RE-ELECT TOM CREAMER - APRIL 9, 2012

PRINCIPLE, INTEGRITY, OBJECTIVITY, TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, EQUITY

Thursday, January 22, 2009

A Subject Few Want to Publicly Broach

Since last July when a teenager was seriously injured at an illegal fireworks display on Walker Pond, there has been an undercurrent of frustration that has yet to be publicly broached. That frustration stems from the fact that for the past several years, local lake associations have come forward requesting financial support from the town to help defray the cost of maintaining our lakes.

Undoubtedly, there is a great deal of maintenance involved in ensuring that our lakes retain their beauty and their viability, as invasive weeds can quickly overrun and destroy the aquatic value of a body of water for residents. Historically, the lakefront property owners have borne the brunt of the required maintenance costs through dues, fundraisers, and other efforts. The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

Some argue that those who live on the lakes should be responsible for maintaining them, since they choose to locate there, and are by and large, the principle users of the lakes. Others would contend that the increased tax assessments on such properties provides little in terms of additional return on their tax dollar. There is clearly merit to such a position, particularly since the lakes are by and large public property with public access, though in some cases rather limited public access.

I view the lakes as an asset to the community and one that benefits residents and visitors alike and have thus previously supported the lake associations in their pursuit of maintenance funding. I have in fact publicly spoken to same at past selectmen's meetings. To be clear, I have no property on the lakes, do not utilize the lakes, and have no special personal interest in the lakes that has dictated my support for the lake associations. I do have friends and acquaintances who own lakefront property (as many of us do who live in a small community), yet, as previously stated, I have never utilized, nor even visited the properties of these individuals for any type of recreation.

To be redundant, let me again state that I view the lakes as an asset to the community and one worthy of our support when and where fiscally appropriate. My position on this issue is fundamentally grounded in the premise that our lakes, just like our roads, sidewalks, parks, open spaces, etc., - all of which are not used by every single resident, every single day, in every single corner of town - are still public assets that we have an obligation and a vested interest to maintain. Clearly, some are prioritized higher (roads for example) as they should be simply because they are one of the most utilized public assets we have.

Thus, it should be clear, that I am a supporter of providing financial assistance to the lake associations in order to help defray some of the costs of maintaining our public bodies of water. But I, like many others, have wrestled these past months with a nagging concern and one I am going to be rather frank about. How much money, if any, was provided to the Walker Pond Lake Association last year or the year before? If they did receive funds, one has to question the validity of such. It is clear based upon information that has surfaced despite the "lack of cooperation" from attendees at the illegal fireworks festivities, that a significant amount of money was raised to host a rather impressive pyrotechnics display.

If (and at this point it is only an if), any public funds were provided to the Walker Pond Lake Association because of an overriding need for weed maintenance, then how serious was their shortage of funds, when it is clear that a significant amount of fundraising was utilized for the illegal fireworks display?

If (and again it's a big if) public funds were provided, then perhaps a much closer look at the financial practices of at least one lake association organization needs to be conducted. These are concerns that have manifested within the quiet conversations of individuals and groups as we weigh the glaring "lack of cooperation" from some Walker Pond area residents, who now, may well be party to investigative obstruction.

Make no mistake about it, there are a multitude of incredibly wonderful and generous people who reside in the Walker Pond area. Sadly, these wonderful people are burdened with the albatross of a few cowards who are now hiding in the shadows and have turned their backs on their responsibility as adults, as parents, and as human beings. Were it their son or daughter who was so seriously injured, there is little doubt that they would be screaming for justice from on high.

Thus, despite the best intentions and justifications for public funding for lake weed management, there will be - when the time is appropriate - questions and concerns raised in terms of at least one lake association organization and its access to public funds. Clearly, the Walker Pond Lake Association, which is being dragged down by a few cowards, will be the subject of some scrutiny by those of us who view personal accountability as an integral component of our daily lives.

If they wish to be entitled to the financial support of the community, then perhaps they should demonstrate some character and courage within the community, by "stepping up". A great place to start would be the dismissal of all Walker Pond Lake Association officers and or representatives who were involved with coordinating this event. This should be followed by a public apology to the teenager and his family, expressing regret for the unfortunate and unintended accident. Next, would be an public apology to the residents of Sturbridge along with the Sturbridge Police Department for the glaring lapse of character and leadership demonstrated by those responsible for this incident.

Lastly, but by no means least, the new officers of the Walker Pond Association should publicly acknowledge to our children, the importance of maintaining character and integrity in our daily practices.

