Congratulations Phil Shapiro
29% of registered voters cast their ballots and elected Phil Shapiro as the next Selectman:
| Candidate | Precinct 1 | Precinct 2 | Precinct 3 | Precinct 4 | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phil Shapiro | 412 | 375 | 319 | 92 | 1198 | 42% |
| Doug Obey | 229 | 224 | 214 | 159 | 826 | 29% |
| Jason Lee | 41 | 80 | 145 | 175 | 441 | 16% |
| Greg Agnew | 35 | 69 | 58 | 186 | 348 | 12% |
Full election results are available on the town website.
I'd like to thank the candidates for their participation here on this blog, especially for taking the time to conduct the podcast interviews. I hope we will be able to use this blog to continue the discussion about issues affecting the future of our town.
This election has really impressed me with the difficulty involved in winning election to town office. At the end of the day, only a few hundred votes made the difference, but every one of those votes was hard-earned by these candidates.
Comments
Voter Turnout Disappointment
29% voter turnout? Shameful! If there was a question on money for the schools, you bet the voters would turn out then! As if elected officials have no bearing on how the town (and that includes the schools)is run. People need to be reminded that there's far more to the Town of Westwood than the schools!
Congratulations
Now the hard work begins. Best of luck.
Phil, I'm sure you will be bombarded with tasks ahead of Monday's Town Meeting. I, for one, would be very interested to know what can be done to amend Article 18 on the floor to allow liquor licensing that will attract a 100,000 square foot Wegman's, which I would love to see here, but can also be tailored to allow Roche Brothers or any other similar retailer to obtain such a license and create a level playing field for our good neighbor.
Changing Article 18
Anyone can make a motion at Town Meeting on Article 18 to alter the square footage as the Article presently states. I believe it goes as follows: A motion has to be made to change the square footage in Article 18. It then has to be second. Next, a vote has to be taken to change the Article. Then, the present Article 18 would have to be voted down. And finally, the 'new' Article 18 has to be voted on.
Those with more experience, or those who can remember from previous years, please weight in. The order above may not be quite right, but it can be done.
Having listened to the arguments, reducing the square footage to include Roche Bros. (at 42,000 sq. ft.?) would be fair to all. Competition is best for Consumers and having the potential for an additional location for beer and wine would be good. Reducing the square footage would not be detrimental to the development (Wegman's). For those who decided on 100,00 sq. ft., please feel free to explain that number. That's the one group we haven't heard from yet. Enough with the speculation, let's get an explanation from the source!
One last thing, whatever square footage is voted on, it doesn't automatically grant any business a license to sell beer and wine in Westwood. The Board of Selectmen has the final say on who is issued a license.
Changing Article 18
There is an added wrinkle. The article is not only limited in terms of square footage, but it is also limited to the Overlay District for zoning, which is the Westwood Station area only. So that needs to be modified to include the zone in which Roche Brothers is located, which I suspect will be a much broader category of commercial property and thus creates the possibility that other commercially zoned property could be eligible for the licensing. This will likely create further resistance from folks who are opposed to having liquor stores in town, but will garner increased support from people who would support the article if it were not so completely biased in favor of one business.
Changing Article 18
This does complicate the situation. A definite 'speed bump' on getting through Town Meeting if a Motion to change Article 18 is proposed. Although it can be accomplished, it will take time. The Moderator will have to be well versed in the procedural steps of Town Meeting to effectively and efficiently guide us through any changes to Article 18, if there is a motion to change it. If people see the possibility of confusion and/or delay coming, it will probably be voted on as is.
Still waiting from those who proposed the 100,000 Sq. Ft. number.
a complicated situation thanks to history
A year ago, we had the opportunity to give grocery stores an exemption to the 3-license limit (which would still constrain Roche Bros, even if this Article were changed), but Question 1 was defeated statewide because of 1) fear that kids would be able to buy wine and 2) the desire to protect and promote "mom and pop" liquor stores against the competition of supermarkets.
I'm not sure how much we can reasonably do at Town Meeting to deal with this issue. The best we could accomplish is to adopt a rule that applies equally to the entire town. But the bigger issue remains: Why do the majority of citizens in Massachusetts support the mutually incompatible ideas of 1) wanting to limit alcohol sales to "protect" families while 2) wanting to selectively promote the sale of alcohol by favored businesses?
I think what we want is to have our cake and eat it too. It's ok if Dedham and Norwood have liquor stores because we can just drive across the town line to buy our "vices" while keeping our town "pristine."
The reason the town doesn't just go completely "wet" is that we don't want those liquor stores in town. But when we talk about the issue in public, those stores become "mom and pop" businesses we want to support.
I just don't get it. I lived in California for years where you could walk into a big Safeway and put a bottle of Jack Daniels in your shopping cart with the rest of your groceries. When the alcohol is scanned, it stops the register and requires the checker to enter the date of birth of the purchaser into the system while everyone is watching. I grew up in Virginia where there are no liquor stores--beer and wine are at the grocery store and "hard liquor" has to be purchased from a state-operated store the "ABC Store" (Alcohol Beverage Commission). Every state has its own crazy scheme and kids will get beer no matter what.
We're not going to change the state law on Monday. And perhaps we like it the way it is. But I think we should at least try to adopt an article that is not so clearly tailored to fit one business. We should step back and decide if we are a wet or dry town and define the boundaries and process as fairly as possible.
A Complicated Situation Thanks to History
The reasons are hypocritical. On the public side, people feel it's politicaly correct to oppose beer, wine, and liquor sales. While in private, they complain that they have to drive for miles to purchase their favorite alcoholic beverage.
The truth is, educating our children about not abusing alcohol (or drugs) begins in the home. But today, most people want everyone else to take on the responsibility of educating their children rather than doing it themselves. It's more convenient.
Not to digress from the last
Not to digress from the last posts-but looking at the election results-there clearly appears to be a mjor divide in the town between precint 4 and the rest of the town as evedenced by the lack of support for Phil("the establishment candidate"as referred to by one of his opponents).This clearly shows that the BOS and the rest of the town currently are perceived not to care for the people in 'that' section of the town.