the current police and fire buildings if we built new ones? Let it just become blight?

If you are willing to invest 4 Million Dollars in new land (and that is just for the land, you did not spend one single dollars on a new building and clean up) I say to you that that is enough money to do a complete renovation of the fire and police station. Don't you think?

I am not saying we should not look ahead like some suggest but we have to do it in a smart way. That is what a good business would do.

[Sparky]

Given the drop in the price of the land, and the almost certain chance of a large housing complex there if not purchased by the town, buying the land is worth it alone.

We don't even know what would go there. Combined Public Safety, Fire only, Police only, Senior Center, and combination of all or some of these.

Get the land now, when property values are low to boot, and worry about the construction after we figure out exactly what to do with it. Even if just to eliminate the chance of 100s of more students in the schools, buying this land for 4.5 million saves us the cost of building/expanding another school with that many new students in the town
Those are legitimate questions to be asking.

Starting with the $4 million price. My understanding is that there was a $7M offer for the full 13 acres in late 2009. Since it was an actual offer, that establishes a pretty good market value at that time. Two things have changed: 1) the real estate market, and 2) the town offer is on only 11 of the 13 acres. [Incidentally, I'm assuming the town will be provided with some East Street access, otherwise the police/fire station idea wouldn't make any sense.]

The Boston area market has dropped by some 20% since peak and probably 15% since the offer was made. So reduce the initial offer by 15%. Then, the town is only buying 85% of the land, so reduce it by another 15% of the remainder. Then, WW would retain a disproportionate amount of the frontage, so let's take off another 10% for that. $7M x .85 x .85 x .90 = $4.5M. I'd say the price they are talking is entirely reasonable. (Actually, it's amazing I came up with the same number in 30 seconds...)

True, the town has to address the issue of old buildings, but I don't think that interferes with whether or not this opportunity should be taken advantage of by the town. The disposition of those buildings does not change the fact that we have been unable to find a suitable property for police/fire after many years of trying. This opportunity reminds me of the incredibly fortuitous opportunity to establish the Elm Street School when the church went for sale. People fought against that, too, and in retrospect it was a home run investment for the town. It's now a great school, that otherwise would have cost twice as much to accomplish. The need for a school was inevitable (like our current police/fire situation), yet people fought that purchase.

Finally, the thought that the existing police and fire could be completely renovated for $4M is very unrealistic. Like all such projects, the issue is that renovations must be brought up to existing code, which is horribly expensive in terms of retrofitting old buildings. It's the reason we are building a new library. Renovating the old library up to code would have cost $7M, which is about what we will be paying out-of-pocket for the new library. I'm sure police and fire combined would cost more than that.

So from everything I can see so far, they seem to be approaching this in a smart way.

[Unregistered]

Regarding the Walpole Woodworkers land... The article indicates the asking price of $7M from 15 months ago has been reduced to $4.5, since the owners have been negotiating retention of the frontage. Seems like a good business decision to buy. Worst case if the intended projects don't come through, the town has a valuable limited asset (given its location) that would retain its value or likely appreciate in coming years.

Sometimes people complain that a town should be run more like a business. It sounds like that's what they're trying to do here. A good business would not let a timely opportunity like this pass just because it would require money during tough economic times.

"Don't you see what's going on here? Potter isn't selling. Potter's buying!"

Your argument does not make sense:

1. Walpole Woodworkers is business zoned land that generates revenue for the town. That revenue is the tax paid by the owner. Once the town buys the land, the revenue stops. If the town builds on the land, the revenue never returns. We own plenty of land already. Taking additional land out of the tax rolls is not "good business". It is actually a "double whamy". We reduce our tax collection, which hurts the budget. We also ask the tax payer to fund the purchase through an over-ride. The over-ride will pay for the land, but it will not replace the lost revenue that will be missing from the budget evry single year.

2. Walpole Woodworkers property is and has been used for production and manufacturing. If there is any contamination on the property, the town puts itself in the chain of custody by owning it. That means the taxpayer foots the clean up bill. Exposing the town to legal liability is not "good business".

3. The real value of the land is the frontage on Rte. 27. Buying the rear parcel, which will be land locked except for an access driveway, is not a good investment. Again, not a "good business" decision.

4. No well run business runs around buying things on speculation "in case" they might need it. It is reckless, and something stock holders would not tolerate. If there is anything that the past few years have taught us economically, is that a bird in the hand is definately where it is at. Who knows where the value of this property will be (especially with no frontage).

5. If the property is purchased, we would still need another over-ride for the building and the fields. Likely 2 seperate over-rides. By the time the fields are on the docket, the political supporters of the police and fire as well as the senior center advocates will be long gone. The fields will never come.

6. The Senior Center has NO FUNDING! Remember?

We are in trying financial times. The last thing I want is reckless spending with a "gambling" mentality. Keep our future tax dollars in our pockets until you have a sure thing, that is financially viable. This idea is really very poorly thought out. Nothing I have heard sounds anything like "good business".

[Unregistered]

The current Police and Fire locations are prime land in downtown. Right next door is Blackburn Hall. They all border Stone field and Town Hall. Quite a nice municiple center. While Blackburn is a lovely, old, historic building, it has very limited use. Much of it is totaly unaccesibleto the elderly or handicap persons. The building is literally falling apart. It could never serve any mainstream function without millions in renovations.

I would like to see Blackburn Hall torn down, or revamped and re-used as a part of a publoc safety facility. Build the first 1/2 of a new combined facility by moving the fire station onto the Blackburn land. Then tear down the current fire facility and build the second 1/2 of the combined facility by adding on the police station. Perhaps some peices of the original Blackburn structure could be preserved and incorporated into the new combined facility.

The existing Police Station could be sold (with the stipulation that the structure be preserved in manner consistent with its original design), or leased. It is the original building in our town center, and I am not without respect for the past or our history, but I do believe we cannot preserve everything. I think this is a reasonable balance of past and present.

It is also a reasonable balance of the burden placed on the taxpayer. We will not have to buy land (savings #1). We will not loose tax revenue from existing commercial land (savings #2).

[Sparky]

To the points in Post #2006:


1. This is a valid point, but the alternative for WW is to sell it to a real estate developer, so the property goes from revenue-positive to revenue-negative, rather than revenue-neutral. You claim the town owns "plenty of land". I'm not sure about that, but if true, it might be a reasonable option to purchase this centrally located parcel and sell other property to fund it. In general, my view is that a town can never own too much land, but I realize that comes at a cost.

2. I assume the land would be examined for contaminants as part of the purchase.

3. I have not heard what is being negotiated for frontage.

4. With regard to value of the property, it could conceivably reduce further in the short term, but ultimately exceed whatever they town pays for it. At current prices, the risk:reward ratio is quite good, and certainly superior to 15 months ago.

5. True. The fact that this is a multi-step plan is a risk. But I think the risk is more that this wouldn't ultimately serve as the municipal site, rather than it being a financial risk. The property is quite centrally located, so it should retain its value in the long run, even if it ultimately needs to be re-sold.

6. The senior center advocates have insisted they can raise funds provided that the land is available. Not a big risk, since police/fire is the pressing need.

You've raised some excellent points that are worthy of investigation. But I think the idea should not be rejected out of hand because of these issues.

[Sparky]

I'm not a big fan of razing Blackburn, but would be willing to consider that if part of it could be preserved. But I thought the issue in that area was the water table, making it unsuitable for a municipal building?

As for the police station, that should be an untouchable in terms of sale. It's the historical flagship of the town, on the National Historic Register. It's a classic piece of architecture serving as the cornerstone of our downtown area. Let's leave that off the table. If anything, I'd rather renovate that and move the town offices back in there, but I keep hearing that the cost is prohibitive.

[Tom]

Previous posts about Woodworkers have been copied to a new thread "Woodworkers' land" at this link. (http://www.walpolenews.com/forums/showthread.php?124-Woodworkers-land) Please use the new thread for posts on the proposed purchase.


--tg

[Unregistered]

http://www.patriotledger.com/topstories/x1055382095/Hingham-lawmaker-s-wife-gets-judgeship


Congrats to Walpole voters for once again keeping her in office!

[Unregistered]

So, what are peoples thoughts on what the Town should do and discuss with all the businesses on RTE 1A? Just hope the Town doesn't look at purchasing contaminated land.

[Unregistered]

I just noticed that the town planner's hours have been cut back to 18 hours for FY12. Could anyone tell me why? I thought this was a position we needed.

[Unregistered]

So, what are peoples thoughts on what the Town should do and discuss with all the businesses on RTE 1A? Just hope the Town doesn't look at purchasing contaminated land.

Why not? I hear there may be a 40B. We should buy it. Just like the Woodworkers site....

[Unregistered]

the articles say thousands of cars pass thru 1a. set up a toll with transponders, and charge everyone for driving through walpole. 1a is due to become a town-maintained road anyway. if that is the case, then why not a toll?

[Unregistered]

the articles say thousands of cars pass thru 1a. set up a toll with transponders, and charge everyone for driving through walpole. 1a is due to become a town-maintained road anyway. if that is the case, then why not a toll?

And just think,... the only way on or off 1A in Walpole is through Common Street, Wnter Street, Fisher Street, or Rte 27. All residential neighborhoods. Great location..... Whet did they recommend.... a truck terminal....

[Unregistered]

RIP Michael Baldassari.. The best of our humanity are the kind folk like Michael.. Baldy was a great person and I don't ever think I saw a day without him smiling.. God Bless the guy.. !

[Unregistered]

And just think,... the only way on or off 1A in Walpole is through Common Street, Wnter Street, Fisher Street, or Rte 27. All residential neighborhoods. Great location..... Whet did they recommend.... a truck terminal....

Did we have a choice on this or was it take it or leave it? I cannot believe our town would agree to take over the maintence, snow removal etc long term on this. Do we even have this in our future budget? Why would you want to take over State road???? No expense to the tax payers right now.

[Unregistered]

Questions: Is there anyone on the Adams Farm Committee that desires to see that property used in any capacity other than a pristine playground for North Walpole's finest? How can Lion's Club Carnivals, mountain bikers, Trail Bound Hounds of SE Mass, and drag hunts by the Norfolk Hunt Club, all of which open the Farm to Walpole residents and many out-of-town guests not upset the transcendental peace of the bucolic gardens, but 10 kids playing beach volleyball would? Does the Adams Farm Committee work at the pleasure of the Selectmen, or vice-versa? Did Cliff Snuffer think to tell us all of his master plan for this vast expanse of land when he foisted this override on us, or is he making it up as he goes along? Why do the Friends of Adam Farm pretend that the land is prisitne and organic, when it is replete with rusting hulks of cars and other manmade detritus? Why can't these Friends see that some of the taxpayer bought and owned land is made available for use by all the taxpayers? A barn and pavilion is OK because they say it is OK, but not a volleyball court? Answers please!

[Sparky]

Questions: Is there anyone on the Adams Farm Committee that desires to see that property used in any capacity other than a pristine playground for North Walpole's finest? How can Lion's Club Carnivals, mountain bikers, Trail Bound Hounds of SE Mass, and drag hunts by the Norfolk Hunt Club, all of which open the Farm to Walpole residents and many out-of-town guests not upset the transcendental peace of the bucolic gardens, but 10 kids playing beach volleyball would? Does the Adams Farm Committee work at the pleasure of the Selectmen, or vice-versa? Did Cliff Snuffer think to tell us all of his master plan for this vast expanse of land when he foisted this override on us, or is he making it up as he goes along? Why do the Friends of Adam Farm pretend that the land is prisitne and organic, when it is replete with rusting hulks of cars and other manmade detritus? Why can't these Friends see that some of the taxpayer bought and owned land is made available for use by all the taxpayers? A barn and pavilion is OK because they say it is OK, but not a volleyball court? Answers please!

I can try to answer this. This is not an argument in favor or against, but I think it does explain the difference:

The Lions Club Carnival, and the hunt/hound activities are annual "events". I think the Adams Farm Committee would be agreeable to using the pavilion area for an annual weekend volleyball tournament, because that would be a community "event".

As for the mountain biking, two things make it different: First, the activity itself is not visible from the main frontage field. That's an important consideration for a frequently recurring activity. Second, the activity itself requires the woods/trails venue by it's very nature.

Now, I'm sure these answers won't change your opinion, but they do answer your question. Those are distinct differences, and they are the same reason sports fields would also be opposed by the committee.

I think the way to make both groups happy would be to find a solution to utilize some of the acreage for other activities that does not disrupt the appearance of the frontage. The best way to do this would be to utilize some of the interior acreage that is on the other side (the "west" side) of the power line right-of-way. The ideal way to do this would be to provide a separate access road from either Lois Drive to the north, or Frontier Drive (or Homeward Lane) to the south. I'm sure this would meet neighborhood resistance. So another option would be to make a separate access road extending from the existing path into the woods. Anyone in favor of more utilization of the land should put forward this type of proposal, since disruption of the highly visible frontage fields is the real sticking point.

[Unregistered]

Because to the would-be Thoreaus of North Walpole, appearances are everything? But wouldn't an access road further degrade the almost zen-like transcendental qualities of the Adams Farm plot? Surely you are not suggesting the filthy ragamuffins who play volleyball should have their own service entrance to some back quadrant, so as not to disturb the butterfly hunts?

[Unregistered]

I can try to answer this. This is not an argument in favor or against, but I think it does explain the difference:

The Lions Club Carnival, and the hunt/hound activities are annual "events". I think the Adams Farm Committee would be agreeable to using the pavilion area for an annual weekend volleyball tournament, because that would be a community "event".

As for the mountain biking, two things make it different: First, the activity itself is not visible from the main frontage field. That's an important consideration for a frequently recurring activity. Second, the activity itself requires the woods/trails venue by it's very nature.

Now, I'm sure these answers won't change your opinion, but they do answer your question. Those are distinct differences, and they are the same reason sports fields would also be opposed by the committee.

I think the way to make both groups happy would be to find a solution to utilize some of the acreage for other activities that does not disrupt the appearance of the frontage. The best way to do this would be to utilize some of the interior acreage that is on the other side (the "west" side) of the power line right-of-way. The ideal way to do this would be to provide a separate access road from either Lois Drive to the north, or Frontier Drive (or Homeward Lane) to the south. I'm sure this would meet neighborhood resistance. So another option would be to make a separate access road extending from the existing path into the woods. Anyone in favor of more utilization of the land should put forward this type of proposal, since disruption of the highly visible frontage fields is the real sticking point.


Spend even more taxpayer money on land we already own so the volleyball players don't have to be seen? Are you kidding? I will say it again...this land is owned by the taxpayers of this town and not by the BOS or the unelected Adams Farm Committee. Any proposal for use of the land (volleyball, ballfields, sell it) should be put to a town vote. The Adams Farm Committee will never let this happen because they are afraid of the answer.

[The Raven]

Spend even more taxpayer money on land we already own so the volleyball players don't have to be seen? Are you kidding? I will say it again...this land is owned by the taxpayers of this town and not by the BOS or the unelected Adams Farm Committee. Any proposal for use of the land (volleyball, ballfields, sell it) should be put to a town vote. The Adams Farm Committee will never let this happen because they are afraid of the answer.

Obviously the whining will never cease. Its time to convert Adams Farm to a pristine permanently preserved piece of land: Sell it to the Trustees of Reservations (http://www.thetrustees.org/places-to-visit/greater-boston/bird-park.html). They are GOOD STEWARDS of open space. And note: they will BUY it.

Then the whining volley ballers issue will die, the trashing of the North Walpole folks will die, and the area will still get to preserve open space. And the TOW (Town of Walpole) will get some $$ for the property. Its a win-win. To the haters of the Adams Farm Committee: How about directing your hatred to something more positive? You are starting to make me plain sick. I don't want to barf all over your house the next time I do a fly-over in your neighborhood....

TR

[Unregistered]

Raven, before you puke, do some research, Trustrees only buy Historical land. There would be no interest in that tick infestested track of land.
The people, that even means those how make you want to upchuck, have a right to how that land will be utilized, deal with it. The land will be used for town puposes, eventuall,y as it should be.

[Unregistered]

Obviously the whining will never cease. Its time to convert Adams Farm to a pristine permanently preserved piece of land: Sell it to the Trustees of Reservations (http://www.thetrustees.org/places-to-visit/greater-boston/bird-park.html). They are GOOD STEWARDS of open space. And note: they will BUY it.

Then the whining volley ballers issue will die, the trashing of the North Walpole folks will die, and the area will still get to preserve open space. And the TOW (Town of Walpole) will get some $$ for the property. Its a win-win. To the haters of the Adams Farm Committee: How about directing your hatred to something more positive? You are starting to make me plain sick. I don't want to barf all over your house the next time I do a fly-over in your neighborhood....

TR

I like this idea. At $200,00 per acre (seems reasonable since we are paying almost twice that for the buildable land at WW) that is $72 million dollars. The town can then buy the WW land, build a police/fire facility, maybe pay for ballfields on Robbins Road and solve a whole raft of other town needs.

BTW...the AFC is bringing it on themselves when they are whining that 1/4 of 1 acre of the 360 owned by the taxpayers cannot be used for volleyball while somehow arguing that horse droppings, dog poop, and mountain bikers are some how vital to the pristine nature of Adams Farm.

[Sparky]

Because to the would-be Thoreaus of North Walpole, appearances are everything? But wouldn't an access road further degrade the almost zen-like transcendental qualities of the Adams Farm plot? Surely you are not suggesting the filthy ragamuffins who play volleyball should have their own service entrance to some back quadrant, so as not to disturb the butterfly hunts?

Look, I was just trying to answer the question. I can do without the insolent sarcasm. Yes, evidently some people DO think that frontage is a Currier & Ives picture for which appearance IS everything, and that it DOES represent the exact pristine setting that you mock, and they know that those settings are becoming a thing of the past, and that soon they'll all be gone, and we're fortunate enough to still have one in our own community. You might not share their sentiment, but don't you at least understand that viewpoint enough to not mock it?!?

[The Raven]

Raven, before you puke, do some research, Trustrees only buy Historical land. There would be no interest in that tick infestested track of land.
The people, that even means those how make you want to upchuck, have a right to how that land will be utilized, deal with it. The land will be used for town puposes, eventuall,y as it should be.


You are right...I should have done more research. The little I have done after your comment seems to back up what I was saying...from their website...

"The Trustees of Reservations preserve, for public use and enjoyment, properties of exceptional scenic, historic, and ecological value in Massachusetts."


http://www.thetrustees.org/assets/documents/about-us/Trustees-Strategic-Plan.pdf

Could I have your exact address? I'd like to barf on your house. (Don't worry, I only eat worms, acorns, and yes, road-kill...but its Walpole road-kill!)





.

[Unregistered]

Sam Obar is reporting that the town and the trustees of reservation are working to buy the larger portion of the Sunnyrock ( Buttimer family) farm.It is also said that Michael Viano has been visiting local boards for a subdivision on the smaller side ( 8-9 lots ) , hope it looks better than his 40B on Oak street.Bigger question is why no other commentary from anyone??

[Sparky]

Sam Obar is reporting that the town and the trustees of reservation are working to buy the larger portion of the Sunnyrock ( Buttimer family) farm.It is also said that Michael Viano has been visiting local boards for a subdivision on the smaller side ( 8-9 lots ) , hope it looks better than his 40B on Oak street.Bigger question is why no other commentary from anyone??


The full statement is at http://www.samobar.com/180/

This looks like an incredible deal for the town, where the lion's share of the cost would be covered by the Trustee for Public Land and private donations, where the town involvement would only be required so that TPL could apply for a state grant. That makes it a much sweeter deal than Adams Farm, for which the town absorbed the whole cost. (Fortunately the property value has increased substantially, regardless of the volleyball issue.) Also better than the WW deal (though "apples and oranges").

It also looks like the smaller lot on the current farm-stand side is a done deal:

The remainder of the Sunnyrock Farm property on the west side of North Street is already under agreement to be developed into eight luxury homes.

[Unregistered]

Sam Obar is reporting that the town and the trustees of reservation are working to buy the larger portion of the Sunnyrock ( Buttimer family) farm.It is also said that Michael Viano has been visiting local boards for a subdivision on the smaller side ( 8-9 lots ) , hope it looks better than his 40B on Oak street.Bigger question is why no other commentary from anyone??

I will not be voting to raise taxes again on the public at large to purchase land for a few to treat sacred land the public is not allowed to use.
Being fooled once was enough for me.

When the next overide fails for land they can think back and wonder if the crazy reaction of the Adams farm committee over volleyball might have soured people on this type of thing.

[The Raven]

I will not be voting to raise taxes again on the public at large to purchase land for a few to treat sacred land the public is not allowed to use.
Being fooled once was enough for me.

When the next overide fails for land they can think back and wonder if the crazy reaction of the Adams farm committee over volleyball might have soured people on this type of thing.

It is obvious to me, that someone that makes a statement like that did not grow up in this town, and is really only "camping out", as Joe Morgan would say.

Have a happy fourth of july in Walpole....one of the few towns located less than 20 miles of Boston, a world-class city, with a lot of your despised "open space".

TR

[Unregistered]

Maybe they can have a volleyball fundraiser at Adams Farm to raise the funds to buy Sunnyrock.

[Unregistered]

I will not be voting to raise taxes again on the public at large to purchase land for a few to treat sacred land the public is not allowed to use.
Being fooled once was enough for me.

When the next overide fails for land they can think back and wonder if the crazy reaction of the Adams farm committee over volleyball might have soured people on this type of thing.

I could not agree more. Neber again.

[Unregistered]

In the case of the so called deal for the 8-9 house lots , the town of Walpole has the right of first refusal as it falls under a 61A agreement . The bos must sign off on a change of use and get back taxes before it is a done deal.The town could refuse and / or buy it.
Some would ask why the developer should make the money and the town get a pittance

[Unregistered]

You sir, are an idiot.

It is obvious to me, that someone that makes a statement like that did not grow up in this town, and is really only "camping out", as Joe Morgan would say.

Have a happy fourth of july in Walpole....one of the few towns located less than 20 miles of Boston, a world-class city, with a lot of your despised "open space".

TR

Raven, I'm surprised by your harsh response. You usually have a better sense of the public's mood. People are not happy with the manner the Friends of Adams Farm handled the volleyball issue and the bad feelings they caused will last a long time. Sorry but a lot of people see Adams Farm as a waste because it is so underutilized. It doesn't matter if you grew up here or not.

