By: Philippe Thibault – 4-25
Taking into account the national, state, and local news, there is no issue or subject matter that does not have an adverse reaction to civility.
Not only are people’s hair on fire, but they are racing downhill on one ski in an avalanche towards a cliff overlooking the ocean swarming with sharks with a swelling tsunami, caused by an earthquake and Krakatoa’s eruption spewing lava violently, with columns of ash and pyroclastic flows. And you are still wondering “did I unplug the iron?”
Did I mention your hair is on fire? If you are willing to take the ride, it will be a bumpy one.
Housing and the lack thereof or its affordability have caused such a chain reaction as the calamity described. The solution is as multi-pronged as the problems that brought us to the precipice. Communities are now forced to consider compliance with a veritable alphabet soup of Chapter 40 regulations, every single letter of the alphabet except Z. Each of these twenty-five sections are in place to generate both market rate and affordable housing.
Of course, there is the underlying problem that market rate housing was once affordable to the masses and no longer appears to be that way. Some of these regulations are voluntary and others are mandatory.
Is there truly a way to see which solutions are complimentary and working and which are adversarial and detrimental to the character of the communities?
These plans all have their merit to one degree or another. Much like throwing a spaghetti strand against the wall to see if it sticks and therefore cooked, we are throwing the whole pot against the wall. Pot, water and pasta and it is a scalding hot mess.
Dracut is talking trash, again. Not to say the same type of trash that I get from another contributor of this fine publication or his supported political hacks. Actual refuse and rubbish.
Trash removal has been supported by Dracut through the general tax burden. There has been talk of a trash fee for over a decade as a means of removing the obligation from the general budget and instead place it into an enterprise fund, a fund dedicated to the operations of trash removal.
The citizens of the town need to substantiate which argument is more persuasive. The existing town budget is robust enough to absorb the trash collection within the general fund or, as the cost of services and administering to the town increase, the receipts have not kept pace and supplemental revenue is needed.
This is the inherited difference between frugality and stinginess, being cheap or being Yankee.
Yankee being the frame of mind to not wanting to spend money frivolously. The willingness to spend two dollars on something that is only worth a dollar that will always be used as opposed to one dollar on something worth two that will seldom be used. I was once told by a director of a soup kitchen, “the poor cannot afford to buy cheap.” What they purchase needs to work and last.
Speaking of not buying cheap, the Joseph A Campbell Elementary School is looking towards a major project soon. A committee has been looking at multiple scenarios of additions and renovations or an entirely new school. The Campbell School, originally built in 1973, has been accepted into the Massachusetts School Building Authority’s program to study and construct an appropriate project.
This project is currently being contemplated to combine the populations of the Campbell School and the Greenmont Avenue schools under one roof.
The student population would be eight hundred and sixty children. A student population rivaling the High School. The estimated construction budget for the project is between $134 million and $145 million.
The schematic plans will need to be completed before a budget is set through an extensive estimation process. The school building committee is eyeing the fall November Town Meeting this year for authorization for a debt exclusion to be placed on a townwide ballot.
There are budgetary woes that drive a call for economic development and a Zoning Bylaw Review that calls for maintaining “Dracut looking like Dracut.”
There is a reluctance to see that planned change can provide success to both goals. Dracut has not substantially reviewed its zoning regulations in the past forty years. Dracut has not had economic change because the bylaws are not conducive for inviting businesses to settle in Dracut. The review is nothing more than a study of insanity. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
A decade in the waiting is seeing a fresh look in the Town Charter, last reviewed and revised in 2015. A regime change has led to a change in the evaluation process. Gone is the secretive internal examination, where the Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, and a few Department heads would make recommended changes they see fit to the Town Charter. No longer! Under new leadership and management, a Review Committee has been convened.
The hope is all aspects of the Charter are discussed for their appropriateness to current times and population. Public input is being sought, and all opinions will be weighed in the final documents to be presented to November Town Meeting this Fall.
Oh, did I mention there is an election?◊