I write with respect to the piece dated March 28, 2024, written by Will Dowd entitled “Petition opposing MBTA zoning proposal surfaces.”
I use the term “piece” because I am not sure what other term would provide an accurate description of what Mr. Dowd wrote. I cannot call the piece a story or a news article, because Mr. Dowd never bothered to reach out to me to discuss the petition to oppose town compliance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A and in particular Section 3A of that statute.
When a “reporter” — I use the term loosely — writes something like what Mr. Dowd wrote, it isn’t a news article, it’s opinion and/or advocacy. I know because I am a litigator and we place facts in the light most favorable to our client on a daily basis. That’s what Mr. Dowd does in his piece — his client being the Planning Board. There is no question that Mr. Dowd is clearly supportive of the Planning Board and G.L. c. 40A — and it shows. Hence the characterization of the thing he wrote as a “piece.”
In his piece, Mr. Dowd merely posted the petition itself (for which I am grateful because it has gained many signatures since his piece appeared — we’re up to 114 as I write this) and spoke with the chairperson of the town Planning Board, Robert Schaeffner, who, in turn, simply could not understand why anyone would oppose the “sensible” and “benign” plan he and the board set in motion.
The piece goes on to outline the financial loss of another town who rejected compliance of a whopping $148,000, more or less, in grants — in terms of government spending, a proverbial drop in the bucket. Dowd also makes sure to try to frighten everyone about getting sued by the Commonwealth for having the intestinal fortitude to tell it to go pound sand.
Now, our Planning Board to date and to my knowledge, has either no idea, or simply isn’t telling anyone, how much, if anything, Marblehead might lose in grant funds should the measure fail at Town Meeting (which is my fervent hope and desire). That is an important data point for voters to have in order to weigh their decision and should be readily available. If someone can find that information somewhere please let me know because it appears to be a closely guarded official secret.
Had I been asked I might have told Dowd about that matter. But he never bothered to seek my input. He might have been too excited after sighting the surfaced petition and was in a rush to get to publication.
If asked, I might have also told Dowd, as is mentioned in the petition that “surfaced” (images worthy of Herman Melville — the petition as Moby Dick and the Planning Board’s whale-nemesis spring to mind) about the Superior Court Case of John Kolackovsky, et al v. Town of Rockport, et al Essex Superior Court Docket No.: 2277 CV 00947 -C. Yet another missed opportunity.
Mr. Schaeffner and the board might want to read this complaint and at least some of the pleadings involved in that ligation. (I have.) You see, that pending lawsuit challenges G.L. c. 40A as an unconstitutional violation of Massachusetts Home Rule principal and law. To boil it down to its elemental parts, lest anyone fail to understand why someone might be opposed to the Commonwealth dictating high-density family dwelling construction to cities and towns, what the litigants are saying is that these issues are for cities and towns to decide for themselves.
Pretty foundational stuff really.
The lawsuit also describes the legislation as anything but “sensible” or “benign.” To the contrary, the complaint describes this law as “troublesome,” “unconstitutional,” “coercive,” “invasive” and basically just bad law. And, if Mr. Kolackovsky is right, the Planning Board’s recommended voluntary compliance therewith is anything but sensibly benign. Sometimes, you just have to decide to push back. This is one of those times, $148,000 in grant money (although we actually have no idea how much because nobody will tell us this closely guarded secret) be damned.
In his exclusive with Mr. Dowd, Mr. Schaeffner poo-poos and tut-tuts the pedestrians among our townspeople for having “knee jerk” reactions and not liking to be “told what to do.” I, for one, am happy that he was not among the Founding Fathers when they were discussing what to do about compliance with the tea and paper taxes. If he were, we may still be flying the Union Jack.
Seriously though, the tone of Schaeffner’s response is troubling. It reminds me of the recent time Select Board member Moses Grader told another townsperson who was guilty of asking a question about the recent property tax-hike kerfuffle that resulted in yet another town employee being placed on extended paid leave, that he (Grader) would “speak slowly” so that the (by implication) somewhat thick constituent might understand better the non-answer the board was presenting to a reasonable question.
Publicly belittling constituents is a thing in Marblehead. And, if you can’t do it in a public meeting, Mr. Dowd is more than happy to accommodate with an avenue of attack. It’s good to have friends in the media after all.
Our Planning Board chairperson may consider the possibility that reasonable minds may differ on issues like the one wherein the petition to oppose G.L. c. 40A “surfaced” (‘thar she blows) and that those who oppose voluntary compliance with that statute and all that it entails is something they actually thought about and reflected upon and that the little townsfolk aren’t just having a temper tantrum as Schaeffner states and Dowd gleefully prints.
We run this collective enterprise called Marblehead by open Town Meeting and I think that there is a term that describes having a dialogue and debate and then a vote on the issues after all the information necessary has been made available. It’s called “democracy.”
John G. DiPiano
Trager Road