[Sparky]

I will not be voting to raise taxes again on the public at large to purchase land for a few to treat sacred land the public is not allowed to use.
Being fooled once was enough for me.

When the next overide fails for land they can think back and wonder if the crazy reaction of the Adams farm committee over volleyball might have soured people on this type of thing.

You don't even know what the parameters are, and you have already made your decision? It's possible that the town would only have to pay a small fraction of the cost in order for TPL to apply for the Massachusetts land grant. And you still wouldn't support it?

More evidence that 10% of the population simply cannot be reasoned with.

[Unregistered]

A quote from Ken Chamberlain of the Adams Farm Cmte. from the on-line Boston Globe article regarding the volleyball at Adams Farm:

"Committee member Ken Chamberlain said the Friends of the Adams Farm has spent years donating time and money to enhance the farm’s offerings, and the farm committee has worked to maintain its rural character. “Then these outsiders come in and just want to put their volleyball courts there,’’ Chamberlain said. “They just feel they have to be up there.’’

What an outrageous and appalling comment from a member of a town board. To EVER call a resident of this town an "outsider" is disgusting and appalling. Adam's Farm belongs to ALL OF US! Each and EVERY one. No matter what side of town one lives on. Mr. Chamberlain's comments are cause for dismissal from that committee. His comments are proof positive that the Adams Farm Committee has run away with itself, and thinks they are running a members only private club. Guess what Mr. Chamberlain,.... we can all "be up there" if we like. WE ALL OWN IT! Imagine that. Sharing public land with the public that owns it!

In typical form for Walpole politics,... these folks do not know enough to quit while they are behind. Once again, a small segment of residents are going to far. Enforcing their will on the many.... despite their offensive and unsupportable stance. This is destined to end badly for the "friends",... and I do use the term very very loosely.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-26/news/29706405_1_sand-courts-volleyball-recreation-department

[Unregistered]

You don't even know what the parameters are, and you have already made your decision? It's possible that the town would only have to pay a small fraction of the cost in order for TPL to apply for the Massachusetts land grant. And you still wouldn't support it?

More evidence that 10% of the population simply cannot be reasoned with.

I think this is a natural backlash to the over the top handwringing of the Adams Farm Committee and the Friends of Adams Farm regarding the volleyball situation. This is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. They have made it more difficult for the town to now come to the townspeople with ANY land purchase, regardless of the parameters. I already have visions of the SRC (Sunny Rock Committee) and FOSR (Friends of Sunny Rock) decreeing what will and will not be allowed at Sunny Rock. No thanks. We have one pretentious, uptight group of tree huggers who think they own Adams Farm. We do not need another in this town.

[Sparky]

Although I can understand the "volleyball-exclusion" position, I agree that Mr. Chamberlain's reference to the players as "outsiders" is outrageous and appalling, as you have stated. A huge blunder on his part.

One comment though, with regard to your reference of "typical form for Walpole politics". This is typical "town politics" in general, and Walpole is no exception. I don't like the "typical Walpole" phrase, as though we are a bunch of Cretans. We're not. All towns have this element of nasty politics. See the 10% rule in my previous post...

[Unregistered]

It is obvious to me, that someone that makes a statement like that did not grow up in this town, and is really only "camping out", as Joe Morgan would say.

Have a happy fourth of july in Walpole....one of the few towns located less than 20 miles of Boston, a world-class city, with a lot of your despised "open space".

TR

That was my posting and i stand by it. Raven you seem to have a small mind with limited knowledge and believe that stupid insults make up for that failing.
First, my being new or here forever is not the issue.
Second, since i did grow up in Walpole you show yourself to be a poor judge of what is going on.
The fact that i grew up in Walpole does not make my feelings on the issue any more or less valuable in the discussion and most importantly when it comes to voting for another override for land, life long or new in town we each get one vote.

[Unregistered]

I gotta head down to the local vet. Does he carry Mylanta for birds???

Cool your jets man. You are blowing way to much steam. And I heard that some of the volley ball folks that voiced their opinions were non-residents. I believe thats where that comment came from. How about dropping this ball, anyway? You got what you wanted, didn't you??

TR... Happy 4th

(maybe the vet has brioschi???)

Yeah,... but you should feel free to keep on calling folks who disagree with you an "idiot". The poster had every reason to be "heated up". And your off-base comments about "not being born here" (Walpole) and just "camping out" are equally offensive. ...but I am saying that while sipping a cool, tall glass of lemonade. To cool for you. Try some Tums for what ever it is that is bubbling up on you,... better for an old bird like you.

[Unregistered]

Raven, how about a little bit of Brylcreem for those feathers? No need to be all ruffled over a few posts.

[Unregistered]

I do not like it when good people get trashed for doing good things. I WILL call someone an idiot if they go after volunteers who are only trying to help the town of walpole, when they characterize them as elitists.

No Adams Farm Committee members have earned one BUCK doing what they do, and there is NOT a DO NOT ENTER sign at the front of the driveway at Adams Farm...to the contrary...there is an open invitation....every day.

Yes, I supported a power plant. Yes, I supported a biotech lab. NO...I am not a devil worshipper.

And to say that my "credability" (SP) is in question...guess what....I don't give a rats A@@@ what some anonymous goon who has been trashing good people thinks of me.


TR

Raven, you need to chill out a bit. Your tone is uncalled for.

[Unregistered]

Made it a point to visit the Adams Farm open house yesterday ( I will add, along with a steady stream of other visitors).
What a truely lovely place it is and the AF "helpers" were terrific. I went to the butterfly garden area and sat for a bit in the most tranquil setting in all of Walpole. I was pleased with the number of children brought there by parents/grandparents etc.I listened in at the fence about the volleyball courts and how the AF would cooperate in every way to make the decision by the BOS happen although they maintain the position of prefering it not be there.
I thought about my visit and how it would have gone if a couple of volley ball games were in play. Not the same!!

[Unregistered]

Made it a point to visit the Adams Farm open house yesterday ( I will add, along with a steady stream of other visitors).
What a truely lovely place it is and the AF "helpers" were terrific. I went to the butterfly garden area and sat for a bit in the most tranquil setting in all of Walpole. I was pleased with the number of children brought there by parents/grandparents etc.I listened in at the fence about the volleyball courts and how the AF would cooperate in every way to make the decision by the BOS happen although they maintain the position of prefering it not be there.
I thought about my visit and how it would have gone if a couple of volley ball games were in play. Not the same!!

With 385 acres. there is room for everyone. Plenty of space for all to have their area.

[Unregistered]

I do not like it when good people get trashed for doing good things. I WILL call someone an idiot if they go after volunteers who are only trying to help the town of walpole, when they characterize them as elitists.

No Adams Farm Committee members have earned one BUCK doing what they do, and there is NOT a DO NOT ENTER sign at the front of the driveway at Adams Farm...to the contrary...there is an open invitation....every day.

Yes, I supported a power plant. Yes, I supported a biotech lab. NO...I am not a devil worshipper.

And to say that my "credability" (SP) is in question...guess what....I don't give a rats A@@@ what some anonymous goon who has been trashing good people thinks of me.

TR

And I don't give a rats A@@ (Raven's choice of words) if an anonymous old bird gets his feathers in a dander!!!

How you can sit and quote:

"Great post Sparky. The vision I have is of a traditionalist as you describe: trying to maintain our town as a refuge from the city, but accessible to it, and to promote the open space we have preserved and seek to augment. We have a unique opportunity to retain some of our rural feel while being a short distance from a world class city.

TR"


and then say you support a power plant and Biolab for other folks in town!! SHAME ON YOU!!! It sounds completely self serving and hypocitical. Worse yet, you seem to want the Walpole taxpayer (newcomers and all!! .... I think you called them "campers" (Raven's words)) to pay for these projects! It is truely shocking to me that you can speak for "preservation", "refuge", and "rural" "open space" when it comes to Adams Farm and Sunny Rock, and then mock residents on the other side of town, and literally taunt them about power plants and biolabs for their land. It is just not right. I genuinely do not understand how you can still l be so convinced of your own integrity. It is impossible to justify such an outrageous double standard.

If I were one of the Friends of the Farm, I would be asking you to pipe down and stop making things worse. Raven, your own double standard for land use makes the control of Adams Farm seem even more of a concern. While I believe the Friends desire to help the town, I do believe they have lost their way. The tax payer owns that land. And the taxpayer can decied to do whatever they like with it. They can change their mind any day, any time. They can sell it, rezone it, develope it, do nothing with it. It was bought and paid for by all of us. I am genuinely concerned that neighbors controlling town owned land, is an obvious conflict of interest.

No one said you were a "devil worshipper". That is your attempt to mock and trivialize those who disagree with you. But you clearly do seam to be a hypocite with a double standard. You should be very careful casting insults like "idiot" at posters (Raven's choice of words),... as the shoe certainly seems like it could fit you. And in keeping with that thought, any grown person who calls themself the "Raven" and posts about their "flights around town", has no business calling anonymous posters "goons" (agian, Raven's words).

I am really appalled by the double standard, and the offensive tone that goes along with it. No-one else here is permitted to name call. Raven seems to have his own set of rules. But I guess that is what I am having so much trouble with. A double standard.

[Unregistered]

To the Raven,
All I can say is somebody needs a nap!

[Unregistered]

"Outsiders"?? Mr. Chamberlin? Like the non-Walpole citizens who are part of the Norfolk Hunt Club that use Adams Farm? Or the geo-cachers from all over EMass that use Adams Farm? Adams Farm is not Walden Pond! There are rusted out hulks of cars and abandoned appliances w/in the pristine confines of "your" farm. The Adams Farm Committee holds no sway over elected officials, you are an advisory body only. How dare you stake out other areas around town as more appropriate for a public volleyball court..you have no jurisdiction or directive to do that. Yes, you care deeply for the Adams Farm area..but it was bought w/ my tax dollars too, and I will derive more benefit from it if 20 acres are turned into playing fields for the kids, not hayfields and butterfly breeding grounds.

[Unregistered]

what was that glint of light from yonder field? do I see a pitchfork approaching? Held high?

the Raven is right on

[Unregistered]

what was that glint of light from yonder field? do I see a pitchfork approaching? Held high?

the Raven is right on
Dear Lord, come up with new line, wiil ya' ?

[Unregistered]

I fear that the same crowd that wants to build on Adams Farm would want to build on other town property, like the Town Forest. Is the town forest protected from these type of riff raff??

[Unregistered]

what was that glint of light from yonder field? do I see a pitchfork approaching? Held high?

the Raven is right on

Perfect! Name call. Taunt. Trivialize and mock those who dare to disagree. This response is perfect. Another silly unsubstantive response with no credability. I guess that is the problem with those self appointed town elders. Senility has set in,... or maybe it is just isolation from the world at large.

Thanks for continuing to prove those terrible "outsiders" right:)

[Unregistered]

I fear that the same crowd that wants to build on Adams Farm would want to build on other town property, like the Town Forest. Is the town forest protected from these type of riff raff??

Riff Rafff? Are you serious? ...and Raven wanting Power Plants and Bio-labs is not "Riff-Raff"???

The town forest was not purchased by the tax payer. It was a gift to the town, with the requirement that it be left as forest. Please get our money back from the owners of Adams Farm, and have them deed it to the town. Also, please talk to the folks at Sunny Rock. Tell them to give us the land for free, and they can put any deed restrictions on it that they want.

Surely even "riff-raff" like you can see the difference.

[Unregistered]

Now that the extra money for prison mitigation is coming to town, I want the school super and committee to PAY BACK the 300 thousand they took from free cash as they promised the town meeting and the voter that they would do so.

[Unregistered]

unfortunately the writer provided a great aerial view of future playing fields. the athletically obsessed in town will not let up on trying to develop Adams Farm into a sports complex.

[Unregistered]

unfortunately the writer provided a great aerial view of future playing fields. the athletically obsessed in town will not let up on trying to develop Adams Farm into a sports complex.

As you can see from the aerial view, this is a perfect site for volleyball courts and yet the garden and all the enjoyment of Adam's Farm can continue.

[Unregistered]

unfortunately the writer provided a great aerial view of future playing fields. the athletically obsessed in town will not let up on trying to develop Adams Farm into a sports complex.

Just terrible that the writter showed what is really available for space. Far better that we conceal the truth from the rightful owners of that land,... you remember... the taxpayer.... athletically obsessed and all. Very frustrating that someone "slipped up" and let people see what is really going on. Far better that a few neighbors continue to conceal and control the land up there.

...I guess I would rather be called names like "pitch-forker" than be a sneaky and smug person who is trying to hide the truth, control public land against the will of the people, and use $* million of public money to create a private backyard for a select few. Yeah, you really are a class act. I can see that you have only the best of intentions in mind.

[Unregistered]

Just terrible that the writter showed what is really available for space. Far better that we conceal the truth from the rightful owners of that land,... you remember... the taxpayer.... athletically obsessed and all. Very frustrating that someone "slipped up" and let people see what is really going on. Far better that a few neighbors continue to conceal and control the land up there.

...I guess I would rather be called names like "pitch-forker" than be a sneaky and smug person who is trying to hide the truth, control public land against the will of the people, and use $* million of public money to create a private backyard for a select few. Yeah, you really are a class act. I can see that you have only the best of intentions in mind.

I'm sure the adams farm committee willl allow you to set up a booth on the weekends. You could call it "Kick The Farm Committee". Get a megaphone, and repeat your rants in public (i dare you).

[Unregistered]

I'm sure the adams farm committee willl allow you to set up a booth on the weekends. You could call it "Kick The Farm Committee". Get a megaphone, and repeat your rants in public (i dare you).

...and I triple dog dare you to publically call the taxpayers "pitchforkers", and I quadruple dog dare you to use your megaphone to tell those athletically "obsessed" people that they have no rights to the $8 million in land that they helped buy.

[Unregistered]

I didn't know that the school department was entitled to two thirds of that money. I have to admit, that is absolutely ridiculous. There was a time it was meant to help because of the impact the prison has on the town and town services. Somewhere along the line someone must have gotten really creative with what is considered an impact on town services. Last time I checked, nobody from the school department has ever had anything to do with the prison, like taking out an injured prisoner in the ambulance or arresting somebody causing a disturbance in the lobby.

I totally understand that, especially in these difficult economic times, the money should be spread around. But $500,000 to the schools? That's just wrong.

[Unregistered]

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/08/02/massachusetts_could_lose_400_million_in_federal_fu nding_next_year_under_deal/

where will the spending cuts take place in Walpole??

[Unregistered]

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/08/02/massachusetts_could_lose_400_million_in_federal_fu nding_next_year_under_deal/

where will the spending cuts take place in Walpole??

This is not a bad thing. Maybe they can cut back on grants (our tax dollars) to raise our taxes (override) to build libraries we don't need.

[Unregistered]

The money that is earmarked for public safety is PEG (Prison Expansion Grant) money. This comes about when the prison does an expansion of some sort. The money that is (maybe) coming to the town this time, is money for hosting the prison, so it can be used for anything.

I do agree that it should be spread around fairly though.

[Unregistered]

The money that is earmarked for public safety is PEG (Prison Expansion Grant) money. This comes about when the prison does an expansion of some sort. The money that is (maybe) coming to the town this time, is money for hosting the prison, so it can be used for anything.

I do agree that it should be spread around fairly though.

Thank you for clarifying that. I didn't know that was the case.

[Unregistered]

The prison money needs careful thought prior to spending. It should not be incorporated into the operating budgets of the town or school as that only increases the base budgets. When / if the funding gets cut it will forcing programs and jobs to be cut.

My recommendation is to replace the free cash taken by the school and either use the balance for a capital project or pay down some debt.

[Unregistered]

The prison money needs careful thought prior to spending. It should not be incorporated into the operating budgets of the town or school as that only increases the base budgets. When / if the funding gets cut it will forcing programs and jobs to be cut.

My recommendation is to replace the free cash taken by the school and either use the balance for a capital project or pay down some debt.

Tonight the BOS, FinCom,and the School Committee will meet to talk budget outlook.The recently replaced $750,000 should be kept away from all of them unless and until a "solid" plan for its use is formulated and approved by town meeting.This,in my opinion would be for capital projects only and only after the $300k is somehow returned to the people. I would then use the balance ( split 50/50 ) on school equipment and municipal projects that have long needed a shot in the arm like ponds and fields and roads and computer equipment and gym repairs etc.Articles have indicated that the TA wants to issue a contract for a buildings study near $150K I would not "spend" it on that, not when we have wonderful professional experienced folks quite capable of accomplishing the same task ( free)if properly asked and charged accordingly. Let's watch and see what happens. Let's also hope that it is covered by the media.

[Unregistered]

The prison money needs careful thought prior to spending. It should not be incorporated into the operating budgets of the town or school as that only increases the base budgets. When / if the funding gets cut it will forcing programs and jobs to be cut.

My recommendation is to replace the free cash taken by the school and either use the balance for a capital project or pay down some debt.

A quote from Fin Com member Carol Lane regarding the liklihood of ongoing prision mitigation money be available to the Town in future years:

"The again, said Finance Committee member Carol Lane, if Beacon Hill leaders don’t know about the unique fund, Walpole delegates may be able to slip it into the budget each year."

Read more: Town leaders talk prison mitigation money, override - Walpole, MA - Wicked Local Walpole http://www.wickedlocal.com/walpole/archive/x181942490/Town-leaders-talk-prison-mitigation-money-override#ixzz1UlyqaKAd

....are you serious? That is some outstanding strategic thinking. Clearly a group of high functioning fiscally astute individuals.

[Unregistered]

Now they want another override??

[Unregistered]

Now they want another override??

Moderator got rid of the few fiscal conservatives on fin com saying they had been on to long. Then reappointed pro overide people who have been on for decades.
Luckily the economy is doing great and we taxpayers will be able to pay constantly higher taxes to make the jobs of our elected and appointed officials easy. Wouldn't want them to have to manage their budgets and stay within funding that would be WAY to difficult.
Remember the constantly higher taxes and debt are "for the children".

[Unregistered]

So now Lincoln Lynch want to use the some (quite a bit) to plug the hole of 500K in federal stimulus monies that is going to end . Then you have Mike saying that he would like a possible override because he believes fiscal 2013 operational budget could be worse because we are not getting significant revenue growth from commercial and tax growth?

Now the question , who is running this Town? Going to be interesting to watch this pan out? Bets anyone??

[Unregistered]

Now they want another override??

SCHOOL SIDE: not only did they LIE to the Town Meeting about returning the $300K taken from free cash ( which their weasel words are now walking-back)..they now want to use $500K ( of the $750K prison mitigation money ) for salaries...and they want a general override in the million dollar range.

COMMENT:
A...do they have a clue that over spending at all Government levels is KILLING the average citizen

B...does their word to the people have absolutely NO VALUE

C...why do they think that they "DESERVE" 2/3RDS of the prision money

D...why would they want to take $500k ( if they get it) and use it for salaries when the real potential for its continuation is categorically in doubt

E...the tax and spend attitude will eventually DESTROY not only Walpole but also THE USA

THE MUNICIPAL SIDE:

The Town Administrator states that Walpole spends the lowest amount of 23 communities...then compares Dedham to us and basicly tells the people that we owe him 11MILLION in more spending...WHAT>>ARE YOU SERIOUS...tell Dedham to give back to their citizens the $11 million...additionally, he does not consider a general override unreasonable even during these difficult times.

COMMENTS:

A...NO MORE MONEY

B...fight that the prison mitigation money be used ONLY FOR CAPITAL PURPOSES

C...get back the $300k "stolen" from free cash...you are a budgeting genius, figure it out

D...please remind the BOS,FinCom,and School Committee that SPENDING is the problem ...not the solution

[Unregistered]

Not that it's a surprise -- good to start talking about options now. I think the budgeting process starts in about 6 weeks. Some really hard decisions need to be made.

[Unregistered]

Lets face it: Taxes are going to go up...federal, state and local. We have been living beyond our means, and that way of life has infected our governments.

Any presidential candidate who promises "no new taxes" (as in "read my lips, no new taxes") is only spouting bull. Taxes are going up. Overrides will be necessary to just keep local government floating. Since Prop 2.5, we have been cutting off our noses to spite our face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_2%C2%BD

We have given employees raises every single year since the economic meltdown in 2008. We have even given raises to the raises in every new union and non-union contract. We do not have a revenue priblem. We have a spending problem. Take a look at the list of salaries for town jobs. Then take a look at the benefits.

We are cutting our noses off all right, but it has more to do with an inability to make the tough calls. Employers across the nation have cut employees pay, given no raises, furloughed employees, and continually increased employee healthcare costs while decreasing benefits.

While Walpole has just started to address healthcare in some very small ways (in comparison to corporate environments), we have done NOTHING to reign in salaries. We have cut head count, but kept increasing the compensation of those remaining. Our town government is failing us when it comes to cost control.

[Unregistered]

According to Mr. Boynton in this weeks Times:

"In a comparison of 28 area towns, the Town Administrator said Walpole ranks last on the list in per capita spending. As a town, Dedham is very comparable to Walpole – that town spends $400 more per person than Walpole, a number that amounts to $11 million more per year in spending power."

I did some digging myself..... it is interesting to note that the average Walole homeowner actually pays MORE in taxes than the average homeowner in Dedham. The glaring difference in the 2 communities is the revenue generated by business. Take a look at the disparity:

Walpole Dedham
Commercial Tax Revenue $ 4 Mill $20 Mill
Industrial Tax Revenue $ 3 Mill $ 1 Mill

Dedham clearly has limited interest in heavy industrial land uses, because they know that manufacturing does not pay. The tax value is lesss, and the negative impact on the land and surrounding community is not worth it. While we have been fighting about Power Plants and Bio-Labs, Dedham has been building good, clean, and safe business that residents can support. We have 3xs the industrial use that Dedham does, most of it on our own drinking water! We have a completely failed ecomomic developement policy. Route one across from Iorio is a growing mountain that appears to be for additional manufacturing. This type of business is far less profitable for the town. Our Economic Developement Officer is the first place I would look to save $75,000.

In looking at the Commercial Tax Revenue, we have to be reasonable and realize that we will likely never rival Dedham. We do not have the same expanse of heavily travelled road-ways, and we also have an enormous amount of wetlands which cannot be developed.

My point here is that we are not Dedham. We never will be. We could do a much better job with what we have, but we have completely lacked in planning. We are always quietly pursuing some garbage business to help a local good old boy. We then spend 2 years fighting ourselves, and never making any progress. We need to continue persuing decent, clean, appropriately scaled bsuiness to suit a bedroom community with a sole-source aquifer. If we stay focused long enough, we may actually make some progress.