Now, there are those who may be prone to suggest that I am singling out one particular lake association group over all others. This is absolutely correct. To my knowledge, this is the only lake association that bears any responsibility for a fireworks display that resulted in 3rd degree burns to 20% of a teenagers body, and has since engaged in what some might call a "cover up" in terms of responsibility and accountability.


9 comments:

  1. Be careful when we start funding the lakes, although I do agree they are an asset. If we fund lakes, how about helping to maintain some of the private roads that are in pretty bad condition, you know the ones that the residents of that road have to maintian themselves. Are not they also assets to the town? Do they not also pay taxes to the town? Think this might be a slippery slope.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Ummm? You raise several strong points, anonymous. Obviously, I haven't considered the potential fall-out involving other aspects of the overall equation. I certainly agree - based upon your examples - that it does create a possible slippery slope that can lead down an unintended path. I am not sure that private roads and public lakes are an apples to apples comparison, but I do recognize the validity of your overall position. It will certainly cause me to more vigorously examine my overall position of lake funding, as there is more here than meets the eye.

    With that said, I hope you will not take offense by me saying that regardless of where I end up on this subject (and your comments have influenced me significantly) it will, in no way dissuade my position that absolutely any potential public funding for the Walker Pond Lake Association, should be placed on hold until a complete house-cleaning has been implemented and the appropriate apologies have been offered.

    Thank you anonymous, for providing some additional insight for contemplation.
    ReplyDelete
  3. How often do we look at so many of these special issues outside of the context of the big fiscal picture. Even at town meeting, these types of one-off items are dealt with separately from the overall budget and, in many instances, buried amongst many other hot button topics that people want to move on to.

    On all of these topics, I say level the playing field and put them all on a list together for us to review. List them all (Pole removal on Main st, town hall, weed removal, burgess, raises etc etc) with their associated costs and tax burden. Would we vote to pass so many of these "one off" line items if we had to deal with the whole picture each time? I almost wish we could have a real time "tax meter" on the stage for each meeting so we can see (or feel) the pain.
    ReplyDelete
  4. i agree with jeff that funding these special requests is financially irresponsible when done outside of the "bigger picture". with the exception of cedar lake, most of the lakes are used by the lake dwellers themselves or vacation renters only. there is no real public access to most and yet the townspeople are supposed to pony up for those who chose to move there in the first place. if they can raise money for fireworks and parties then weed control should be no problem for them. you don't see those of us who live on private roads coming forward year after year looking for dough. that whole fireworks thing did it for me. i'm through listening to their crying poverty. now they want to form a formal town board. that's just a backdoor way of pushing a funding agenda.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Love the idea of a "real time tax meter". That would be quite the reality check. Why should we be paying the lake associations for weed control when they have the bucks for big parties? I buy a new car, I pay a higher excise tax than someone with an older one. I build a big house, I pay a bit more in taxes that the smaller one. I buy a house on the lake so I can enjoy the water, I buy the maintenance that goes with it. Go down to some of these so-called public lakes and see the looks you get from the "locals" who treat you like some kind of leper. I say no more money for the lake groups period.
    ReplyDelete
  6. Why don't the lake associations just submit a request for some stimulus package money? Maybe we could add weed cleaning to our list of "shovel ready" projects.
    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with Mr. Creamer. We should maintain the lakes free from weeds. BUT, we should closely scrutinze their activities. I say help the other but put Walker Pond on the NO ASSISTANCE list, until they clean up their acts.
    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr. Creamer, you have been driving the discussion in town for quite some time. I appreciate the issues you raise and the detail you provide. I agree that we should maintain some lakes but not all. Cedar Lake, Big Alum, Long Pond, but definetly not Walker Pond. I wonder if you would consider a run for selectman. You are fair and not taken by special interest. You were willing to publicly challenge your friend Mr. Garieri for his flags, and have pressured Mr. Malloy and the whole board to answer some tough questions about the Town Hall and the Recycling Center. We need someone willing to do things just because they're right, not because they're trying to please this crowd or that one. Please give it some thought.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr. Creamer, you have been driving the discussion in town for quite some time. I appreciate the issues you raise and the detail you provide. I agree that we should maintain some lakes but not all. Cedar Lake, Big Alum, Long Pond, but definetly not Walker Pond. I wonder if you would consider a run for selectman. You are fair and not taken by special interest. You were willing to publicly challenge your friend Mr. Garieri for his flags, and have pressured Mr. Malloy and the whole board to answer some tough questions about the Town Hall and the Recycling Center. We need someone willing to do things just because they're right, not because they're trying to please this crowd or that one. Please give it some thought.
    ReplyDelete