To the editor:
It is very troubling to me to read that after an historic Town Meeting and a vote for 3A with a margin of 200 people in favor, that now Mr. John DiPiano is trying to repeal that vote with a ballot referendum. From the very beginning I feel that this has been more about circumventing the law than concern of a zoning change. The initial petition to get the article before Town Meeting in 2024 questioned if some signatures were non-town residents. At that Town Meeting, Mr DiPiano said that if 3A passed, a group of citizens could sue the town (for complying with state law?). Then the argument was to wait until the Superior Court decision on Milton, as he asserted that the law was unconstitutional (it’s not), the town did not have to comply (it does) and the attorney general did not have the authority to enforce the law (she does). After that, the argument was that since the state auditor determined 3A was an “unfunded mandate,” that the town should seek a compliance exemption and delay the vote at Town Meeting. Even though the state auditor said, and the unfunded mandate law states, that the only costs would be actual (plan development) costs (which Marblehead received through grants), Mr, DiPiano outlined possible fire, police, school and infrastructure costs if future building did occur that the state auditor said are not covered in this law.
Now Mr. DiPiano says that there is a need for a ballot referendum as many people could not attend Town Meeting (yet he stated that the 2024 “no” vote, with a margin of 33 votes out of only 800 votes, was a majority and should be honored). Both sides of this issue have had a year to educate voters and get them to attend Town Meeting. It has been a very divisive time for the Town. As the “no” signs said, “ENOUGH”!
Pat Fried
Hillside Drive