Reason and judgement will go a long way toward developing another $11 mill in revenue.

Also interesting to note that Walpole gets far more than Dedham when it comes to Fed and State Aid. It is actually very interesting to see what other towns finances look like... now if we could get a closer look at how many people thay employ and what their average salary is....

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=dorterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Local+Officials&L2=Municipal+Data+and+Financial+Management&L3=Data+Bank+Reports&sid=Ador&b=terminalcontent&f=dls_mdmstuf_aag_aagindex&csid=Ador

[Unregistered]

The spacing changed when the post was submitted. To nake the figures more understandable:

Commercial
Walpole Commercial Tax Revenue $ 4 Mill
Dedham Commercial Tax Revenue $20 Mill

Industrial
Walpole Industrial Tax Revenue $ 3 Mill
Dedham Industrial Tax Revenue $ 1 Mill

[Unregistered]

Lets face it: Taxes are going to go up...federal, state and local. We have been living beyond our means, and that way of life has infected our governments.

Any presidential candidate who promises "no new taxes" (as in "read my lips, no new taxes") is only spouting bull. Taxes are going up. Overrides will be necessary to just keep local government floating. Since Prop 2.5, we have been cutting off our noses to spite our face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_2%C2%BD

So if you find yourself in a situation where you are spending more than you are receiving in income do you just automatically get more income or do you adjust your spending habits? An individual has no guarantee that they can just increase their income so the first step is to adjust your spending.

I think politicians have gotten far to used to people (town, state, federal) being their go to piggy banks and they do not feel they have to make the hard choices to reign in spending. They are getting a rude awakening. This is what the Tea Party was born from. People are sick and tired of the spend first figure out how to pay for it later approach. I agree with many other posters. It is a spending problem not a revenue problem.

You want to increase revenues?...lower taxes, don't raise them. How many people went out this weekend and made large purposes because it was a "tax free" weekend. Sure it doesn't raise reveneue for the state in sales tax but it raises revenues for the stores who in turn could hire more people who would pay more in income tax, buy more goods, etc.

[Unregistered]

When you have municipal workers receiving 3% raises on average while many folks have either lost their job or received no pay increase in several years, and you have now a Finance Commitee who by and large does not understand economics and finance but does lean heavily towards the school side of the equation then you end up with a major fiscal problem. People are no longer willing to support the kind of entitlement mentality which continues to be displayed by the municpal workers which means that 3% annual raises need to stop and spending has to be reduced. It's time to live within our means.

[Unregistered]

I haven't recieved a raise in almost four years and my medical now costs me over 7K a year, and yet I am one of the lucky ones .. I still have employment. Wake up people.. stop spending .. I can't afford you any longer.

[Unregistered]

When you have municipal workers receiving 3% raises on average while many folks have either lost their job or received no pay increase in several years, and you have now a Finance Commitee who by and large does not understand economics and finance but does lean heavily towards the school side of the equation then you end up with a major fiscal problem. People are no longer willing to support the kind of entitlement mentality which continues to be displayed by the municpal workers which means that 3% annual raises need to stop and spending has to be reduced. It's time to live within our means.

I believe some if the contracts are actually closer to 5%, when you consider that employees receive a "step raise" of about 3% every year just for sitting at their desk. Contracts then give about a 2% raise to those raises. No merit base, no performance metrics. Just a raise for breathing. And when you consider the massive increased costs and reduced coverage that we have all seen in our own health care, and copare it to town, state, and federal workers,... well that is another eye opener entirely. Add on the pension, generous vacation benefits, and education re-imbursement,... well all I can say is that spending is clearly the issue.

The rest of us cannot keep working longer, harder, and for less so that those who work for us can get more across the board. Just think of all the raises and contracts that our government officials have tokd us are a good deal.... and now there is no money to fund them. Shame on the School Committee, Board of Selectman, and Town Admin.

[Unregistered]

When you have municipal workers receiving 3% raises on average while many folks have either lost their job or received no pay increase in several years, and you have now a Finance Commitee who by and large does not understand economics and finance but does lean heavily towards the school side of the equation then you end up with a major fiscal problem. People are no longer willing to support the kind of entitlement mentality which continues to be displayed by the municpal workers which means that 3% annual raises need to stop and spending has to be reduced. It's time to live within our means.

Sadly they always say thing like it is a "3%" raise. But a 3% increase would not be enough to fund the increase, Why?
Step changes, lane changes, longevity etc. some town employees have seen much larger increases during the past few years.
Don't worry we can just borrow more money from the Chinese.

[Unregistered]

So if you find yourself in a situation where you are spending more than you are receiving in income do you just automatically get more income or do you adjust your spending habits? An individual has no guarantee that they can just increase their income so the first step is to adjust your spending.

I think politicians have gotten far to used to people (town, state, federal) being their go to piggy banks and they do not feel they have to make the hard choices to reign in spending. They are getting a rude awakening. This is what the Tea Party was born from. People are sick and tired of the spend first figure out how to pay for it later approach. I agree with many other posters. It is a spending problem not a revenue problem.

You want to increase revenues?...lower taxes, don't raise them. How many people went out this weekend and made large purposes because it was a "tax free" weekend. Sure it doesn't raise reveneue for the state in sales tax but it raises revenues for the stores who in turn could hire more people who would pay more in income tax, buy more goods, etc.

You are implying that walpole has a deficiit, and I don't think it does. I am all for salary freezes and layoffs if necessary, but I don't think we are living beyond our means. Taxes are going to go up (as they always have). What I do see is a shabbier looking Walpole, and thats because we are running this town within its means.

I wonder what you think of the Republican stand that there should be no taxes. What do you think of what Warren Buffett said recently...that the rich should be taxed more?? The funny thing is that a big part of the spending that has taken place in the federal government...the military....supposedly "benefits" all citizens, rich or not. Does our foreign policy help protect rich people too, or only those who paid taxes at a higher rate (with less income)? Do rich people drive on our roads, over our bridges, etc...do they get the same benefit from our streets being plowed, etc?

[Unregistered]

When you have municipal workers receiving 3% raises on average while many folks have either lost their job or received no pay increase in several years, and you have now a Finance Commitee who by and large does not understand economics and finance but does lean heavily towards the school side of the equation then you end up with a major fiscal problem. People are no longer willing to support the kind of entitlement mentality which continues to be displayed by the municpal workers which means that 3% annual raises need to stop and spending has to be reduced. It's time to live within our means.

I am a senior and depend very much on my social security.For the past two years the FED government has given no increase, zero, but they along with local and state government have increaded my taxes along with fees and fines creating a real world net loss.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;13519].................................................. .................................................. .............

This town looks great, not perfect, but far from Shabby..The private land owners need to clean up their area, There are more people cutting grass at your home at one time that are working for our very understaffed parks and hi-way departments , Keep talking layoffs and you will see what shabby really looks like. Im proud to live in Walpole. Im not from from but do call it home. Its not The public works department, I have never seen anywhere in the walpole times those folks begging for money like the school department does.

[Unregistered]

You are implying that walpole has a deficiit, and I don't think it does. I am all for salary freezes and layoffs if necessary, but I don't think we are living beyond our means. Taxes are going to go up (as they always have). What I do see is a shabbier looking Walpole, and thats because we are running this town within its means.

I wonder what you think of the Republican stand that there should be no taxes. What do you think of what Warren Buffett said recently...that the rich should be taxed more?? The funny thing is that a big part of the spending that has taken place in the federal government...the military....supposedly "benefits" all citizens, rich or not. Does our foreign policy help protect rich people too, or only those who paid taxes at a higher rate (with less income)? Do rich people drive on our roads, over our bridges, etc...do they get the same benefit from our streets being plowed, etc?

Warren Buffett is welcome to put his money where his mouth is and cut a check to the federal government at any time he likes. Until the day he signs that check I don't really care what he thinks.

We could go in circles, as they have in Washington, over what is fair. When the top 1% of income earners in this country pay 40% of the federal income taxes collected is it "fair" to ask them for more? When the top 10% of income earners in this country pay 70% of the federal income taxes collected is it "fair" to ask them for more? When the top 50% of income earners in this country pay 97% of the federal income taxes collected is it "fair" to ask them for more?

What about the BOTTOM 50% of wage earners pay just under 3% of all federal income taxes? The bottom 40% pay no federal income taxes yet get money back from the government.

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/04/not-only-do-bottom-47-of-taxpayer-pay.html

So what is your definition of fair?

[Unregistered]

I am a senior and depend very much on my social security.For the past two years the FED government has given no increase, zero, but they along with local and state government have increaded my taxes along with fees and fines creating a real world net loss.

The town of Walpole will raise your taxes( MIN ) next year by the 2 1/2 % allowed under prop 2 1/2.This sum amounts to
ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. The citizens will be told that it is not enough.This amount , when added to the overall budget will bring the total to $64 MILLION DOLLARS. To state it simply, the taxpayer spends ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS each week just to get the government we get from Walpole. Multiply this and corresponding arithmetic for the 351 cities and towns in Mass, then for 50 states.
YOU GET THE PICTURE, Government for,of,by the people ??????????????????????

[Sparky]

The town of Walpole will raise your taxes( MIN ) next year by the 2 1/2 % allowed under prop 2 1/2.This sum amounts to
ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. The citizens will be told that it is not enough.This amount , when added to the overall budget will bring the total to $64 MILLION DOLLARS. To state it simply, the taxpayer spends ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS each week just to get the government we get from Walpole. Multiply this and corresponding arithmetic for the 351 cities and towns in Mass, then for 50 states.
YOU GET THE PICTURE, Government for,of,by the people ??????????????????????

I'm neutral on this subject, but your comment implies that a million dollars is a lot of money. Is it? Walpole has about $5 billion (that's 5,000 million) of residential property value alone. Is $64 million an unreasonable amount to run such a town? You imply that $1.2M per week is an unreasonable cost, but you don't say why. Our federal government spends $1.2M every 11 seconds.

[Unregistered]

I'm neutral on this subject, but your comment implies that a million dollars is a lot of money. Is it? Walpole has about $5 billion (that's 5,000 million) of residential property value alone. Is $64 million an unreasonable amount to run such a town? You imply that $1.2M per week is an unreasonable cost, but you don't say why. Our federal government spends $1.2M every 11 seconds.

For a small residential community, an extra +$1 mill is a lot of money. To increase taxes by this amount, and continually cut services and head count is wrong. The extra revenue should be MORE than enough for level services in this economy. The problem is that our employment contracts and benefits are to expensive and hand out far to much in raises and benefits.

[Unregistered]

i'm neutral on this subject, but your comment implies that a million dollars is a lot of money. Is it? Walpole has about $5 billion (that's 5,000 million) of residential property value alone. Is $64 million an unreasonable amount to run such a town? You imply that $1.2m per week is an unreasonable cost, but you don't say why. Our federal government spends $1.2m every 11 seconds.

get your hand out of my pocket

[Unregistered]

For a small residential community, an extra +$1 mill is a lot of money. To increase taxes by this amount, and continually cut services and head count is wrong. The extra revenue should be MORE than enough for level services in this economy. The problem is that our employment contracts and benefits are to expensive and hand out far to much in raises and benefits.

It is 1.5 million and it would support about 50 jobs in this economy,so I guess it is a lot of money.

[Unregistered]

Warren Buffett is welcome to put his money where his mouth is and cut a check to the federal government at any time he likes. Until the day he signs that check I don't really care what he thinks.

We could go in circles, as they have in Washington, over what is fair. When the top 1% of income earners in this country pay 40% of the federal income taxes collected is it "fair" to ask them for more? When the top 10% of income earners in this country pay 70% of the federal income taxes collected is it "fair" to ask them for more? When the top 50% of income earners in this country pay 97% of the federal income taxes collected is it "fair" to ask them for more?

What about the BOTTOM 50% of wage earners pay just under 3% of all federal income taxes? The bottom 40% pay no federal income taxes yet get money back from the government.

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/04/not-only-do-bottom-47-of-taxpayer-pay.html

So what is your definition of fair?

Hope you read today's Globe. The bottom wage earners are doing amazingly badly. They are earning the equivalent of what they earned in 1979. The bottom has literally fallen out for the poor. At the same time, the higher you go in pay scale, the more incredible the increases over the same period of time.

Believe me I do not want to give away any more money for nothing. Our government (federal, state, and local), is overspending, plain and simple. But please realize that the bottom end of wage earners have nothing to give. I say this out of compassion because I am fortunate enough not to be among them.

The rich have gotten far far richer. The upper middle have gotten much more "upper". The middle class is barley treading water, and the poor are sinking like a stone. We need to cut government spending (especially corporate welfare for companies who's CEOs are making millions), and yes, the rich will need to pay more.... who else can afford to???? I am talking bare necessities of healthcare, food, heat etc.. for most. Lets not forget that the single largest contributor to our current deficit is the tax cut that Busch gave the rich. That tax cut had NO associated spending cuts. That unfunded tax cut is the single largest contributor to today's deficit.

We are in a mess. But there are just too many people at the bottom who literally have nothing to give. They are the working poor. And they are not you, and they are not me... both sitting here typing on our computers on our high speed internet.

[Unregistered]

It is 1.5 million and it would support about 50 jobs in this economy,so I guess it is a lot of money.

...and I know about 5000 people who would apply for those 50 jobs....

[Unregistered]

It is 1.5 million and it would support about 50 jobs in this economy,so I guess it is a lot of money.

50 jobs? What kind of jobs would these be that would pay people less than $30k a year, and what kind of candidates would there be willing to take such jobs? It's less than $30k since the cost of employees is much higher than simply the salary itself. Probably closer to jobs paying $25k realistically.

[Unregistered]

Hope you read today's Globe. The bottom wage earners are doing amazingly badly. They are earning the equivalent of what they earned in 1979. The bottom has literally fallen out for the poor. At the same time, the higher you go in pay scale, the more incredible the increases over the same period of time.

Believe me I do not want to give away any more money for nothing. Our government (federal, state, and local), is overspending, plain and simple. But please realize that the bottom end of wage earners have nothing to give. I say this out of compassion because I am fortunate enough not to be among them.

The rich have gotten far far richer. The upper middle have gotten much more "upper". The middle class is barley treading water, and the poor are sinking like a stone. We need to cut government spending (especially corporate welfare for companies who's CEOs are making millions), and yes, the rich will need to pay more.... who else can afford to???? I am talking bare necessities of healthcare, food, heat etc.. for most. Lets not forget that the single largest contributor to our current deficit is the tax cut that Busch gave the rich. That tax cut had NO associated spending cuts. That unfunded tax cut is the single largest contributor to today's deficit.

We are in a mess. But there are just too many people at the bottom who literally have nothing to give. They are the working poor. And they are not you, and they are not me... both sitting here typing on our computers on our high speed internet.

Ahh yes...the Bush tax cuts fallacy. One of my favorites. This article explains why your line of thinking is a myth....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704738404575347302831199046.html

BTW....the middle class tax cuts add far more in deficit spending than do the tax cuts for "the rich" (you know the "millionaires" who make $200,000 or more). If you want to be fair and think we need to rescind the tax cuts for to reign in the deficit then the answer to to rescind ALL tax cuts but you know Obama and the Democrats would never let that happen and Republicans are smart enough to realize that taking more money out of anyone's pocket restricts growth instead of encouraging it.

[Sparky]

get your hand out of my pocket

I said I'm neutral on this subject. Just trying to introduce some analytical thinking.

[Sparky]

Let me add that I'd be unlikely to support an override at this time, but not because $1.2M is a lot of money for a municipal budget.

It's clear what's going on here. The town does not waste a lot of money. That's not the problem. Rather, they are faced with two external pressures that they have little control over: 1) rising health care costs, and 2) unfunded state mandates.

However, even though the town is trying to cope with these pressures, passing an override at this point would be feeding the beast. The beast is not the town government, it is the town government's masters, which are the state and the health care industry. Unfortunately, in order to starve the beast, we have to temporarily starve the town.

Once the message gets across to the state that municipalities will no longer step in and fill these externally-generated gaps, then I would consider an override. I suspect that the town will have to face a setback in services until such time.

[Unregistered]

Lets not forget that the single largest contributor to our current deficit is the tax cut that Busch gave the rich. That tax cut had NO associated spending cuts. That unfunded tax cut is the single largest contributor to today's deficit.

We are in a mess. But there are just too many people at the bottom who literally have nothing to give. They are the working poor. And they are not you, and they are not me... both sitting here typing on our computers on our high speed internet.

I literally just slapped myself in the forehead. Your argument, while compassionate, is somewhat one sided in it's approach. A couple of counter points or maybe just data points to add...

The "Bush" tax cuts were not "for the rich", the cuts were across the board. I'm sure, if you had been paying taxes under GWBs administration, you benefited from the tax cuts. The tax cuts were not single largest contributor to today's deficit, the over spending was solely responsible. Under GWB tax revenues increased following the tax cuts, not decreased; the increase in spending ran away with the deficit. You can thank Congress during the second GWB term for that spending spree. I picture Congress throwing cash at each other in the hallways in the same manner that gorillas throw poop at each other in their cages.

Whereas the bottom 50% pay very little in the whole tax revenue pie, they have no more to give. Fine. You don't want to increase taxes and you want to go whole hog on the progressive tax structure? Looking at the amounts and percentages of the tax revenue pie paid by the top 3%, how much more do you expect people to pay? I'm certainly not rich and I do not break into that top 3%, but my overall tax burden is 50% of my family's income (fed, state, sales, excise, property), when is enough enough? Additionally, given the economy, "the rich" that you'd like to go after ain't so rich anymore. There are fewer and fewer people listed as true "millionaires", and quite honestly, personal property is personal property; you can't and shouldn't lay a claim to someone else's personal property.

Spending is out of control. The size of federal gov't is out of control. The very idea that OUR money is sent to the federal govt and then we have to beg and plead to get some of it back as part of federal programs and as Congressional favors is insanity.

The Federal Gov't needs to get out of the way. It's a drain on our resources and an albatross around our necks.

So while your proposal favors protecting "the weak" and punishing "the strong", your arguments are filled with the type of hyperbole usually reserved for those that see no way to decrease the spending and are more about status quo.

[Unregistered]

50 jobs? What kind of jobs would these be that would pay people less than $30k a year, and what kind of candidates would there be willing to take such jobs? It's less than $30k since the cost of employees is much higher than simply the salary itself. Probably closer to jobs paying $25k realistically.

That's a hell of a lot more than the working poor are making. Their average salary is 1/2 that.

[Unregistered]

Let me add that I'd be unlikely to support an override at this time, but not because $1.2M is a lot of money for a municipal budget.

It's clear what's going on here. The town does not waste a lot of money. That's not the problem. Rather, they are faced with two external pressures that they have little control over: 1) rising health care costs, and 2) unfunded state mandates.

However, even though the town is trying to cope with these pressures, passing an override at this point would be feeding the beast. The beast is not the town government, it is the town government's masters, which are the state and the health care industry. Unfortunately, in order to starve the beast, we have to temporarily starve the town.

Once the message gets across to the state that municipalities will no longer step in and fill these externally-generated gaps, then I would consider an override. I suspect that the town will have to face a setback in services until such time.

I agree that the spending at the town level is not wasteful (I know some of you do not agree, but that is another point), I just feel that to not provide the town with needed money to send a message to state government is not the best way to push the issue.

Voting out the state and federal politicians will get the message accross without damaging our town infrastructure, our town services and our eventually our personal property values.

Same message, different delivery system, and one that does not leave the town lacking for the next however many years.

[Unregistered]

To those who think the town has spent money wisely i would suggest you become in formed.
Read some of the contracts. Look at the bugets not the summary but the real budgets.

Many wont like you looking but you might find the way money is spent interesting.

[Sparky]

I agree that the spending at the town level is not wasteful (I know some of you do not agree, but that is another point), I just feel that to not provide the town with needed money to send a message to state government is not the best way to push the issue.

Voting out the state and federal politicians will get the message accross without damaging our town infrastructure, our town services and our eventually our personal property values.

Same message, different delivery system, and one that does not leave the town lacking for the next however many years.

I agree that voting out state and federal politicians is a preferred methodology. But that just doesn't seem to be happening. It seems our society only reacts to crisis.

[Unregistered]

Does anyone know when the planned start date to start building the volleyball courts at Adams Farm?

[Unregistered]

They already started building them.

[Unregistered]

Does anyone know when the planned start date to start building the volleyball courts at Adams Farm?

They are almost completed.

[Unregistered]

To those who think the town has spent money wisely i would suggest you become in formed.
Read some of the contracts. Look at the bugets not the summary but the real budgets.

Many wont like you looking but you might find the way money is spent interesting.

So you have seen the budgets? Tell us, how is it being spent? And you know what every line item is for and what it's being spent on? Whats the waste? Snow Plowing? School Busses? Fuel for the fire trucks and dump trucks? Should we keep them all parked? Until the Politicians stop worring about being reelected and afraid of the Unions, nothing will change. Not one budget was over spent, only the snow removal one, and that is the only one that can be. All departments spend the money given to them , and its been less and less every year.

[Unregistered]

They are almost completed.

They have been done for 2 weeks !!!

[Unregistered]

Hope you read today's Globe. The bottom wage earners are doing amazingly badly. They are earning the equivalent of what they earned in 1979.

I actual did read that article. In fact I am glad someone brought that piece up.

You're right, tough story. I hope that 29 year-old mom with the two boys - you know her 8 year-old latino child, and the 10 year old caucasian boy can figure out where she went wrong. How did things get so tough for her? She's seems so grounded and disciplined?

Look, there are allot of people out there that I want to help. I am by no means rich. I've been married 20 years, when my wife I and started out, I was making 18 grand a year, she was waitressing at night, and I worked second jobs doing whatever it took to get by. We had two kids, we lived check to check. No section 8 or unemployment here - I was never eligible. I eventaully realized the we weren't going to keep that pace, so I got my butt back to school and got a degree and guess what? My life changed for the better.

I do not discourage people from giving of themselves. It's good for the soul and caring about others is what makes us human. I give financailly when I can, and I volunteer frequently. But you can not "give" someone initiative. You can not "give" them self-discipline. They have to find it in themselves. If you keep bailing them out, the cycle will never end. People mistakes, this woman has done this. But there's a difference between looking past someone's mistakes, and completely ignoring them. The latter only leads to the same mistakes being made over and over again.

This article never touched on the choices she made that may have contributed to her condition. This is typical of the Globe. Absolve the poor (?) by blamng everyone else for thier condition.

[Unregistered]

I actual did read that article. In fact I am glad someone brought that piece up.

You're right, tough story. I hope that 29 year-old mom with the two boys - you know her 8 year-old latino child, and the 10 year old caucasian boy can figure out where she went wrong. How did things get so tough for her? She's seems so grounded and disciplined?

Look, there are allot of people out there that I want to help. I am by no means rich. I've been married 20 years, when my wife I and started out, I was making 18 grand a year, she was waitressing at night, and I worked second jobs doing whatever it took to get by. We had two kids, we lived check to check. No section 8 or unemployment here - I was never eligible. I eventaully realized the we weren't going to keep that pace, so I got my butt back to school and got a degree and guess what? My life changed for the better.

I do not discourage people from giving of themselves. It's good for the soul and caring about others is what makes us human. I give financailly when I can, and I volunteer frequently. But you can not "give" someone initiative. You can not "give" them self-discipline. They have to find it in themselves. If you keep bailing them out, the cycle will never end. People mistakes, this woman has done this. But there's a difference between looking past someone's mistakes, and completely ignoring them. The latter only leads to the same mistakes being made over and over again.

This article never touched on the choices she made that may have contributed to her condition. This is typical of the Globe. Absolve the poor (?) by blamng everyone else for thier condition.

The point was not the personal responsibility for economic failure, though clearly many make bad choices. The post quoting the Globe article was in response to comments about who should pay to get us out of the massive deficit we find ourselves in as a country. The comment was in response to comments made that the rich should not be taxed any more. The response simply stated that the bottom end of wage earners have nothing to give.

Sure there are plenty who make bad choices. They may "deserve" their lot in life (though I must admit your comments about the children's ethnic origins were quite surprising). There were plenty making bad choices like tis 20 years ago to. The point is, that the bottom 1/2 (bad choices and all) are doing far worse today than those same poor choosing bottom half were 20 years ago. The point is that wealth has not grown equally across society to exect equal contribution to deficit reduction.

I applaud your work ethic and ability to go back to school and build a life you are proud of. Had someone raised your taxes when you were at your bottom however, it very well may have pushed you over the edge, when your chips were already down. That was the context of the post.

The post to which you were responding was NOT a free pass for personal financial failure and ongoing bad choices. I do have to say though, not everyones upbringing equips them to fnd a suitable mate and go back to school. Glad yours did. I give you and your parents credit. Unfortunately it is not that simple of a solution for those living and raised in true poverty. Wish it were as easy as pulling up those boot straps. But some have never even seen a boot strap. Alas, this is a far more complex issue that the original post even began to tackle. It was all about who HAS and Des NOT HAVE.

[Unregistered]

The point was not the personal responsibility for economic failure, though clearly many make bad choices. The post quoting the Globe article was in response to comments about who should pay to get us out of the massive deficit we find ourselves in as a country. The comment was in response to comments made that the rich should not be taxed any more. The response simply stated that the bottom end of wage earners have nothing to give.

Sure there are plenty who make bad choices. They may "deserve" their lot in life (though I must admit your comments about the children's ethnic origins were quite surprising). There were plenty making bad choices like tis 20 years ago to. The point is, that the bottom 1/2 (bad choices and all) are doing far worse today than those same poor choosing bottom half were 20 years ago. The point is that wealth has not grown equally across society to exect equal contribution to deficit reduction.

I applaud your work ethic and ability to go back to school and build a life you are proud of. Had someone raised your taxes when you were at your bottom however, it very well may have pushed you over the edge, when your chips were already down. That was the context of the post.

The post to which you were responding was NOT a free pass for personal financial failure and ongoing bad choices. I do have to say though, not everyones upbringing equips them to fnd a suitable mate and go back to school. Glad yours did. I give you and your parents credit. Unfortunately it is not that simple of a solution for those living and raised in true poverty. Wish it were as easy as pulling up those boot straps. But some have never even seen a boot strap. Alas, this is a far more complex issue that the original post even began to tackle. It was all about who HAS and Des NOT HAVE.

The 14th Amendment promises us equal protection under the law. Taxes are laws. We should all be taxed EQUALLY.

EVERYONE should be taxed the same percentage rate on the top line of income. If everyone is not, then those who are not have no 'skin in the game' and can simply vote themselves more of other peoples money.

Equality, if we all want to participate in, we all must pay for ....EQUALLY!

[Unregistered]

Lets face it: Taxes are going to go up...federal, state and local. We have been living beyond our means, and that way of life has infected our governments.

Any presidential candidate who promises "no new taxes" (as in "read my lips, no new taxes") is only spouting bull. Taxes are going up. Overrides will be necessary to just keep local government floating. Since Prop 2.5, we have been cutting off our noses to spite our face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_2%C2%BD

Wiki anything never has been and never will be a real source. To qoute a Wiki anything just shows how liberal and against freedom you are.

[The Raven]

Wiki anything never has been and never will be a real source. To qoute a Wiki anything just shows how liberal and against freedom you are.

I am trying to figure out how you think I am against freedom and liberal because I make a link to prop 2.5 via wiki.

And I come up with nothing.

TR

[Sparky]

Wiki anything never has been and never will be a real source. To qoute a Wiki anything just shows how liberal and against freedom you are.

Wow. What a totally misinformed perspective. Many times I find Wiki to provide the most comprehensive source of information when looking up straight factual information (like this article), and they include all of their references within their article. I realize that types of articles are more vulnerable to bias and misinformation, but I take this into account. This is a straight "information" article, and if you disregard even these types of entries, then you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Example: I just looked up something about the 2009 NFL draft. I couldn't get the information in a good format from nfl.com. It was layed out beautifully in Wiki. So by ignoring them as a source, you're doing yourself a disservice.

[Unregistered]

Foxboro selectmen will discuss a Casino at/near/on Kraft property on Rte 1 this Tuesday eve. Deval and his friend Robert K are very chummy so lets put the pieces together, foot bridge,rezoning,reintroduction of casino's,Senator Timilty in favor, train extension on a daily basis etc. Lots of pieces bigger puzzle. Walpole will suffer big time if this goes through. Is anyone at Town Hall discussing this?

[Unregistered]

Foxboro selectmen will discuss a Casino at/near/on Kraft property on Rte 1 this Tuesday eve. Deval and his friend Robert K are very chummy so lets put the pieces together, foot bridge,rezoning,reintroduction of casino's,Senator Timilty in favor, train extension on a daily basis etc. Lots of pieces bigger puzzle. Walpole will suffer big time if this goes through. Is anyone at Town Hall discussing this?

Other than the train schedule, which is a weak argument anyhow because if you purchase property near train tracks, you get what you pay for, could you elaborate on how Walpole will suffer from this? Some concrete examples would be good.

[Unregistered]

Foxboro selectmen will discuss a Casino at/near/on Kraft property on Rte 1 this Tuesday eve. Deval and his friend Robert K are very chummy so lets put the pieces together, foot bridge,rezoning,reintroduction of casino's,Senator Timilty in favor, train extension on a daily basis etc. Lots of pieces bigger puzzle. Walpole will suffer big time if this goes through. Is anyone at Town Hall discussing this?

Help us understand how this is a bad thing for Walpole. We need to figure out how the town can be involved and reap some of the financial benefits, unlike what has happened with the stadium and Patriot Place.

[Unregistered]

Other than the train schedule, which is a weak argument anyhow because if you purchase property near train tracks, you get what you pay for, could you elaborate on how Walpole will suffer from this? Some concrete examples would be good.

I didn't write the post to which you are referring, but I will give you a response or two.

For starters, 2/3rds of Walpole is "near" to train tracks from the Norwood line on down through to Foxboro and Norfolk, so your rude comment seams fairly insensitive and very indicative of the infighting and "to bad for you" mentality that has turned this town upside down for years. I would like to suggest that you try to be a bit more open minded towards others and consider the community as a whole. Increased train traffic will negatively impact the quality of life for hundreds living along the tracks, and thousands will likely have their daily lives interrupted with greater train frequency. You can hear the train from a mile away.

The freight line in South Walpole is very rarely used. Putting commuter rail traffic on that line would be a huge change from what thousands of residents of South Walpole bought near. The tracks down there cross Summer Street at what is already a very small and narrow crossing.

The traffic, noise, and lights from a casino (that will no doubt be targeted for the Walpole side of Route 1) will be a HUGE negative to hundreds of homes in South Walpole. I do not live there, but I completely understand the concern about negative impact. Traffic alone on 95 and route one will be a horror. Imagine having a Patriots game every day.... NO THANKS! I cannot imagine that you could not think of these few basics on your own....

This proposal doesn't have to be a major headache for me, in order for me to understand the potential negative implications for others in OUR community. (Note the sense of SHARED concern,... that comes from a sense of COMMUNITY). I really am so tired of the snide attitude represented by your "you get what you pay for" comment. This isn't about any individuals wealth. It is an issue of community support for shared values and quality of life. Your attitude would mean we should sell Adams Farm. To bad for those folks. Hey, and the folks by the Library... bring in business. They get what they deserve to. Same to all the folks by Woodworkers. They get what they paid for to. All those folks by the mall... they never should have protested the expansion... they get what they deserve.

I really just find so much wrong with your comment and attitude. When we preserve the quality of life across our community, we preserve our neighbors, friends, property values and our way of life. When we subscribe to the "to bad for you, I only care about me" mentality, we disintegrate as a community, and hurt ourselves financially and aesthetically.

[Unregistered]

Is anyone at Town Hall discussing this?

What difference does it make? Do you think they're going to stop it? As far as Kraft and anyone else in favor of it is concerned, including any Foxboro politician, it has absolutely nothing to do with Walpole.

[Unregistered]

What difference does it make? Do you think they're going to stop it? As far as Kraft and anyone else in favor of it is concerned, including any Foxboro politician, it has absolutely nothing to do with Walpole.

The Foxboro selectmen voted 5-0 to Not allow rezoning for a Casino

[Unregistered]

I didn't write the post to which you are referring, but I will give you a response or two.

For starters, 2/3rds of Walpole is "near" to train tracks from the Norwood line on down through to Foxboro and Norfolk, so your rude comment seams fairly insensitive and very indicative of the infighting and "to bad for you" mentality that has turned this town upside down for years. I would like to suggest that you try to be a bit more open minded towards others and consider the community as a whole. Increased train traffic will negatively impact the quality of life for hundreds living along the tracks, and thousands will likely have their daily lives interrupted with greater train frequency. You can hear the train from a mile away.

The freight line in South Walpole is very rarely used. Putting commuter rail traffic on that line would be a huge change from what thousands of residents of South Walpole bought near. The tracks down there cross Summer Street at what is already a very small and narrow crossing.

The traffic, noise, and lights from a casino (that will no doubt be targeted for the Walpole side of Route 1) will be a HUGE negative to hundreds of homes in South Walpole. I do not live there, but I completely understand the concern about negative impact. Traffic alone on 95 and route one will be a horror. Imagine having a Patriots game every day.... NO THANKS! I cannot imagine that you could not think of these few basics on your own....

This proposal doesn't have to be a major headache for me, in order for me to understand the potential negative implications for others in OUR community. (Note the sense of SHARED concern,... that comes from a sense of COMMUNITY). I really am so tired of the snide attitude represented by your "you get what you pay for" comment. This isn't about any individuals wealth. It is an issue of community support for shared values and quality of life. Your attitude would mean we should sell Adams Farm. To bad for those folks. Hey, and the folks by the Library... bring in business. They get what they deserve to. Same to all the folks by Woodworkers. They get what they paid for to. All those folks by the mall... they never should have protested the expansion... they get what they deserve.

I really just find so much wrong with your comment and attitude. When we preserve the quality of life across our community, we preserve our neighbors, friends, property values and our way of life. When we subscribe to the "to bad for you, I only care about me" mentality, we disintegrate as a community, and hurt ourselves financially and aesthetically.

Is this what happened many years ago when the town decided not to expand the Walpole Mall due to the increased traffic and the surrounding homes quality of life. Biggest mistake this town ever made. Just look down the road both ways and see what the commercial revenue could have been for this town.

[Unregistered]

Just noticed construction going on at Walmart. Anyone know the details? Super Walmart perhaps?

[Sparky]

Is this what happened many years ago when the town decided not to expand the Walpole Mall due to the increased traffic and the surrounding homes quality of life. Biggest mistake this town ever made. Just look down the road both ways and see what the commercial revenue could have been for this town.

Although this was a big mistake, let's not forget the biggest mistake of the last 50 years was the handling of the school downsizing in the 1980's in the face of Prop 2.5. The tail end of the baby boomers was graduating, so the town sold Bird Elementary and moved the Town Hall into Stone Elementary, after recently having sold Old Fisher Elementary and razing Old Stone Elementary. Shortly after, they also considered selling Plimpton Elementary, but that failed. A little more than 10 years later, lo and behold, the children of the baby boomers started entering kindergarten, and the town was down to three elementary schools, and woefully short of school space.

This is why our Town Hall is really an elementary school, our police station is really a town hall, and one of elementary schools is really a church. It's why we have a police/fire station dilemma. And our new library is sitting where a police station should be. That 5-year period of bad decisions in the 1980's caused decades of scrambling, which we continue to face.

What followed was a 10-year about-face, during which we had to renovate and add onto the high school, put modules on Old Post, add onto Boyden, and buy the Christian Life Center and turn it into Elm Street School. Incidentally, the availability of the Christian Life Center during this period was incredibly fortuitous, as it ended up allowing us to create a full-service elementary school for less than half the cost of what it would have been otherwise. It has turned out to be a school that is very much liked. I will remind you that many residents opposed that override; in the end, it allowed us to get matching state funding right before that money source dried up for dozens of other towns shortly after. That move saved the town's butt. Thanks to Judy Conroy for her effort on that one.

It will be interesting to see where the 200+ new students coming from the Walpole Woodworkers site will go.

[Unregistered]

The Walpole Walmart is going to become a superstore, similar to the one in North Attleboro, groceries, deli etc. It is going to take appox. one year to complete and the store will stay open during the process. I personally can't wait!

[Unregistered]

Is this what happened many years ago when the town decided not to expand the Walpole Mall due to the increased traffic and the surrounding homes quality of life. Biggest mistake this town ever made. Just look down the road both ways and see what the commercial revenue could have been for this town.

So where do you live? I am certain that we can make money in your neighborhood. So pony up. What neighborhood are you in (no street address necessary)? What would you like in your neighborhood? Clearly you don't mind town revenue coming at homeowner personal expense. Perhaps a Biolab? Maybe the Foxboro Casino can come to Adams Farm? We could sell the land (big $$) and then collect the taxes (more big $$). And it will be up on 109, away from most residents. Hey,.. those folks get what they deserve... they bought near undeveloped land. Quick... call Kraft. I am sure your neighbors will invite you over for a cocktail party to celebrate the good news!

[Unregistered]

Is this what happened many years ago when the town decided not to expand the Walpole Mall due to the increased traffic and the surrounding homes quality of life. Biggest mistake this town ever made. Just look down the road both ways and see what the commercial revenue could have been for this town.

The reason the Walpole Mall did not expand and become a big shopping plaza was because the Mall's plan was to buy up all the property behind the Mall on the Coney Street side all the way back to Route 95. It just so happened that the homeowners on those streets were less than enthralled with the plan! So the town did not have a decision in the matter and can not be credited with making a mistake.
The Mall has indeed expanded in the front along Route 1 and also stores have been added next to the original Mall. Many must recall that one of the stipulations for the Mall was that there would never be expansion in the front parking lot! Who knows when that changed?

[Unregistered]

Although this was a big mistake, let's not forget the biggest mistake of the last 50 years was the handling of the school downsizing in the 1980's in the face of Prop 2.5. The tail end of the baby boomers was graduating, so the town sold Bird Elementary and moved the Town Hall into Stone Elementary, after recently having sold Old Fisher Elementary and razing Old Stone Elementary. Shortly after, they also considered selling Plimpton Elementary, but that failed. A little more than 10 years later, lo and behold, the children of the baby boomers started entering kindergarten, and the town was down to three elementary schools, and woefully short of school space.

This is why our Town Hall is really an elementary school, our police station is really a town hall, and one of elementary schools is really a church. It's why we have a police/fire station dilemma. And our new library is sitting where a police station should be. That 5-year period of bad decisions in the 1980's caused decades of scrambling, which we continue to face.

What followed was a 10-year about-face, during which we had to renovate and add onto the high school, put modules on Old Post, add onto Boyden, and buy the Christian Life Center and turn it into Elm Street School. Incidentally, the availability of the Christian Life Center during this period was incredibly fortuitous, as it ended up allowing us to create a full-service elementary school for less than half the cost of what it would have been otherwise. It has turned out to be a school that is very much liked. I will remind you that many residents opposed that override; in the end, it allowed us to get matching state funding right before that money source dried up for dozens of other towns shortly after. That move saved the town's butt. Thanks to Judy Conroy for her effort on that one.

It will be interesting to see where the 200+ new students coming from the Walpole Woodworkers site will go.

Good comments, Sparky. One would hope that those who talk about selling off town land would remember the lesson of selling off town schools. Not a good idea. The town must learn from the mistakes of the past, or it is bound to make the same mistakes again.

[Unregistered]

It will be interesting to see where the 200+ new students coming from the Walpole Woodworkers site will go.

Please... the Preserve is twice the size of what is proposed for woodworkers, and the number of students from there is 1/2 what you quote. Stop the hysteria.... your pitchfork is showing....

[Unregistered]

Good comments, Sparky. One would hope that those who talk about selling off town land would remember the lesson of selling off town schools. Not a good idea. The town must learn from the mistakes of the past, or it is bound to make the same mistakes again.

There is a big difference in selling off a school that is being utilized and land that is not. The selectman had this option in an attempt to buy woodworker's and "we told them so".

[Unregistered]

Good comments, Sparky. One would hope that those who talk about selling off town land would remember the lesson of selling off town schools. Not a good idea. The town must learn from the mistakes of the past, or it is bound to make the same mistakes again.

Schools are necessary as the population of children rises and falls, so selling just because of a temporary decline in student population is clearly short-sited. How do you possibly correlate this to promoting the collection of unused land by the town?

[Unregistered]

Please... the Preserve is twice the size of what is proposed for woodworkers, and the number of students from there is 1/2 what you quote. Stop the hysteria.... your pitchfork is showing....

The Woodworkers site is supposed to have around 250 units? The Preserve has 12 buildings and 244 units. It's just a bigger parcel of land, so you can expect fewer, taller buildings.

[Unregistered]

Schools are necessary as the population of children rises and falls, so selling just because of a temporary decline in student population is clearly short-sited. How do you possibly correlate this to promoting the collection of unused land by the town?

If you were told that the WW property would be used to house a combined police and fire building for approx 18 million on top of the 4.6 , how would you have voted? Yes to a No? No to a Yes? No clue? The same?

[Unregistered]

So where do you live? I am certain that we can make money in your neighborhood. So pony up. What neighborhood are you in (no street address necessary)? What would you like in your neighborhood? Clearly you don't mind town revenue coming at homeowner personal expense. Perhaps a Biolab? Maybe the Foxboro Casino can come to Adams Farm? We could sell the land (big $$) and then collect the taxes (more big $$). And it will be up on 109, away from most residents. Hey,.. those folks get what they deserve... they bought near undeveloped land. Quick... call Kraft. I am sure your neighbors will invite you over for a cocktail party to celebrate the good news!

I think that if you decide to buy a house near a commercial highway (Route 1) or choose to live between Route 1 and 95 you should expect that there may be development in the neighborhood. I am sure I would struggle with the idea of growth that would personally effect my life, butI do believe that if the project had moved forward, compensation would have been fair. You cannot deny that we lost a great deal of tax revenue for that decision.

[Unregistered]

The Woodworkers site is supposed to have around 250 units? The Preserve has 12 buildings and 244 units. It's just a bigger parcel of land, so you can expect fewer, taller buildings.

So how many kids were actually added to the school system by the preserve? How come we never hear actual numbers instead of doom and gloom speculation of what could happen? Let's not forget that even with 244 units they are not all full at any given time (the are still renting units today) and there is always turnover. The same will hold true for the Preserve II at the woodworker's site. As far as your 200+ kids being added that is complete speculation where even the selectmen were not going with their doom and gloom estimates.

They were estimating about 117 kids in a 200 unit complex (.58 kids per unit). Worst case that would put the potential population at about 146 kids (roughly 12 kids per grade on average).

[Unregistered]

If you were told that the WW property would be used to house a combined police and fire building for approx 18 million on top of the 4.6 , how would you have voted? Yes to a No? No to a Yes? No clue? The same?

You would have had at least one no vote become a yes and I suspect even a few more. Would it have been enough to swing the vote, who knows, but this vote would have been a yes because it would have shown that the town was serious about developing the land vs just stopping development. It would have shown that the town was using the land to solve a real need and putting something appropriate for the money invested in the land. Ballfields or parking lots would have been a non-starter had they proposed that.

It would have prevented the creation of the Walpole Woodworker's committe and FOWW and the divisiveness that could have brought. Yes, the volleyball fiasco at Adam's Farm did weigh on at least my mind and maybe others as I envisioned having to fight the neighbors who just assumed it was their land once the town purchased it in order to do anything with it. Our actions have consequences and the AFC may have thought they were protecting their little corner of the world with their volleyball fight but in fighting that battle they may have cost the town the war with purchasing woodworker's.

[Unregistered]

This web site's home page linked to the schools stated that the superintendant's contract was extended through 2016.
No details were provided.Anyone?With overrides on the horizon it will become a detail.

[Unregistered]

Driving by the WW site I believe I saw a Spotted Owl flying around is that enough to kill the development

[Unregistered]

Driving by the WW site I believe I saw a Spotted Owl flying around is that enough to kill the development

Good question. Where are all the environmentalists? I assume if we look close enough we can probably find a Peruvian spotted woodtick or something that we can claim must be protected.

[Unregistered]

So how many kids were actually added to the school system by the preserve? How come we never hear actual numbers instead of doom and gloom speculation of what could happen? Let's not forget that even with 244 units they are not all full at any given time (the are still renting units today) and there is always turnover. The same will hold true for the Preserve II at the woodworker's site. As far as your 200+ kids being added that is complete speculation where even the selectmen were not going with their doom and gloom estimates.

They were estimating about 117 kids in a 200 unit complex (.58 kids per unit). Worst case that would put the potential population at about 146 kids (roughly 12 kids per grade on average).

I assume that this would impact the Johnson, Fisher, Elm, WHS only. (and won't that be an entertaining hot-potato toss when that time comes.)

You do understand that 12 kids per grade is a substantial increase in per classroom size, do you not? It's certainly enough to make the teacher's union gripe about class size. What's the average class size in Walpole today, 25 kids?. So your roughly talking a 4 kids per class increase, which represents between a 15 - 20% increase in class size. That if we have 3 classes in each grade level.

[Unregistered]

With the onslaught of Baby Boomer's now in there 60's, what is the debate about what Baby Boomer's really think about building new Senior Centers. You see, I do not consider myself as part of the bingo and knitting set. I see today's future seniors as more educated and have more interests and opportunities to explore the world around us.

Walpole is debating about buiding a new Senior Center, but if we do proceed, we must re-define what a Senior Center should now become.

[Unregistered]

http://www.tauntongazette.com/politicker/state/x981213530/Medfield-Rep-Dan-Winslow-uses-discount-ticket-website-to-fundraise?img=3

And this is our representative? Why don't you just tell them: "FREE BEER-VOTE FOR ME"

Why didn't he say that??
Because the beer wasn't free. In the future you might want to read the article before you link it.

[Unregistered]

With the onslaught of Baby Boomer's now in there 60's, what is the debate about what Baby Boomer's really think about building new Senior Centers. You see, I do not consider myself as part of the bingo and knitting set. I see today's future seniors as more educated and have more interests and opportunities to explore the world around us.

Walpole is debating about buiding a new Senior Center, but if we do proceed, we must re-define what a Senior Center should now become.

As the author of this thread, I am in my 60's.

[Unregistered]

As the author of this thread, I am in my 60's.

What it ought not become is a day care center for the elderly. The PC types will not allow it to be called a senior center,it will be called an adult center.The issue of daily content is acually quite complex i.e,those from 60-70 require x,those from 70-80 require y, those above 80 require z. Content of quality programing will keep it from becoming a cement wasteland

[Sparky]

With the onslaught of Baby Boomer's now in there 60's, what is the debate about what Baby Boomer's really think about building new Senior Centers. You see, I do not consider myself as part of the bingo and knitting set. I see today's future seniors as more educated and have more interests and opportunities to explore the world around us.

Walpole is debating about buiding a new Senior Center, but if we do proceed, we must re-define what a Senior Center should now become.

Correct. What they could really use is a modern new library with lots of meeting rooms, a small auditorium for events, and up-to-date computer/internet connections.

[Sparky]

I assume that this would impact the Johnson, Fisher, Elm, WHS only. (and won't that be an entertaining hot-potato toss when that time comes.)

You do understand that 12 kids per grade is a substantial increase in per classroom size, do you not? It's certainly enough to make the teacher's union gripe about class size. What's the average class size in Walpole today, 25 kids?. So your roughly talking a 4 kids per class increase, which represents between a 15 - 20% increase in class size. That if we have 3 classes in each grade level.

The site is almost equidistant from the two middle schools, as the crow flies. And it's not much farther from Old Post than from Fisher. It is very centrally located, so it will presumably result in a complete school redistricting. (Hmm. Centrally located. Would have been a good spot for a new police/fire facility.)

Also note: there are far more than 3 classes at each grade level. More like 10. There are about 4000 students in the school system, so an increase of 117 represents about 3%. It's significant, but your numbers are overstated.

177 kids at an annual cost of $11,500/per student comes to $1.35M. Estimated annual tax revenue for 200 units at $4000/unit is $800,000. The net cost to the town will be roughly a half million dollars per year.

[Unregistered]

Correct. What they could really use is a modern new library with lots of meeting rooms, a small auditorium for events, and up-to-date computer/internet connections.

You just described the new library

[Unregistered]

The site is almost equidistant from the two middle schools, as the crow flies. And it's not much farther from Old Post than from Fisher. It is very centrally located, so it will presumably result in a complete school redistricting. (Hmm. Centrally located. Would have been a good spot for a new police/fire facility.)

Also note: there are far more than 3 classes at each grade level. More like 10. There are about 4000 students in the school system, so an increase of 117 represents about 3%. It's significant, but your numbers are overstated.

177 kids at an annual cost of $11,500/per student comes to $1.35M. Estimated annual tax revenue for 200 units at $4000/unit is $800,000. The net cost to the town will be roughly a half million dollars per year.

It's always fun when people consider children to be "costs" instead of people.

[Sparky]

It's always fun when people consider children to be "costs" instead of people.

Are you kidding me? Is that all you have to bring to the table? This is a discussion about the cost of providing an education. Regardless of how much you want to invest in children, the discussion relies on a quantification of costs on a per student basis in order to make a decision about how to best allot resources to serve the town.

I'm a longstanding supporter of public school systems. For you to insinuate that my giving the issue some level of analytic thought somehow represents a heartless attitude on my part is insulting to me, and does your own cause a great disservice as you are offending your own support base. It's comments like yours that make people cynical about the decisions made by school advocates. You imply that anything other than a blank check to the schools is somehow anti-school and anti-children. It's not. You've exposed your own prejudicial approach toward municipal decisions that should be made in the best interest of the entire community.

[Unregistered]

What is that enormous building going up along Route 1 South, inside the Walpole Park South Industrial Park?
I haven't heard anything about it. Information would be appreciated.

[Unregistered]

So how many kids were actually added to the school system by the preserve? How come we never hear actual numbers instead of doom and gloom speculation of what could happen? Let's not forget that even with 244 units they are not all full at any given time (the are still renting units today) and there is always turnover. The same will hold true for the Preserve II at the woodworker's site. As far as your 200+ kids being added that is complete speculation where even the selectmen were not going with their doom and gloom estimates.

They were estimating about 117 kids in a 200 unit complex (.58 kids per unit). Worst case that would put the potential population at about 146 kids (roughly 12 kids per grade on average).

it is not only the # of kids that come out of "affordable" housing projects it is the $$$ cost of an education and level of services each one of those children will require!! And is mandated by law to be paid for by the TOWN OF WALPOLE!!! just to remind you the TOWN OF WALPOLE is YOU AND I!!!! We will have to pay, pay and pay again. Less money for our children, less money for police & fire and less for seniors.

[Unregistered]

The site is almost equidistant from the two middle schools, as the crow flies. And it's not much farther from Old Post than from Fisher. It is very centrally located, so it will presumably result in a complete school redistricting. (Hmm. Centrally located. Would have been a good spot for a new police/fire facility.)

Also note: there are far more than 3 classes at each grade level. More like 10. There are about 4000 students in the school system, so an increase of 117 represents about 3%. It's significant, but your numbers are overstated.

177 kids at an annual cost of $11,500/per student comes to $1.35M. Estimated annual tax revenue for 200 units at $4000/unit is $800,000. The net cost to the town will be roughly a half million dollars per year.

In regards to your centrally located comment and the new police/fire facility....I think the study done by the Master Planning Implementation Commitee that was mentioned in last week's times is great and long overdue. I just wish they would have completed that (with the woodworkers site in the mix) before coming to the town on the purchase of woodworker's site. I suspect you would have seen a different outcome had they done that.

[Unregistered]

What is that enormous building going up along Route 1 South, inside the Walpole Park South Industrial Park?
I haven't heard anything about it. Information would be appreciated.

It's just another building in Walpole Park South. I don't think it's any bigger than the buildings that are already there, and it's owned by the same person who owns the rest of them. I believe it's going to be occupied by a shipping company. DHL maybe? I'm not sure, and I could be wrong, but it is being built with an occupant ready to move in, not as a building that will sit empty with hopes of somebody coming in.

[Unregistered]

In regards to your centrally located comment and the new police/fire facility....I think the study done by the Master Planning Implementation Commitee that was mentioned in last week's times is great and long overdue. I just wish they would have completed that (with the woodworkers site in the mix) before coming to the town on the purchase of woodworker's site. I suspect you would have seen a different outcome had they done that.

I would agree. I would have voted in favor of Woodworker's, if there had been a plan that was well thought out. It was foolish to ask the taxpayer to spend millions of dollars, with no plan for the property. Especially with the track record of private control and underuse of public land that has taken hold at Adam's Farm. I voted for Adams Farm many moons ago, and I am now sorry that I did. I do not like a group of neighbors and "friends" controlling public land. I find their "exclusivity" offensive. Under the guise of "maintaining the land for PASSIVE recreation", a small clique of people have succeeded in controlling private land for their own personal tranquility and backyard desires. 100% of why I voted against Woodworkers, is what I have seen take place up at Adams Farm.

I want playing fields at Adams Farm! The MPIC recommendation to use Robbins Road is ridiculous. That street could not handle the traffic for the same reason it could not handle the traffic from a police station. The outlets on either side of Robbins Road are a disaster. Plimpton and North are a hazardous intersection with 1A already, and Robbins and 27 is a regular accident site. But once again, we ignore the obvious use of Adams Farm, to protect the interests of the elite and their tax payer funded back yard.

[Unregistered]

Read the attached from Sam Obars' blog and be careful who you donate to:

http://www.samobar.com/180/?x=entry:entry111016-134237

[Unregistered]

The site is almost equidistant from the two middle schools, as the crow flies. And it's not much farther from Old Post than from Fisher. It is very centrally located, so it will presumably result in a complete school redistricting. (Hmm. Centrally located. Would have been a good spot for a new police/fire facility.)

Also note: there are far more than 3 classes at each grade level. More like 10. There are about 4000 students in the school system, so an increase of 117 represents about 3%. It's significant, but your numbers are overstated.

177 kids at an annual cost of $11,500/per student comes to $1.35M. Estimated annual tax revenue for 200 units at $4000/unit is $800,000. The net cost to the town will be roughly a half million dollars per year.

25 kids at an annual cost of $11,500/per student comes to $287,500. Estimated annual tax revenue for 234 units at $4000/unit is $936,000. The net GAIN to the town will be roughly $650,000 per year which I think should cover any additional service needs (police/fire, etc.) Is it possible the "No" voters can say "Told you so" to Mr. Kraus?

[Unregistered]

25 kids at an annual cost of $11,500/per student comes to $287,500. Estimated annual tax revenue for 234 units at $4000/unit is $936,000. The net GAIN to the town will be roughly $650,000 per year which I think should cover any additional service needs (police/fire, etc.) Is it possible the "No" voters can say "Told you so" to Mr. Kraus?

Then all the SMART communities would be building skyscrapers to "capture" all this loot.

[Unregistered]

Then all the SMART communities would be building skyscrapers to "capture" all this loot.

Not saying it will be just 25 kids but I suspect it will be closer to that number than 177 (which was even well above what the BOS had estimated) now that actual facts are coming out in regards to what they are actually planning to build. Just using the same math to show the "impact" of 25 kids vs. 177 and the fact that all the fear mongering of millions in debt and bursting schools may have been just a wee bit overblown.

[Unregistered]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/10/18/kraft_lawyer_drafted_casino_rule_changes_in_foxbor ough/?s_campaign=8315

[Unregistered]

25 kids at an annual cost of $11,500/per student comes to $287,500. Estimated annual tax revenue for 234 units at $4000/unit is $936,000. The net GAIN to the town will be roughly $650,000 per year which I think should cover any additional service needs (police/fire, etc.) Is it possible the "No" voters can say "Told you so" to Mr. Kraus?

Your math, while interesting, is not based on any facts. Individual units are not taxed. Rather, the entire complex is assessed. When the town was reviewing the Fairfield project in 2008, it was estimated, at the top end, to be just over $400,000. Further, the number of children/unit calcualation was set at .45/unit. That means at 232 units, the total projected number of students would be 104. 104 x the $11,500 equals roughly $1.2 million. Under my math, $1.2 million minus the $400,000 (tax revenue) leaves us with roughly an $800,000 hole. Exactly what this town needs.

Please do not let the facts get in the way of a great argument.

Selectman Kraus was spot on regarding the potentially devestating impact this rental fiasco. He was justified in his comments. File this under, "Penny wise, pound foolish."

[Unregistered]

What exactly was the purchase price?


Your math, while interesting, is not based on any facts. Individual units are not taxed. Rather, the entire complex is assessed. When the town was reviewing the Fairfield project in 2008, it was estimated, at the top end, to be just over $400,000. Further, the number of children/unit calcualation was set at .45/unit. That means at 232 units, the total projected number of students would be 104. 104 x the $11,500 equals roughly $1.2 million. Under my math, $1.2 million minus the $400,000 (tax revenue) leaves us with roughly an $800,000 hole. Exactly what this town needs.

Please do not let the facts get in the way of a great argument.

Selectman Kraus was spot on regarding the potentially devestating impact this rental fiasco. He was justified in his comments. File this under, "Penny wise, pound foolish."

[Unregistered]

Your math, while interesting, is not based on any facts. Individual units are not taxed. Rather, the entire complex is assessed. When the town was reviewing the Fairfield project in 2008, it was estimated, at the top end, to be just over $400,000. Further, the number of children/unit calcualation was set at .45/unit. That means at 232 units, the total projected number of students would be 104. 104 x the $11,500 equals roughly $1.2 million. Under my math, $1.2 million minus the $400,000 (tax revenue) leaves us with roughly an $800,000 hole. Exactly what this town needs.

Please do not let the facts get in the way of a great argument.

Selectman Kraus was spot on regarding the potentially devestating impact this rental fiasco. He was justified in his comments. File this under, "Penny wise, pound foolish."

You use unsupported data put out by the selectman to then say the selectman were correct in their assumptions. Not exactly a strong argument.

[Unregistered]

Your math, while interesting, is not based on any facts. Individual units are not taxed. Rather, the entire complex is assessed. When the town was reviewing the Fairfield project in 2008, it was estimated, at the top end, to be just over $400,000. Further, the number of children/unit calcualation was set at .45/unit. That means at 232 units, the total projected number of students would be 104. 104 x the $11,500 equals roughly $1.2 million. Under my math, $1.2 million minus the $400,000 (tax revenue) leaves us with roughly an $800,000 hole. Exactly what this town needs.

Please do not let the facts get in the way of a great argument.

Selectman Kraus was spot on regarding the potentially devestating impact this rental fiasco. He was justified in his comments. File this under, "Penny wise, pound foolish."

I was merely using the same "facts" in terms of tax revenue and cost per student put forth by Sparky in post 2145 arguing "for" the purchase of the woodworkers land. I merely adjusted the number of students based on the builders estimate (based on a similar complex in a similar town with similar makeup of apartments). The fact is no ones "facts" are correct. Is it 25, 104, 177, 2000 kids? Won't know until they are built and rented. Will the revenue be $400,000, $500,000, $936,000. Again we will not know until we understand how the property will be assessed. Any other argument with any number of students, revenue, costs, etc. (including mine) is merely speculation and probably not worth getting uptight about.

You don't like the fact that in a democratic vote the townspeople overwhelmingly decided not to purchase the land you have a few choices:

1. Get the question back on the ballot (there are seveal in this town who can show you how that is done).
2. Make the new owner an offer
3. Get over it and adjust

[Unregistered]

How sad, they had good plays. Are they merging with Footlighters or something?

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=240099,00.html

[Unregistered]

So now Lynch wants another override (amount TBD) to include the hiring of 8 teachers at $1.2 million. Is it just me or is that just a wee bit excessive?

Not a good way to make a case for a tax increase in this economy.

[Unregistered]

So now Lynch wants another override (amount TBD) to include the hiring of 8 teachers at $1.2 million. Is it just me or is that just a wee bit excessive?

Not a good way to make a case for a tax increase in this economy.

I thought the same thing. He will soon correct that as it does make them look crazy.
We will now face a year being told we need to raise taxes and spend more "for the children".
Of course the uncontrolled spending is the real problem for the children. The will grow up in a country on the decline as the adults spend like crazy and sell them out to the Chinese. they will be serfs for the Chinese. But they will have nice school buildings and will have been in smaller classes to prepare them for 3rd world status.

[Unregistered]

http://www.wickedlocal.com/walpole/news/x1606472153/Police-conduct-pipe-bust-at-Walpole-Mall-smoke-shop#axzz1bKaLSpga

and we are talking about cutting costs at the PD?

lets face it, Walpole was always a mecca for drugs. This is part of our local history and its known far and wide. Do we really need to run another business out of Walpole?

[Unregistered]

Has everyone seen this?

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/possible-mumps-case-in-walpole-20111021

[Unregistered]

I thought the same thing. He will soon correct that as it does make them look crazy.
We will now face a year being told we need to raise taxes and spend more "for the children".
Of course the uncontrolled spending is the real problem for the children. The will grow up in a country on the decline as the adults spend like crazy and sell them out to the Chinese. they will be serfs for the Chinese. But they will have nice school buildings and will have been in smaller classes to prepare them for 3rd world status.

Schools will ask for over $2million( general override), Municipal will ask for ??( general override), others will ask for $1 1/2 million to purchase Sunnyrock farm ( debt exclusion override).
In addition you can bet they will all want RAISES!! Where/when will it all end? "They" get $63 million now( $1million two hundred and eleven thousand each and every week ), I can no longer stand to hear" it is for the children" when over spending" sticks it to the very same children"in the future
Note:
General override stays on the tax rate forever, Debt exclusion ends in 20 years

[Unregistered]

Gee whiz, guys. Why is this board always rehashing old news like the passage of the library override and the defeat of the Walpole Woodworkers override? It's over. There's so many other issues and the selectmen should be looking forward not backwards. Both the library and the housing development will be drawing more people downtown and hopefully help the local businesses. That's a positive....not a negative. It seems that most issues are evaluated on how they will impact schools. More specifically on how more revenue can be generated for schools or how many more children will be added to a classroom. Legitimate issues but schools are only one segment of our great town. Can the board of selectmen have a broader perspective, please?

[Unregistered]

Schools will ask for over $2million( general override), Municipal will ask for ??( general override), others will ask for $1 1/2 million to purchase Sunnyrock farm ( debt exclusion override).
In addition you can bet they will all want RAISES!! Where/when will it all end? "They" get $63 million now( $1million two hundred and eleven thousand each and every week ), I can no longer stand to hear" it is for the children" when over spending" sticks it to the very same children"in the future
Note:
General override stays on the tax rate forever, Debt exclusion ends in 20 years

Two questions

1) Who are "they"???

2) How did you arrive at the $1,211,000 figure every week?

To be clear, I am asking for clarification, I just do not know who or what money you are referring to.

[3cAF6d]

I'm not the original poster but I can do third grade math. Walpole takes in 63m a yr and 2/3 goes to the schools.

[Unregistered]

This fiscal years budget takes in 68.4 million dollars
of this the schools are 33.5 million( remember that insurance is elsewhere )

5 years ago in fiscal year '07 it was 59.7 milliom
of this the schools were 28.8 million

therefore the town treasury took in 8.7 million than 5 years ago
therefore the schools took in 4.7 million more than 5 years ago

So what you say !! I remember reading about raises not about more teachers

[Unregistered]

First, here are the 2010 number in terms of per student breakdown, from highest to lowest (sorted from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/finance.aspx?orgcode=03070000&orgtypecode=5&leftNavID=501&fycode=2010 :)

Classroom and specialist teachers' salary $4,228
Benefits (insurance, retirement, etc) $2,186
Pupil Service $1,265
Other teaching services $1,104
Operations and Maintenance $898
Instructional leadership $818
Payment to Out-of-District Schools $805
Guidance, counseling, testing $277
Administration $262
Instructional materials, Equipment, Technology $242
Professional development $113

TOTAL (WALPOLE): $11,971
STATE AVERAGE: $13,055

Comments: You're assumption neglects the fact that special education requirements necessitate that each classroom requires teaching assistants and teaching specialists. This is usually the state-mandated budget-buster; your complaints should be with the state of Massachusetts, rather than the town of Walpole. As a result, the base salary per classroom (in your example) comes to $93,000 per classroom. That comes to about one teacher, and one-half of an assistant or specialist. Benefits then boost the cost by roughly 50%.

Items that go into these "catch-all" categories probably include things like transportation costs, cafeteria, secretarial, sports and activities, etc. The Out-of-District costs are usually related to Special Ed. If a town's school system cannot provide a service required for special education, it is on the hook to pay for it elsewhere.

There's a ton of information on the web site listed above if you really want a lot of details.

State average 13,055 compared to Walpole is not that much of a difference to warrant tax increases or another override.

[Unregistered]

First, here are the 2010 number in terms of per student breakdown, from highest to lowest (sorted from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/finance.aspx?orgcode=03070000&orgtypecode=5&leftNavID=501&fycode=2010 :)

Classroom and specialist teachers' salary $4,228
Benefits (insurance, retirement, etc) $2,186
Pupil Service $1,265
Other teaching services $1,104
Operations and Maintenance $898
Instructional leadership $818
Payment to Out-of-District Schools $805
Guidance, counseling, testing $277
Administration $262
Instructional materials, Equipment, Technology $242
Professional development $113

TOTAL (WALPOLE): $11,971
STATE AVERAGE: $13,055

Comments: You're assumption neglects the fact that special education requirements necessitate that each classroom requires teaching assistants and teaching specialists. This is usually the state-mandated budget-buster; your complaints should be with the state of Massachusetts, rather than the town of Walpole. As a result, the base salary per classroom (in your example) comes to $93,000 per classroom. That comes to about one teacher, and one-half of an assistant or specialist. Benefits then boost the cost by roughly 50%.

Items that go into these "catch-all" categories probably include things like transportation costs, cafeteria, secretarial, sports and activities, etc. The Out-of-District costs are usually related to Special Ed. If a town's school system cannot provide a service required for special education, it is on the hook to pay for it elsewhere.

There's a ton of information on the web site listed above if you really want a lot of details.

1. Benefits are clearly a BUDGET BUSTER! This is where the public sector is killing the tax payer. Benefits for government employees continue to FAR OUT PACE the private sector, and the tax payer can no longer afford it.

2. You have failed to include the extensive revenue sources of the school system. This revenue is above and beyond the town budget contribution. Schools charge for parking, buses, sports etc., there are also significant reimbursements from state and government agences.

3. I thought all capital costs and maintenance costs for schools were under the town budget, not the school budget. I am not certain what your "maintenance" category includes? I recall reading in the Walpole Times that the plowing budget for the town includes the schools as well.

4. Administration would certainly include secretaries and other non-teaching personnel.

5. These categories seem redundant, and in need of management and cost control :
Pupil Service $1,265
Other teaching services $1,104
Combined $2,369 (more than 1/2 of the teacher and specialist pay)

Instructional leadership $ 818
Professional development $ 113
Instr mat, Equip, Tech $ 242
Combined $1173(More than 1/4 of what we pay teachers is spent to train and develop/yr?)

6. The figures you quote are for what the website used states are the 3961 students in Walpole Public Schools. 3961_X_$11971/pupil_=_$48,000,000 budget. Previous posters quote a school budget of $33,500,000. If I take insurance out of the $48,000,000 website figures (supposedly insurance is not in the $33.5 mill figure) I get $48,000,000_-_$8,600,000_=$39,400,000. None of these figures add up. The WPS school website does not have the budget anywhere that I can find. If the schools want more money, they better be prepared to be more transparent and forthcoming, otherwise it just ends up looking like creative accounting.

I want to see it all in one place. Revenue from the town, revenue from school fees, re-mbursement from medicare etc., what costs the town bares separately from the budget, and expenses with MUCH MORE detail. If the schools are not going to educate the taxpayer in detail, and justify their fiscal responsibility, I will be unable to support them. If they can substantiate the need, I will support them.

[Unregistered]

First, here are the 2010 number in terms of per student breakdown, from highest to lowest (sorted from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/finance.aspx?orgcode=03070000&orgtypecode=5&leftNavID=501&fycode=2010 :)

Classroom and specialist teachers' salary $4,228
Benefits (insurance, retirement, etc) $2,186
Pupil Service $1,265
Other teaching services $1,104
Operations and Maintenance $898
Instructional leadership $818
Payment to Out-of-District Schools $805
Guidance, counseling, testing $277
Administration $262
Instructional materials, Equipment, Technology $242
Professional development $113

TOTAL (WALPOLE): $11,971
STATE AVERAGE: $13,055

Comments: You're assumption neglects the fact that special education requirements necessitate that each classroom requires teaching assistants and teaching specialists. This is usually the state-mandated budget-buster; your complaints should be with the state of Massachusetts, rather than the town of Walpole. As a result, the base salary per classroom (in your example) comes to $93,000 per classroom. That comes to about one teacher, and one-half of an assistant or specialist. Benefits then boost the cost by roughly 50%.

Items that go into these "catch-all" categories probably include things like transportation costs, cafeteria, secretarial, sports and activities, etc. The Out-of-District costs are usually related to Special Ed. If a town's school system cannot provide a service required for special education, it is on the hook to pay for it elsewhere.

There's a ton of information on the web site listed above if you really want a lot of details.

Our neighbor Medfield, is an interesting story.... They spend FAR less than us per pupil, $10,741, ... and if I recall correctly, they are somewhere around the second best highschool in the state. They spend $300 MORE per pupil in teacher salary,... but $1100 LESS IN BENEFITS !!!

More money does not necessarily equate to better results. If Medfield is spending $1200 less per student than Walpole already, an over-ride will only expand the gap. I just am not certain what we will be getting for more money spent, and I am now uncertain if more money cannot be found for additional teachers by looking at the elephant in the room.... BENEFITS. Benefits are a long standing problem in Walpole budgeting. More money is a way to avoid the problem.

Gains regarding benefits have been made recently for tax payers. Unfortunately, the gains have gotten us to where everyone else was 10 or 15 years ago. Grand-fathing in existing employees for old benefit levels will continue o strangle the town. Someone in town government needs to address this obvious failure.

[Unregistered]

Does the Walpole per pupil expenditure include building maintenance, utilities , Health insurance and other benefits on the municipal side of the budget?

[Unregistered]

It is clear that Walpole is being set to be the train depot and junkyard of an enormous casino complex at Foxboro stadium.

Our traditional Massachusetts small town will be devasted by this loss of atmosphere and repect. We are not the town that should suffer from all these nuisances. Why Walpole? No political clout?

We have the prison; that is enough.

How did this casino bill pass under the cover of darkness. Shame on these representatives who have sold us out. After one year of retiring from politics they are eligible to make big money from these owners.

Every survey shows that we are opposed to casinos in this area.

Who makes all the money. What has happened to this state. And town.

[Unregistered]

First, here are the 2010 number in terms of per student breakdown, from highest to lowest (sorted from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/finance.aspx?orgcode=03070000&orgtypecode=5&leftNavID=501&fycode=2010 :)

Classroom and specialist teachers' salary $4,228
Benefits (insurance, retirement, etc) $2,186
Pupil Service $1,265
Other teaching services $1,104
Operations and Maintenance $898
Instructional leadership $818
Payment to Out-of-District Schools $805
Guidance, counseling, testing $277
Administration $262
Instructional materials, Equipment, Technology $242
Professional development $113

TOTAL (WALPOLE): $11,971
STATE AVERAGE: $13,055

Comments: You're assumption neglects the fact that special education requirements necessitate that each classroom requires teaching assistants and teaching specialists. This is usually the state-mandated budget-buster; your complaints should be with the state of Massachusetts, rather than the town of Walpole. As a result, the base salary per classroom (in your example) comes to $93,000 per classroom. That comes to about one teacher, and one-half of an assistant or specialist. Benefits then boost the cost by roughly 50%.

Items that go into these "catch-all" categories probably include things like transportation costs, cafeteria, secretarial, sports and activities, etc. The Out-of-District costs are usually related to Special Ed. If a town's school system cannot provide a service required for special education, it is on the hook to pay for it elsewhere.

There's a ton of information on the web site listed above if you really want a lot of details.

Actually my complaint is with the town of Walpole (but not Walpole alone)....

We hear all the time about the state mandates and then how the funding gets pulled and I agree that sucks. Well I would like to see our school board, administrators, and town leaders grow a little more backbone and start refusing these mandates if the state is unwilling/unable to fund them. I understand that Walpole alone does not have the pull to do it but my guess is that Walpole, Sharon, Canton, Franklin, Westwood, Norwood, etc, etc. together do AND I suspect a large percentage of taxpayers would have their backs.

Instead we get "thank you sir may I have another" and another request for an override.

Will it ever happen, unfortunately, I expect not because you have a teacher's unions who sees mandates as more teachers, which means more union dues and once the dollar signs hit their eyes it is all over. It is high time we keep a close eye on places like Wisconsin who turned massive deficits into surpluses at the district level simply by reducing the influence of unions on the process of education.

[Unregistered]

I agree that alone, spending 90% of the average per pupil expenditure is not so bad by itself.

But when you look that the Median Home Value that is 129.7% of the state average, and that the Median Income is 144.6% of the state average. (This is based on the numbers from the 2010 US Census, alsol within the last 2 years), I think that this statistic moves from the not so bad category, to borderline shameful.

The BOS, School Commitee, and Mr. Boynton are funding the schools at 2/3 of the town budget, they are being as supportive as the can be with the reveunue.

But if we have these sigificantly higher property values and incomes, how do we justify not having at least average resources for our town?

Then how shameful do you think Medfield is? Their property values and average income are well above Walpole, their schools out-perform ours, and they spend less than us. Your logic doesn't work in this instance,.. which means it is faulty. I am not saying that we do or we do not need an over-ride. What I am saying is that the most relevant part of the discussion is exactly HOW are we spending our money, and exactly WHAT are we getting for it. That is how I will decide.

[Unregistered]

First, here are the 2010 number in terms of per student breakdown, from highest to lowest (sorted from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/finance.aspx?orgcode=03070000&orgtypecode=5&leftNavID=501&fycode=2010 :)

Classroom and specialist teachers' salary $4,228
Benefits (insurance, retirement, etc) $2,186
Pupil Service $1,265
Other teaching services $1,104
Operations and Maintenance $898
Instructional leadership $818
Payment to Out-of-District Schools $805
Guidance, counseling, testing $277
Administration $262
Instructional materials, Equipment, Technology $242
Professional development $113

TOTAL (WALPOLE): $11,971
STATE AVERAGE: $13,055

Comments: You're assumption neglects the fact that special education requirements necessitate that each classroom requires teaching assistants and teaching specialists. This is usually the state-mandated budget-buster; your complaints should be with the state of Massachusetts, rather than the town of Walpole. As a result, the base salary per classroom (in your example) comes to $93,000 per classroom. That comes to about one teacher, and one-half of an assistant or specialist. Benefits then boost the cost by roughly 50%.

Items that go into these "catch-all" categories probably include things like transportation costs, cafeteria, secretarial, sports and activities, etc. The Out-of-District costs are usually related to Special Ed. If a town's school system cannot provide a service required for special education, it is on the hook to pay for it elsewhere.

There's a ton of information on the web site listed above if you really want a lot of details.

I found this online. It did not have a date on it but based on the latest reference in here to FY07 I am guesing that this was around FY08. I would be interested to see these numbers now. One quation I would have is why in 3 years (FY08 to FY11) our costs per student has increased 57% ($7603 to $11971). I know the state average has increased as well but that to me seems to be the issue. we need to reign in costs not increase spending.

http://walpole-ma.gov/ResolutionState.pdf

A Resolution to the Massachusetts General Court and the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from the Town of Walpole

RESOLUTION
Be it resolved that;

WHEREAS the current funding formula under Chapter 70 of the Massachusetts General Laws allocates state aid among the cities and towns of the Commonwealth unfairly;

WHEREAS we rank 247th of 329 school districts (with enrollment of at least 50 students) in per pupil Chapter 70 aid, we receivedonly $1213 per student from the state in FY06 which is 2.8 timeslower than the statewide average of $3,441 per student, while some districts receive as much as $8800 per student;

WHEREAS Chapter 70 aid funds only 17% of our school budget, which is 2.56 times lower than the state average of 43.45%, such that Walpole spends only $7,603 per student on K-12 education while the state average cost per student is $8,591;

WHEREAS the Special Education component of our school budget hasnow reached 30% of the total school budget, with over $400,000 in unbudgeted costs for FY07 due to unanticipated move-ins, which has resulted in drastic reductions/eliminations in regular education staff and services;

WHEREAS the town of Walpole has suffered significant reductions in other forms of local aid, such as lottery money, the highway fund, and additional assistance, in the amount of approximately $334,089 per year since FY03, monies needed to support the day-to-day operations of the town;

NOW THEREFORE, the Walpole Representative Town Meeting Members hereby Petition the Legislature and the Governor to adopt legislation to restore Walpole’s chapter 70 funding, at a minimum, back to the FY03 level of $5,393,468;

NOW THEREFORE, the Walpole Representative Town Meeting Members hereby Petition the Legislature and the Governor to adopt legislation in relation to expansion of the Special Education Circuit Breaker;

NOW THEREFORE, the Walpole Representative Town Meeting Members hereby Petition the Legislature and the Governor to adopt legislation to restore the highway and additional assistance funding, at a minimum, to pre-FY03 levels; and

FURTHER, that the Town Clerk be directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Governor and Our Legislators.

[Unregistered]

I don't really worry to much about Mansfield. I don't live there, I don't vote there, and I don't have kids in their schools.

In Walpole over the last three years I have seen cuts in every school. I have seen class sizes in the mid 20s in the elementary schools, and the 30s at the middle and high schools. I have seen the teachers union make concessions on health care to save the town a million dollars a year, I've seen my kids bring home textbooks that are ten years old and falling apart. I have seen activities and classes cut due to lack of funding.

I have gone to the DOE Website and looked throught the Walpole budget. Last year my highschooler was in a class with 34 kids, I thought this is crazy why is it like this. If you look at this budget, you will see that there is no waste. From what I understand, this was the case before Supt. Lynch, my family and I just moved here three years ago. (If you are gonna start with the "not orignially Walpole" attack save it). The leaders in the school have done a great job with the resourses that they have, but I think that we have not only the means, but also the obligation to provide more resouces.

You don't neccessarily need to agree with my points, but that does not mean that they are faulty. What are your reasons for having a different opinion, or is you plan to just qualify mine as faulty without any stated reason?

I honestly do not see the issue with larger class sizes at the high school. Is your child planning to go to college? If so, they better get used to larger class sizes and less one on one attention. Many of the introductory classes at UMASS are 200+ kids. I know there are a lot of college prep courses at the high school. Maybe part of that prep needs to be dealing with larger classes.

I agree that we should be working to reduce the class sizes at the middle school and especially the elementary schools. I think you accomplish that by looking at the spending at the high school. How many classes are offered and what is the number of kids in each class? If there are classes (elective) with less than 10 students are they necessary? Do we really need to be teaching 5 different languages at the high school?

[Unregistered]

I don't really worry to much about Mansfield. I don't live there, I don't vote there, and I don't have kids in their schools.

In Walpole over the last three years I have seen cuts in every school. I have seen class sizes in the mid 20s in the elementary schools, and the 30s at the middle and high schools. I have seen the teachers union make concessions on health care to save the town a million dollars a year, I've seen my kids bring home textbooks that are ten years old and falling apart. I have seen activities and classes cut due to lack of funding.

I have gone to the DOE Website and looked throught the Walpole budget. Last year my highschooler was in a class with 34 kids, I thought this is crazy why is it like this. If you look at this budget, you will see that there is no waste. From what I understand, this was the case before Supt. Lynch, my family and I just moved here three years ago. (If you are gonna start with the "not orignially Walpole" attack save it). The leaders in the school have done a great job with the resourses that they have, but I think that we have not only the means, but also the obligation to provide more resouces.

You don't neccessarily need to agree with my points, but that does not mean that they are faulty. What are your reasons for having a different opinion, or is you plan to just qualify mine as faulty without any stated reason?

You are using state averages to make your point. Those are the figures of other towns. Now, when a figure does not suit your logic, you say you do not care about other towns. You cannot have it both ways.

I am not for or against an override. I need more info. I am simply pointing out that more money and state averages are of no interest to me (which is I guess what you are now saying....). As for your comment about "not originally from Walpole", well you are just flying off the handle. I was not born here either. I do not care if you arrived in Walpole 5 generations ago or yesterday. You are sill entitled to your one vote, which has just as much weight as mine.

I am simply pointing out that to say we need to spend more money because of state averages or Walpole average income (which is what the post I responded to said) is faulty logic. The point was made with Medfield, not Mansfield. They have higher per capita income, higher home values, and a far better school system (one of the best in the state!!). They spend less per pupil than we do, and ALL of that savings is in benefits.

Your opinion is your own, and is not wrong or right. It is simply that, your opinion. I to am entitled to mine. But I do know that we offer far more generous benefits than many surrounding towns. Concessions have been made in Walpole. But the rest of communities around us have continued to make concessions as well. Which means we continue to be out of step.

By the way, you do realize that the "new" split of 70% / 30% for health care is only for new employees. The entire rest of the payroll in grandfathered in at 80% / 20%. It will take 20 or 30 years to work that through the system.....

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;14052]You are using state averages to make your point. Those are the figures of other towns. Now, when a figure does not suit your logic, you say you do not care about other towns. You cannot have it both ways.

I am not for or against an override. I need more info. I am simply pointing out that more money and state averages are of no interest to me (which is I guess what you are now saying....). As for your comment about "not originally from Walpole", well you are just flying off the handle. I was not born here either. I do not care if you arrived in Walpole 5 generations ago or yesterday. You are sill entitled to your one vote, which has just as much weight as mine.

I am simply pointing out that to say we need to spend more money because of state averages or Walpole average income (which is what the post I responded to said) is faulty logic. The point was made with Medfield, not Mansfield. They have higher per capita income, higher home values, and a far better school system (one of the best in the state!!). They spend less per pupil than we do, and ALL of that savings is in benefits.

Your opinion is your own, and is not wrong or right. It is simply that, your opinion. I to am entitled to mine. But I do know that we offer far more generous benefits than many surrounding towns. Concessions have been made in Walpole. But the rest of communities around us have continued to make concessions as well. Which means we continue to be out of step.

By the way, you do realize that the "new" split of 70% / 30% for health care is only for new employees. The entire rest of the payroll in grandfathered in at 80% / 20%. It will take 20 or 30 years to work that through the system.....[/QUOTE/]

My use of state averages was in response to somebody use of them before, my real reasons for supporting a potential override are the ones that I came across studying the budget. Please don't tell me to "Whoa...Cowboy", I have just as much right to stating my opinion here as you do.

Also, you are right that the "new" spilt is 70/30, but that is almost ten years old. (I think 2001 or 2002). The concession made last years was not the split, but the type of insurance, that is why the savings were immediate and did not take 20 or 30 years to come through. I don't know the exact percentages of how many teachers are in what split at the schools, but given my best guess ages of the teachers my three kids have had over the 3 years, I'd say at least half of them were less than 35, and aleast a quarter were under 30. Since they are all college graduates at least, based on age alone I'd say about 40-50% of the teachers were hired after 70/30 was in place, and that does not account for the teachers who did not start at Walpole right out of college. I am sure that the actual percentage is higher than that.

[Sparky]

Public school performance is best correlated with socio-economics. You could move all the families of Medfield into Brockton, and immediately Brockton would have one of the highest performing school systems in the state. You could move all the families in Brockton to Medfield, and their schools would struggle.

If you want improved school performance, then attract better families. You could put 50 Westwood kids in a Walpole classroom and they would still excel. You could put 5 Lawrence kids in a Walpole classroom, and they'd still struggle. It's amazing how this dominating socioeconomic factor is downplayed in assessment of public schools performance.

Now setting that aside, for a given set of kids in a given town in a given school system, the kids will perform better if you give the schools more money, and they will perform worse with less money. But that incremental difference is a much smaller factor than the households in which the kids live, and how much their parents value education.

The hard part is figuring out when you are near a tipping point for the extra money making a worthwhile difference. 7 years ago we were near a tipping point and we passed a general override and it made a big difference in keeping our schools at a high quality. That was the right thing to do at the time. 3 years ago we weren't near a tipping point, and we declined an override, and I don't think our schools suffered very much. That was the right thing to do at the time. I haven't made my mind up yet where we stand this year, so I'll need to be convinced that we are near a tipping point once again.

[Unregistered]

"The hard part is figuring out when you are near a tipping point for the extra money making a worthwhile difference. 7 years ago we were near a tipping point and we passed a general override and it made a big difference in keeping our schools at a high quality. "

It was 10 years ago, not 7. The last override was passed in 2001.

My humble opinion, with kids at every level in the school system, is that we are at that tipping point again. Supt. Lynch saved us the last time around, when the override failed - he came in and managed the budget much better than the previous Super and the schools were okay.

[Unregistered]

"The hard part is figuring out when you are near a tipping point for the extra money making a worthwhile difference. 7 years ago we were near a tipping point and we passed a general override and it made a big difference in keeping our schools at a high quality. "

It was 10 years ago, not 7. The last override was passed in 2001.

My humble opinion, with kids at every level in the school system, is that we are at that tipping point again. Supt. Lynch saved us the last time around, when the override failed - he came in and managed the budget much better than the previous Super and the schools were okay.

When you talk about a tipping point look toward Greece.
Constant spending will put us at a tipping point and there will be no return. When the US goes bankrupt you wont have to worry about trivia like class size in the high school.

[Unregistered]

"The hard part is figuring out when you are near a tipping point for the extra money making a worthwhile difference. 7 years ago we were near a tipping point and we passed a general override and it made a big difference in keeping our schools at a high quality. "

It was 10 years ago, not 7. The last override was passed in 2001.

My humble opinion, with kids at every level in the school system, is that we are at that tipping point again. Supt. Lynch saved us the last time around, when the override failed - he came in and managed the budget much better than the previous Super and the schools were okay.

Then it is not necessarily the money but rather how well it is managed. BTW what is a tipping point?

[Sparky]

Then it is not necessarily the money but rather how well it is managed. BTW what is a tipping point?

Not necessarily. At at tipping point, it IS the money.

A tipping point is when things are at a critical point of balance, such that a small change in one direction or another can have a huge impact on outcome.

[Unregistered]

Not necessarily. At at tipping point, it IS the money.

A tipping point is when things are at a critical point of balance, such that a small change in one direction or another can have a huge impact on outcome.

Great. Then the tipping point in the right direction was better management not more money. Thanks for clearing this up.

[Unregistered]

Great. Then the tipping point in the right direction was better management not more money. Thanks for clearing this up.

Now that we know it is management that makes a difference , i have a deal for the schools money crisis.
Sign a pledge to take no raise (of any kind ) for three years and I will vote yes to a $1.5 million override.

[Unregistered]

Now that we know it is management that makes a difference , i have a deal for the schools money crisis.
Sign a pledge to take no raise (of any kind ) for three years and I will vote yes to a $1.5 million override.

We have been giving raises every year, without fail. The school committee and superintendent are the ones who come to us with the "great" new contract. The one that gives raises... raises.... raises... every single year. Without fail. Now these same folks are saying we need more money,... not less spending ... thanks to the raises they just gave! This is lunacy. We need more money because we are pretending that public sector employees live in a different economy than the rest of us. Even while the taxpayer who funds this is out of work, has taken a pay cut, or received no raise themselves.

Worse yet,... with no over-ride we will just get fewer highly paid employees. Voting "NO" on an over-ride will not fix the mess of a contract we have negotiated ourselves into. So what do we do? Give more tax $$ so that folks who are not us can keep getting raises as if all is right with the world?

To high-jack a line from George Bush... I say "No new raises!!!!"... for many years to come.

[Unregistered]

Did I see somewhere that there is talk of building another middle school in town?

[Unregistered]

wat a headline: Civil War item, that basically trashes the rebels, and coach lee tribute praising them.

this town so totally screwed up!

[Unregistered]

wat a headline: Civil War item, that basically trashes the rebels, and coach lee tribute praising them.

this town so totally screwed up!

Exactly what are you referring to?

[Unregistered]

Exactly what are you referring to?

its the town dark secret. Shh

[Unregistered]

Astounding that the School Committee has received so many questions/complaints about increasing class size. The timing is incredible given their stated stance of wanting an override. From an email I just received from Mary Mortali.


The School Committee has received many questions and complaints about the increasing class sizes, concerning test scores and the need to provide all students with an educational foundation to be successful. We would urge all parents to attend this meeting because thoughtful solutions will require your input. We hope to both explain the effects of the available revenue for the last few years and listen to the concerns you have about its impact on children.

Why does this seem too coincidental? And not quite believable?

Why can't they just tell us that they have fixed costs, the state is screwing us (what the state doesn't like it when we vote Republican?) in Ch.70 money, the special ed costs are mandated and there's no getting around them, and we're out of money. Why always the "class size" bugaboo?

And quite honestly, it's not like we don't spend enough on the schools. I mean, we're allocating 66% of the entire town budget to the schools! That's not chump change.

I personally believe that the schools have to do a better job of telling us where the money has gone, why the costs have increased so much, and then list out what they've already done to cut spending to the bone. After that, it's just a matter of numbers.

Unfortunately, the town is going to remember when they cried "Override!" last time, it didn't pass, and then suddenly they ended the year with a surplus.

...may you live in interesting times...

[Unregistered]

Astounding that the School Committee has received so many questions/complaints about increasing class size. The timing is incredible given their stated stance of wanting an override. From an email I just received from Mary Mortali.



Why does this seem too coincidental? And not quite believable?

Why can't they just tell us that they have fixed costs, the state is screwing us (what the state doesn't like it when we vote Republican?) in Ch.70 money, the special ed costs are mandated and there's no getting around them, and we're out of money. Why always the "class size" bugaboo?

And quite honestly, it's not like we don't spend enough on the schools. I mean, we're allocating 66% of the entire town budget to the schools! That's not chump change.

I personally believe that the schools have to do a better job of telling us where the money has gone, why the costs have increased so much, and then list out what they've already done to cut spending to the bone. After that, it's just a matter of numbers.

Unfortunately, the town is going to remember when they cried "Override!" last time, it didn't pass, and then suddenly they ended the year with a surplus.

...may you live in interesting times...

The school committee is always going on about fixed costs. The biggest cost they have is payroll. They negotiate the contract but then complain about the "fixed cost" of the contract. Well then don't agree to a contract you can't afford.

How is it they get away with this? They control most of their costs but act as if they have no idea why their budget is a mess.

[Unregistered]

The school committee is always going on about fixed costs. The biggest cost they have is payroll. They negotiate the contract but then complain about the "fixed cost" of the contract. Well then don't agree to a contract you can't afford.

How is it they get away with this? They control most of their costs but act as if they have no idea why their budget is a mess.

Every 1% increase in salaries=a $300,000 increase in the school budget . 2%=...3%= you do the math.
Follow the money and you follow the problem

[Sparky]

I'm not advocating an override because I haven't seen enough information yet, but let me argue the other side for moment:

Do you not have any concern that, if the School Committee gets tougher with raises (and to some degree they have already done this), that the best teachers will seek employment at one of the many neighboring towns that pays much higher taxes than we do, and thus are able to hand out higher raises? Why wouldn't you have this concern?

[Sparky]

Here's a sorted list (high to low) of average family tax bill for surrounding towns, and their combined (Math and English) Composite Performance Index (CPI) for the most recent 10th Grade MCAS tests. Per my previous post, the downside risk on negotiating teachers salaries is that you lose teachers to the school systems that have more tax revenue to work with. You can examine for yourself what that means in standardized test performance.

Dover $12,074.....MCAS_CPI=198.3
Westwood $8594.....MCAS_CPI=196.9
Medfield $8477.....MCAS_CPI=198.2
Sharon $8029.....MCAS_CPI=197.5
Needham $7719.....MCAS_CPI=194.6
Milton $7134.....MCAS_CPI=190.6
Holliston $6754.....MCAS_CPI=195.5
Norfolk $6391.....MCAS_CPI=190.4 (King Phillip Regional HS)
Medway $5992.....MCAS_CPI=195.1
Natick $5561.....MCAS_CPI=194.1
WALPOLE $5538.....MCAS_CPI=194.2
Franklin $4676.....MCAS_CPI=192.9
Wrentham $5330.....MCAS_CPI=191.4
Millis $5221.....MCAS_CPI=196.2
Foxboro $4994.....MCAS_CPI=193.2
Norwood $3662.....MCAS_CPI=188.4

[Unregistered]

Here's a sorted list (high to low) of average family tax bill for surrounding towns, and their combined (Math and English) Composite Performance Index (CPI) for the most recent 10th Grade MCAS tests. Per my previous post, the downside risk on negotiating teachers salaries is that you lose teachers to the school systems that have more tax revenue to work with. You can examine for yourself what that means in standardized test performance.

Dover $12,074.....MCAS_CPI=198.3
Westwood $8594.....MCAS_CPI=196.9
Medfield $8477.....MCAS_CPI=198.2
Sharon $8029.....MCAS_CPI=197.5
Needham $7719.....MCAS_CPI=194.6
Milton $7134.....MCAS_CPI=190.6
Holliston $6754.....MCAS_CPI=195.5
Norfolk $6391.....MCAS_CPI=190.4 (King Phillip Regional HS)
Medway $5992.....MCAS_CPI=195.1
Natick $5561.....MCAS_CPI=194.1
WALPOLE $5538.....MCAS_CPI=194.2
Franklin $4676.....MCAS_CPI=192.9
Wrentham $5330.....MCAS_CPI=191.4
Millis $5221.....MCAS_CPI=196.2
Foxboro $4994.....MCAS_CPI=193.2
Norwood $3662.....MCAS_CPI=188.4

I have never understood this logic. When you go to a store are you angry when your bill is not as high as the next person?
Do you argue with the car dealer to make sure you are paying the most possible for your new car?

Then why are you so concerned the people aren't paying enough taxes?
The product is the issue.

This arguement has always struck me as slightly less crazy than the per pupil expense bull. Boston is the highest cost in the state, want to send a child to Boston schools.

Strange this facination with trying to spend more money. But don't be surprised when the town is bankrupt.


Also note several of the towns listed above are on Moody's watch list for downgrade. Look to Europe to see where the desire for government to spend money leads.

[Unregistered]

I'm not advocating an override because I haven't seen enough information yet, but let me argue the other side for moment:

Do you not have any concern that, if the School Committee gets tougher with raises (and to some degree they have already done this), that the best teachers will seek employment at one of the many neighboring towns that pays much higher taxes than we do, and thus are able to hand out higher raises? Why wouldn't you have this concern?

Here is why:

1. We offer a significantly better benefit package than surrounding towns. Actually, it is too much better, and a noticeable part of our financial problem.

2. Surrounding towns are in the same mess as we are, and for the same reason. The last time my 12 year old told me that someone else's parents were letting their child do something I thought was foolish, I told my child "That's nice, but that is not your family and we do what makes sense for us".

Surrounding towns have the same issues we do. The piper has arrived and he needs to be paid. Their is just no more money to go around. Not here. Not in surrounding towns. We should have stopped giving out raises 3 tears ago, but our School Committee, FinCom, and Selectmen, and Town Meeting all approved raises. And now everyone is surprised we cannot afford it? And somehow we are supposed to be "worried" that the neighbors will pay more? We will loose all the good teachers to some surrounding town with a pot of money? Stats show that Walpole has one of the highest payrolls in the state per employee. Add that to employees who are mostly at 80% / 20% on benefits, and it is no secret why we cannot afford ourselves.

I appreciate your playing the devils advocate, but the thing that scares me most is continuing with this unchecked cycle of fiscal irresponsibility.

[Unregistered]

Here's a sorted list (high to low) of average family tax bill for surrounding towns, and their combined (Math and English) Composite Performance Index (CPI) for the most recent 10th Grade MCAS tests. Per my previous post, the downside risk on negotiating teachers salaries is that you lose teachers to the school systems that have more tax revenue to work with. You can examine for yourself what that means in standardized test performance.

Dover $12,074.....MCAS_CPI=198.3
Westwood $8594.....MCAS_CPI=196.9
Medfield $8477.....MCAS_CPI=198.2
Sharon $8029.....MCAS_CPI=197.5
Needham $7719.....MCAS_CPI=194.6
Milton $7134.....MCAS_CPI=190.6
Holliston $6754.....MCAS_CPI=195.5
Norfolk $6391.....MCAS_CPI=190.4 (King Phillip Regional HS)
Medway $5992.....MCAS_CPI=195.1
Natick $5561.....MCAS_CPI=194.1
WALPOLE $5538.....MCAS_CPI=194.2
Franklin $4676.....MCAS_CPI=192.9
Wrentham $5330.....MCAS_CPI=191.4
Millis $5221.....MCAS_CPI=196.2
Foxboro $4994.....MCAS_CPI=193.2
Norwood $3662.....MCAS_CPI=188.4

This is the most ludicrous logic I have ever heard! Folks in Dover pay 2.5xs more (ie. 250% more!!!) than folks in Walpole to get an extra 4 points on their math score?!?! S for a 250% increase in tax dollars we can expect a 2% increase in test scores?!?! I would suggest you sit this argument out if this is what you have to offer as a reason to spend more.

I would add tat there are a few other things to consider as well:

1. Mommy and Daddy's socio-economic status is one of the biggest indicators of academic success. We are really going to have to get to work on our neighbors take home pay if we want to keep up with Dover.

2. High income families use significant resources to tutor and prep students for exams. Perhaps what Walpole families are saving on property taxes could be used towards tutoring? I am certain with an expenditure of $1000 to $1500, each family could easily up their students score by a mere 2%. They would be $5000 ahead of Dover on property taxes, even with the Walpole tutoring costs included.

3. Dover supports almost no business. Their homeowner property taxes are significantly higher to make up for what we in Walpole collect in business revenue.

We all make lifestyle choices. We are not Dover, nor should we try to be. And imagine,... I bet they wouldn't even consider a power plant to fund schools,... they clearly have a different parent group than we...

[Sparky]

First, let me say that I simply presented a list of data. Please don't put words in my mouth.

And let's start by taking Dover off the table for comparison, because they are an outlier.

To Post #226: If I go to Stop & Shop and the manager tells me they need to raise the price of ribeye steak from $11 to $12, how do I know if that's reasonable? Well, I can go see what Big Y is charging. If they're still charging $11 for the same cut of meat, or even less, then I have a legitimate case for refusing to pay $12 at Stop & Shop. But if Big Y is already charging $12, or even more, than I know that the Stop & Shop manager is above board, and I should be willing to pay the increase if I want the higher quality meat.

That's how I view the tax list. I did not support the previous school override because their revenue had remained reasonably in line with other towns. I supported the override before that because the revenue had sunk significantly below that of other quality school systems. As I said, I'm still undecided about this one.

What criteria do you use to decide when to support an increase in revenue? Or do you always refuse?

[Unregistered]

"1. We offer a significantly better benefit package than surrounding towns. Actually, it is too much better, and a noticeable part of our financial problem."

Exactly what is better? I no longer can find the exact numbers, but I remember from the 2007 override finding that Walpole was about average in salaries, had a employess that paid a higher benefit percentage (all new employees are paying 30%, there are some longer term employees that pay 20%.) Since then most of the Unions (all but the employees at town hall) have agreeed to lower cost health care plans through negotiations. I do not remember a single instance where I would characterize Walpole as being anything more than at the average. I may be missing something, and if I am, please point it out, but I do not think that your assertion is true.

As for if we need an override, I voted no in 2007 because of what many people have pointed out, there was always magically money found at the end of the year, and there were never any cuts.

This time I am not sure yet. I understand the frustrations at growing salaries, especially short term, but I also know that in the early 2000s when my private sector raise and bonus were adding 10-15% to my income a year, municipal employees still were getting the same 1.5-3.0% they are getting now. Over the long term, the increase in salary is generally better in the private sector.

This time though, we've seen the cuts, and it has hurt the town. Fewer firestations, fewer programs at the schools, higher costs for just about everything.

I am still far from sold that an override is needed, but I am not closing my ears to their reasons and will make my mind up after seeing all the information.

[Unregistered]

"1. We offer a significantly better benefit package than surrounding towns. Actually, it is too much better, and a noticeable part of our financial problem."

Exactly what is better? I no longer can find the exact numbers, but I remember from the 2007 override finding that Walpole was about average in salaries, had a employess that paid a higher benefit percentage (all new employees are paying 30%, there are some longer term employees that pay 20%.) Since then most of the Unions (all but the employees at town hall) have agreeed to lower cost health care plans through negotiations. I do not remember a single instance where I would characterize Walpole as being anything more than at the average. I may be missing something, and if I am, please point it out, but I do not think that your assertion is true.

As for if we need an override, I voted no in 2007 because of what many people have pointed out, there was always magically money found at the end of the year, and there were never any cuts.

This time I am not sure yet. I understand the frustrations at growing salaries, especially short term, but I also know that in the early 2000s when my private sector raise and bonus were adding 10-15% to my income a year, municipal employees still were getting the same 1.5-3.0% they are getting now. Over the long term, the increase in salary is generally better in the private sector.

This time though, we've seen the cuts, and it has hurt the town. Fewer firestations, fewer programs at the schools, higher costs for just about everything.

I am still far from sold that an override is needed, but I am not closing my ears to their reasons and will make my mind up after seeing all the information.

In addition to gobbling up every available cent from the traditional budgeting the schools also gobbled up $330k from free cash, $400k+ from prison mitigation X several years,$500k from various federal stimulos packages,$200k from state pay outs to teacher unions, +++++ all while being warned that these were NON RECURRING MONEY.The problem is a combination of fiscal and managerial mis management. The piper now wants to be paid and the schools want you to do the paying so they can keep doing what they have always done,OVERSPEND!!

[Unregistered]

"1. We offer a significantly better benefit package than surrounding towns. Actually, it is too much better, and a noticeable part of our financial problem."

Exactly what is better? I no longer can find the exact numbers, but I remember from the 2007 override finding that Walpole was about average in salaries, had a employess that paid a higher benefit percentage (all new employees are paying 30%, there are some longer term employees that pay 20%.) Since then most of the Unions (all but the employees at town hall) have agreeed to lower cost health care plans through negotiations. I do not remember a single instance where I would characterize Walpole as being anything more than at the average. I may be missing something, and if I am, please point it out, but I do not think that your assertion is true.

As for if we need an override, I voted no in 2007 because of what many people have pointed out, there was always magically money found at the end of the year, and there were never any cuts.

This time I am not sure yet. I understand the frustrations at growing salaries, especially short term, but I also know that in the early 2000s when my private sector raise and bonus were adding 10-15% to my income a year, municipal employees still were getting the same 1.5-3.0% they are getting now. Over the long term, the increase in salary is generally better in the private sector.

This time though, we've seen the cuts, and it has hurt the town. Fewer firestations, fewer programs at the schools, higher costs for just about everything.

I am still far from sold that an override is needed, but I am not closing my ears to their reasons and will make my mind up after seeing all the information.

Most of our employees are on 80% / 20%, as all existing employees were grandfathered in. Only new hires get the 70% / 30%. It will take us 2 decades to transition over. Surrounding towns are at 50%/ 50% and 60% /40% , as is the private sector.

Raises have typically been far above 1% to 3% when you look at the "step" raises along with the cosy of living increase. Employees automatically get raises every year (step raise), and then we give a raise to these raises (cost of living raise).

The public sector vs private sector argument doesn't hold a lot of water with me. The private sector may have seen raises back a decade ago, but the private sector has 3 funny principles at work

1. Free Market Economy - What goes up, comes down.... and it long since has. Massive pay cuts, huge layoffs, no raises if you are lucky. Insurance costs raise at employers will. They change carriers, plans, and employee contributions at employee will... the raises helped offset this at one time, but let's face it... most private sector employees are lucky to be breaking even with where they were 10 years ago.

2. Private sector employees rarely have pensions or health care for life.... benefits that are unimaginable unless you work for the taxpayer.

3. Very few private sector employees are a part of a union. They get what they get and they don't get upset. No bargaining, no negotiating. Employees call the shots, you move on if you want. But let's face it, no one can afford to risk giving up a job these days, so you keep your mouth closed. I know plenty of people who have take 40% pay cuts, massive increases in insurance costs, or who are now "contract workers" without any benefits.

I have NEVER been a "no override" person. I have only voted against one over-ride in the past 2 decades. I would support a municipal facilities over-ride tomorrow, because our facilities are deplorable. But I cannot in good conscience support an over-ride for increasing salaries and benefits. And that is what this is about, and has been about for several years.

Nor do I want to see layoffs. It is probably a pipe dream,... but I would like to see every town employee take a 2% pay-cut and fore-go this year's raise. The budget would be balanced. Everyone would keep their job. There would be no program cuts...and it would show respect and compassion for the taxpayer who is in a much, much worse position than the employees who they support.

Crazy idea, right? The unions would be aghast... who would even think this is reasonable?!?! I will tell you who thinks it is reasonable... me.

[Unregistered]

Two years ago several members of the Finance Committee argued against giving 2-3% raises to town employees for the next year because they were very concerned about the town's budget and the state of the economy. Guess what, most of them were not asked back for another term on the Fin Comm .

[Unregistered]

Two years ago several members of the Finance Committee argued against giving 2-3% raises to town employees for the next year because they were very concerned about the town's budget and the state of the economy. Guess what, most of them were not asked back for another term on the Fin Comm .

You are correct. And those who showed the reason, judgement, and courage to speak against the status quo were replaced with a group who supported using free cash to plug the school budget in the short term... As was said at the time, we are only delaying the inevitable, and making the problem worse.

And now here we are. Worse off... no surprise. And because of the lack of balance and responsibility, I do not believe we will see this over-ride pass. Once again, a short-sited tactic brings a small victory for a little battle, and yet the war will be lost. We all loose when folks serve one select agenda at the expense of the town and common sense.

[Unregistered]

Anyone know where to get a listing of the classes offered at the high school and the enrollment in each? I agree with Superintendent Lynch that we should try to keep class sizes for math and english at the high school down but how many other classes are being offered as electives and how many people are utilizing them? Could some of these classes be eliminated in order to get the focus back on the three R's?

[Unregistered]

Two years ago several members of the Finance Committee argued against giving 2-3% raises to town employees for the next year because they were very concerned about the town's budget and the state of the economy. Guess what, most of them were not asked back for another term on the Fin Comm .

Each year the moderator can fill 5 positions on the finance committee. A new moderator ( consevative versus liberal) would be a great new start.

[Unregistered]

So the school department needs $2.5 million to close a $1.3 million dollar budget gap.
They will use that override to hire 20 more teachers. If they don't get what they want they will fire 20 teachers and they will target math, english, and social studies. At the same time they are complaining that these are the classes that are overcrowded. So there are no other areas (like electives) that they could cut to keep teachers in the most important classes? How many languages do we NEED to teach at the high school?

This just comes across as another threat like they used in 2001. "Give us what we want or we will make the most painful cuts possible". It worked then, don't let it work this time.

Let's not forget that while asking the taxpayers for another $110 each (on average) the superintendent is enjoying a fresh contract with a nice raise in it.

[Unregistered]

So the school department needs $2.5 million to close a $1.3 million dollar budget gap.
They will use that override to hire 20 more teachers. If they don't get what they want they will fire 20 teachers and they will target math, english, and social studies. At the same time they are complaining that these are the classes that are overcrowded. So there are no other areas (like electives) that they could cut to keep teachers in the most important classes? How many languages do we NEED to teach at the high school?

This just comes across as another threat like they used in 2001. "Give us what we want or we will make the most painful cuts possible". It worked then, don't let it work this time.

Let's not forget that while asking the taxpayers for another $110 each (on average) the superintendent is enjoying a fresh contract with a nice raise in it.

It's an extra $110/yr for every $1 million of an override. At $2.5 million for this over-ride, it would cost the average taxpayer $275/yr. That is for a home assessed at $400,000. So if your home is assessed at $600,000 this will cost you $412/yr. If your home is assessed at $800,000, then this override would cost you $550/yr.

[Unregistered]

It's an extra $110/yr for every $1 million of an override. At $2.5 million for this over-ride, it would cost the average taxpayer $275/yr. That is for a home assessed at $400,000. So if your home is assessed at $600,000 this will cost you $412/yr. If your home is assessed at $800,000, then this override would cost you $550/yr.

Please do not forget that the Municipal side will ask for an additional $500,000.
Also do not forget that it is a general override and stays on the tax rolls forever ( at 3million and forever versus the debt exclusion( disapears over twenty years ) for the Woodworkers property which now looks better)
Also,also do not forget contract negotiations,will they dare ask for a raise? You bet they will and this will quickly be followed by a we need more money whine
Also,also,also do not forget that they will be getting almost $700,000 in new revenue as part of the budget process
Also,also,also,also do not forget the pledge to pay back the $300,000 "taken" from free cash
I could go on but you get the picture and it is worth a thousand words

[Unregistered]

I was surprised to read the following quote from Sam Obar's blog: (http://samobar.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/more-cuts-to-make-to-the-town-budget/)

"A few months ago, 180 challenged itself to find $1.2 million in the municipal budget that could be used to “bail out” the Walpole School Department in FY 2013 and avoid an override. I also intend to review the school budget line-by-line with the School Superintendent in a few weeks and find potential cost-savings there, which would reduce that deficit even further."

From a self proclaimed fiscal conservative, this gives me the impression that the municipal side of town budget is where the most waste is.... It seems to make the assumption that the schools have really reined in costs. Quite frankly, I think there is equal opportunity for savings in both budgets. The schools are 66% of the town spending, while the municipal side is only 34%. Plugging the school budget with municipal cost slashing seems wrong.That would serve to tip the balance to something like 70% / 30%.

Schools have always received 66%, and they should learn to live with in their means. So too should the municipal side. Both budgets have room for improvement, , and the place I would start is salaries and benefits, as that is the VAST majority of our spending. Municipal AND schools have been handing out raises like tokens at the arcade for many years now. To focus on the municipal side bailing out the schools is to over-look 66% of the problem.

Sam is obviously only recently out of the Walpole School System, so I am certain that the issue is near and dear to his heart, as it is for many. But on this one, I believe Sam is failing to show perspective and open-mindedness. We have an entire town to run, not just a school system. Schools were warned numerous times about using non-recurring funds for operating expenses, but to no avail.

I recall a particularly nasty letter from the head of the Walpole Teachers Union a few years back. The gentleman (a teacher at Walpole High) took our Town Administrator to task for not including prison mitigation money in the ongoing operating budget, because schools wanted 66% of it. Not certain where that union leader is now, but the conservatism shown by the Town Administrator was certainly spot on. It was not funding that we could rely on, as was soon found to be true.

My point here is that having a single issue of school funding has always proven dangerous and short sighted over time. Schools and school funding are not a singular issue that stands alone. Schools are a part of our community. Over 20,000 people live in this town and use a variety of other services from police, fire, ambulance, senior, recreation, street maintenance, parks etc. etc. etc.. To assume that all the waste is in the smaller share of the budget seems lacking in perspective to me.

Sam, I applaud your effort to find the savings, but please realize that 66% of the savings are likely to be found in the schools. 66% / 34% has served us well for a long long time now. If the schools can no longer live on their share, they need to start looking at home, in their own budget. Same goes for the municipal side.

[Sparky]

So the school department needs $2.5 million to close a $1.3 million dollar budget gap.
...
Why aren't they asking for $1.3M to close a $1.3M budget gap? Is the rationale that this will keep them from coming back to table for more in the future? This is what I didn't like about their last plan, i.e. borrowing now to cover anticipated future shortfalls.

I'm neutral on the issue and looking for information. I view this as a negative, so would like to hear a response to this from an advocate of the override.

[Unregistered]

Why aren't they asking for $1.3M to close a $1.3M budget gap? Is the rationale that this will keep them from coming back to table for more in the future? This is what I didn't like about their last plan, i.e. borrowing now to cover anticipated future shortfalls.

I'm neutral on the issue and looking for information. I view this as a negative, so would like to hear a response to this from an advocate of the override.

I am not an advocate but I think the $1.3 million dollar shortfall is with existing staff. The additional $1.2 million would be to hire 20 additional teachers and reduce class sizes. If they do not get the override and cannot close the gap the threat is to layoff 20 teachers. My issue with this is they are wooried about the math and english class sizes yet that is what they are targeting for layoffs.

In terms of hiring more teachers....while reducing class sizes now is the benefit eventually the bill will come due on the additional staff (step raises, increased benefit costs, etc.) and I am sure they will be back to the well again in a few years. As someone had pointed out earlier I would like to see a real study between class size and/or cost per pupil and test scores. How much are we willing to spend to possibly get a bump of a point or two in test scores while creating future deficits.

[Sparky]

I am not an advocate but I think the $1.3 million dollar shortfall is with existing staff. The additional $1.2 million would be to hire 20 additional teachers and reduce class sizes. If they do not get the override and cannot close the gap the threat is to layoff 20 teachers. My issue with this is they are wooried about the math and english class sizes yet that is what they are targeting for layoffs.

In terms of hiring more teachers....while reducing class sizes now is the benefit eventually the bill will come due on the additional staff (step raises, increased benefit costs, etc.) and I am sure they will be back to the well again in a few years. As someone had pointed out earlier I would like to see a real study between class size and/or cost per pupil and test scores. How much are we willing to spend to possibly get a bump of a point or two in test scores while creating future deficits.

So the choice is to either lay of 20 teachers or hire 20 new teachers. That's a bit irksome. My current impression is that they have a reasonable case for an override, but are asking for too much in one bite. I'm sure they are thinking they'd rather do it all at once rather than come back to the table again in four years, but I'm not sure that's going to fly in the current environment.

Now to be clear, I do feel that supporting the schools, although costly, is extremely important because it's the school system that sets the tone for the quality of any township. I know there are other factors, but none as important, since that's the primary factor in determining who you'll be sharing your community with.

[Unregistered]

So the choice is to either lay of 20 teachers or hire 20 new teachers. That's a bit irksome. My current impression is that they have a reasonable case for an override, but are asking for too much in one bite. I'm sure they are thinking they'd rather do it all at once rather than come back to the table again in four years, but I'm not sure that's going to fly in the current environment.

Now to be clear, I do feel that supporting the schools, although costly, is extremely important because it's the school system that sets the tone for the quality of any township. I know there are other factors, but none as important, since that's the primary factor in determining who you'll be sharing your community with.

We need to move far beyond "supporting the schools" to supporting education and knowledge. Sadly "supporting the schools" has lead down a path of debt and overspending while also leading to reduced education and knowledge.
We definitely need to move beyond the sad idea the spending money is going to improve or frankly keep education from slipping further.
While spending vast sums of money children/young adults know less and less. Math almost gone without a calculator in hand, if you are not capable of simple math without a calculator you are not well educated. English skills.. gone. Basic skills totally out the window.
From my interaction with people one must assume that any real attempt to teach history has just stopped. Frankly i hope they have stopped trying, because if they haven't it just says the schools are sad.

One thing I have notice when hiring, young adults are very confident and in fact arrogant. What is scary is the fact that their knowledge and skills do not warrant the confidence.

[Unregistered]

So the choice is to either lay of 20 teachers or hire 20 new teachers. That's a bit irksome. My current impression is that they have a reasonable case for an override, but are asking for too much in one bite. I'm sure they are thinking they'd rather do it all at once rather than come back to the table again in four years, but I'm not sure that's going to fly in the current environment.

Now to be clear, I do feel that supporting the schools, although costly, is extremely important because it's the school system that sets the tone for the quality of any township. I know there are other factors, but none as important, since that's the primary factor in determining who you'll be sharing your community with.

In every sense of the word this is "class" warfare. Do we now have 20 "empty" classrooms to put the 20 extra teachers into? A better question could be How many teachers now "teach" in any one classroom? Does every subject now have a teacher specialist,a substitute ,an aide or two.Because it is always for the children it is always mo money at any cost.
Yes "class" warfare in every sense of the word.An elitist society.

[Sparky]

Your response is pure rhetoric, in every sense of the word. The Greater Boston Area is comprised of a heterogenous mixture of townships, each with their own characteristics. You have to pick one to live in; you don't choose randomly. People generally choose an affordable (to them) town that has the characteristics they find most desirable to them personally. Many of the characteristics are highly correlated with the school system. Towns with good school systems tend to attract people of above average economic means, more formally educated, less likely to commit crime, etc. This is statistically undeniable. By your standard, does that mean everyone who chooses to live in and maintain the "best town possible" is an elitist? Why did you choose to live in Walpole? Doesn't that make you an elitist?

[Tom]

Please post override comments at a new thread here. (http://www.walpolenews.com/forums/showthread.php?135-2011-override) --tg

[Unregistered]

Public school teachers receive greater average hourly compensation in wages and benefits than any other group of state and local government workers and receive more than twice as much in average hourly wages and benefits as workers in private industry, according to a new report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[Unregistered]

Your response is pure rhetoric, in every sense of the word. The Greater Boston Area is comprised of a heterogenous mixture of townships, each with their own characteristics. You have to pick one to live in; you don't choose randomly. People generally choose an affordable (to them) town that has the characteristics they find most desirable to them personally. Many of the characteristics are highly correlated with the school system. Towns with good school systems tend to attract people of above average economic means, more formally educated, less likely to commit crime, etc. This is statistically undeniable. By your standard, does that mean everyone who chooses to live in and maintain the "best town possible" is an elitist? Why did you choose to live in Walpole? Doesn't that make you an elitist?

I'm not the original poster but I don't think Walpole is an elitist town. At least if you're judging by the middling performance of the school system it isn't.

[Unregistered]

Can anybody explain why Walpole Town Hall is closed Friday December 23rd? Early present to town employees?

[Unregistered]

Town Hall usually closes at noon on Friday anyway, and where the holiday is on a weekend, maybe they just got an extra day for the long weekend. Is it that big of a deal that they get 3 or 4 hours off? If Christmas was on a Friday, would it be a problem if they got out early on Christmas Eve or had the day off? Cut them some slack, it's Christmas for crying out loud. Do you have a problem with the teachers being off the following week too? Pick your battles.

[Unregistered]

When Christmas falls on a Sunday, business are off the following Monday. Why should Town Hall be closed Friday and Monday...Just saying

[Unregistered]

Town hall should close one day per week. rotate the departments and staff.

[Unregistered]

When Christmas falls on a Sunday, business are off the following Monday. Why should Town Hall be closed Friday and Monday...Just saying

Did you not read the previous response? The facility is usually only open for a partial day anyhow. What are you losing as a resident that you're making a big deal out of this?

[Unregistered]

Did you not read the previous response? The facility is usually only open for a partial day anyhow. What are you losing as a resident that you're making a big deal out of this?

Then they should all give back the partial days pay... bet you have a different response now... I mean after all,.. what's the big deal with a partial days pay.. right?

[Unregistered]

The town hall normally closes at noon on Friday because it stays open until 8pm on Tuesdays. All of the employees at town hall worked longer work days all week in order to accumulate the number or hours needed for a normal work week. This allowed them to have today off for a long holiday weekend.

I just backspaced and deleted another paragraph of "not so niceness". The question has been answered. Happy Holiday's everyone.

[Unregistered]

http://www.wickedlocal.com/walpole/news/x1569728492/Reuse-committee-to-propose-demolition-of-Walpoles-old-library#axzz1iXvAv35w

I really find myself confused about what our priorities and policies are as a town. The library re-use committee is made up of 5 neighbors and one other person (this sounds like the Adams Farm Committee all over again). They are recommending we tear down the old library (so now the building that was fine, is actually to be thrown out?) to make way for a home or a park.

Last I heard, actually all I ever hear, is that "we need business" or "we need revenue"! That lot is a dowtown lot. It would likely be a very valuable parcel for a downtown business. We could make money on the sale, and money on the tax collection.

Why were no neighbors "invited" to form a committee to decide on the level 3 Biolab at Seimen's? Were neighbors from South Walpole invited to decide about a power plant? I am very confused. Do we need business and revenue or does it just depend on who the neighbors are? Is "bad developement" OK for some neighborhoods, while "no developement" is the rule for other neighborhoods? Are we now going to start giving all neighborhoods equal protection and support?

It will be really interesting to see....

[Unregistered]

I think we should sell the land and the builidng AS IS, let the new owners pay for the demolition of the building or part of the building, whatever they decide to do with it. The taxpayers of Walpole should not be paying for the demolition.
However if it is to become a park (keeping in mind that it would be within a 3 minute walk of 2 other parks)
then lets make it a Dog Park. If we give the dog owners a place to take their dogs maybe that would help out the dog waste mess at Adams Farm.

[Unregistered]

-Neighbors want to tear it down for 'open space' or a single family house..

-Neighbors ARE the library re-use committee.. whoah..

-Realtor (Mike Viano) wants us to chop off the addition and restore the Carnegie portion "For condos" (so he can sell it.. ) Mike.. buy the dang thing yourself.. OK? gosh...

-Re-use committee 'says' it costs such and such to turn it into the senior center or whatever..

Where are the reports from the folks who did the estimates? Was a survey done? Performed?

This stinks to high heaven.. bad..

The place should be a commercial space, sold as a commercial space or converted to a senior center..

The only fear is 'selling it as is' and the buyer being a loser who lets the place go to heck.. and it becomes an eyesore..

How about "Tearing it down' for the supposed 150K and building a very, very modest senior center there, modular type building, no brick, no soaring arches and fanfare and the like... ? Town should keep control of the corner.

[The Raven]

-Neighbors want to tear it down for 'open space' or a single family house..

-Neighbors ARE the library re-use committee.. whoah..

-Realtor (Mike Viano) wants us to chop off the addition and restore the Carnegie portion "For condos" (so he can sell it.. ) Mike.. buy the dang thing yourself.. OK? gosh...

-Re-use committee 'says' it costs such and such to turn it into the senior center or whatever..

Where are the reports from the folks who did the estimates? Was a survey done? Performed?

This stinks to high heaven.. bad..

The place should be a commercial space, sold as a commercial space or converted to a senior center..

The only fear is 'selling it as is' and the buyer being a loser who lets the place go to heck.. and it becomes an eyesore..

How about "Tearing it down' for the supposed 150K and building a very, very modest senior center there, modular type building, no brick, no soaring arches and fanfare and the like... ? Town should keep control of the corner.

Yes, it is unfortunate, isn't it, that our town operates in this manner. The soon-to-be-opened firehouse (er, I mean Library) issue is not going to go away.

Forming a committee regarding the usage of town-owned property made up of abutters is not the thing to do.

"Honey, what should I say to do with it?" "dear, don't suggest ANYTHING other than a park. Do you realize how that will affect our home values??"

[Unregistered]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here but after reading today's times I am fuming.

They are now stating that the old library could be used as a senior center (at least temporarily) and can be renovated for $2 - $4 million dollars including the roof, elevator, and brining it into compliance with Americans with Disabilities act.

Now correct me if I am wrong but when the new library was proposed (and proposed again after being soundly defeated) weren't we told it would be WAY TO EXPENSIVE to renovate??????

In what universe is $2 - $4 million way to expensive vs. an $11 million dollar library including a $6 million dollar override?

[Unregistered]

I think we should sell the land and the builidng AS IS, let the new owners pay for the demolition of the building or part of the building, whatever they decide to do with it. The taxpayers of Walpole should not be paying for the demolition.
However if it is to become a park (keeping in mind that it would be within a 3 minute walk of 2 other parks)
then lets make it a Dog Park. If we give the dog owners a place to take their dogs maybe that would help out the dog waste mess at Adams Farm.

You have to be joking right? Because people do not have the common courtesy to clean up after their mutts at Adams Farm we should take real estate off the market to let their dogs drop their waste in a more convenient downtown location?

Here is my question. If it is $2 - $4 million to renovate it why were we told that a new $11 million dollar library with a $6 million dollar override was a better deal? As I recall the renovation was going to be way more expensive than just building new. What a load of bull. How can we trust this town on any discussions around costs and needs for overrides ever again?

[The Raven]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here but after reading today's times I am fuming.

They are now stating that the old library could be used as a senior center (at least temporarily) and can be renovated for $2 - $4 million dollars including the roof, elevator, and brining it into compliance with Americans with Disabilities act.

Now correct me if I am wrong but when the new library was proposed (and proposed again after being soundly defeated) weren't we told it would be WAY TO EXPENSIVE to renovate??????

In what universe is $2 - $4 million way to expensive vs. an $11 million dollar library including a $6 million dollar override?

Get involved. You couldn't figure out that the town is in a mess years ago?


I think they may have jumped the gun on the new firehouse (er, I mean "library"). Did you vote for the new library? I didn't, for a few reasons.
TR

[Unregistered]

(Originally by The Raven)---
Get involved. You couldn't figure out that the town is in a mess years ago?

I think they may have jumped the gun on the new firehouse (er, I mean "library"). Did you vote for the new library? I didn't, for a few reasons.
TR


It's not too late . We can move the police and fire to the new building and use the old fire station to house equipment.
The 50 yards from building to building can be a healthy exercize for the firefighters...they will only need a lounge and sleep area and the rest of the builsing can be for the police. Keep the old library the library.

[Unregistered]

Yes, it is unfortunate, isn't it, that our town operates in this manner. The soon-to-be-opened firehouse (er, I mean Library) issue is not going to go away.

Forming a committee regarding the usage of town-owned property made up of abutters is not the thing to do.

"Honey, what should I say to do with it?" "dear, don't suggest ANYTHING other than a park. Do you realize how that will affect our home values??"

Thanks for reminding me how under-utilized Adams Farm is. I am tired of my tax payer funded purchase being a private backyard for neighbors (dog walking... really?). That is what a "committee" of neighbors gets you. Same problem with the library re-use committee has plagued Adams Farm. BRING ON THE PLAYING FIELDS!

[The Raven]

Thanks for reminding me how under-utilized Adams Farm is. I am tired of my tax payer funded purchase being a private backyard for neighbors (dog walking... really?). That is what a "committee" of neighbors gets you. Same problem with the library re-use committee has plagued Adams Farm. BRING ON THE PLAYING FIELDS!

The property at Common St. & Lewis Ave. is not much more than an acre, if that. And 5 people don't decide what happens to it.

Adams Farm is significantly larger, and was purchased by the whole town, with full knowledge of its rural heritage.

Its apples and oranges, and I am tired of your sour pussed campaign about Adams farm (are you eating too many lemons??)

[Unregistered]

Tear down the old library, keep the land in town hands.. with stipulation it can be used for a future public-building use such as a senior center or other admin building or the like... never know..

An empty building is an albatross of problems.. Making it a park 'forever' just benefits the folks on the corners there..

Or, (with humor), turn it into a school of 'funerary arts' :)

I hope that the new library building is used for various functions like meetings, etc.. as well as a library. The state was willing to pony-up the money (that was set aside) for libraries-only at the time and we bit.. that was not a bad idea..

[Unregistered]

I don't want to see any new Senior Center built. Sorry to be the grumpy old grinch here, but the new library can now accomodate and be utilized for the purpose of housing meetings and activities for senior citizens. The Town needs to undertake some preliminary estimates on what is would cost to renovate the existing buiding to bring it up to code in order to annex part of the municipal offices. If the estimates are to high, then the Town should put the land building up foor sale to whomever decides they want to buy it for any purpose conforming to the zoning use of the porperty. If theat mens housing or a single family home, so be it.

[Unregistered]

I don't want to see any new Senior Center built. Sorry to be the grumpy old grinch here, but the new library can now accomodate and be utilized for the purpose of housing meetings and activities for senior citizens. The Town needs to undertake some preliminary estimates on what is would cost to renovate the existing buiding to bring it up to code in order to annex part of the municipal offices. If the estimates are to high, then the Town should put the land building up foor sale to whomever decides they want to buy it for any purpose conforming to the zoning use of the porperty. If theat mens housing or a single family home, so be it.

Attende a meeting sponsored by the COA . Guest speaker outlined design considerations for senior centers.
Placement at the old library would not come close to creating a viable center. Sell it as is ( with our existing zoning)
and let the buyer foot all the bill for whatever the zoning allows to be built.

[Unregistered]

Sell it and put the proceeds toward a new senior center

[Unregistered]

Attende a meeting sponsored by the COA . Guest speaker outlined design considerations for senior centers.
Placement at the old library would not come close to creating a viable center. Sell it as is ( with our existing zoning)
and let the buyer foot all the bill for whatever the zoning allows to be built.

Is it bigger than what they have now? Yes
Is it better than what they have? Yes
It is a viable alternative.

[Unregistered]

Can someone tell me, after the completion of the development on East Street(Walpole Woodworkers) have we satisfied our affordable housing requirements? If not, then we ought to consider seriously selling this property for purposes of converting into housing so that we can finish once and for all our affordable housinig plan. I know I will get a lot of negative comments on this, but otherwise we will be entertaining more affordable housing developments in town and possible land takeovers leaning to maybe more overrides. Here is an opportunity to sell the property, generate some revenue, and perhaps complete our affordable housing requirements.

[Unregistered]

Can someone tell me, after the completion of the development on East Street(Walpole Woodworkers) have we satisfied our affordable housing requirements? ...

Can someone tell me, did the property really sell? (It's certainly not reflected in the Walpole Assessor's database if it did.) And if it did, what was the price?

[Unregistered]

Can someone tell me, after the completion of the development on East Street(Walpole Woodworkers) have we satisfied our affordable housing requirements? If not, then we ought to consider seriously selling this property for purposes of converting into housing so that we can finish once and for all our affordable housinig plan. I know I will get a lot of negative comments on this, but otherwise we will be entertaining more affordable housing developments in town and possible land takeovers leaning to maybe more overrides. Here is an opportunity to sell the property, generate some revenue, and perhaps complete our affordable housing requirements.

I believe you are talking about the old library property?

[Unregistered]

I don't believe you can ever truly be "done" with the affordable housing mandate. If I'm not mistaken, affordable housing requirement is considered to be a percentage of all housing (10% perhaps?). So, until you run out of buildable space you may be on the hook for more affordable housing down the road.

For every 10 homes/condos built, one more must be added as "affordable".

[Unregistered]

Can someone tell me, did the property really sell? (It's certainly not reflected in the Walpole Assessor's database if it did.) And if it did, what was the price?

Oddly enough today I was forwarded the email below which answers my question....


Good Evening,

We just wanted to provide you with an update on the latest Walpole Woodworkers site apartment complex proposal.
We learned a few weeks ago from the town officials that Hanover Properties has officially backed out of the purchase process for the Walpole Woodworkers site.
While this is great news, it's important to understand that Walpole Woodworkers is still entertaining other developers and their offers to buy the land. This includes developers who may plan to continue with a massive 40b site, and some of these developers may turn out to be less reputable than Hanover.
As a result of this information, representatives from this group have reached out to officials from the Town of Walpole as well as the owner of Walpole Woodworkers, Louis Maglio, in an attempt to re-open the dialogue between the two parties. The goal of this communication is to bring the two parties to the table once again in hopes of revisiting a better alternative for the site.
We will be creating an online petition to be circulated to Walpole residents for signatures. The town has informed us that by having this petition and the designated number of signatures, the process for next steps will be initiated.
We hope when the petition reaches you, you will not only sign it, but forward it onto as many concerned Walpole residents (neighbors, friends etc) that you can think of.
There is no question this is excellent news, and by getting the petition signed and to the town, we will hopefully give the residents a more proactive role in the future development of Walpole Woodworkers site.
Any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us. And please forward this email to those who you think would be interested in this information.

Thanks.

[Unregistered]

Selectmen jump ugly with seniors in an embarassing confrontation.Worth watching in an election year.

[Unregistered]

Oddly enough today I was forwarded the email below which answers my question....


Good Evening,

We just wanted to provide you with an update on the latest Walpole Woodworkers site apartment complex proposal.
We learned a few weeks ago from the town officials that Hanover Properties has officially backed out of the purchase process for the Walpole Woodworkers site.
While this is great news, it's important to understand that Walpole Woodworkers is still entertaining other developers and their offers to buy the land. This includes developers who may plan to continue with a massive 40b site, and some of these developers may turn out to be less reputable than Hanover.
As a result of this information, representatives from this group have reached out to officials from the Town of Walpole as well as the owner of Walpole Woodworkers, Louis Maglio, in an attempt to re-open the dialogue between the two parties. The goal of this communication is to bring the two parties to the table once again in hopes of revisiting a better alternative for the site.
We will be creating an online petition to be circulated to Walpole residents for signatures. The town has informed us that by having this petition and the designated number of signatures, the process for next steps will be initiated.
We hope when the petition reaches you, you will not only sign it, but forward it onto as many concerned Walpole residents (neighbors, friends etc) that you can think of.
There is no question this is excellent news, and by getting the petition signed and to the town, we will hopefully give the residents a more proactive role in the future development of Walpole Woodworkers site.
Any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us. And please forward this email to those who you think would be interested in this information.

Thanks.

Who is the group? I heard that the developer backed out due to Walpole's excessive sewer and water hookup rates?
Will the Selectmen consider another balott question and will Woodworkers be willing to wait another year in the face of the last defeat? Sounds like a stretch along with wishful thinking. I would vote yes to purchase and place a combined police and fire complex for around $25 million and get it over with once and for all