To the editor:
I attended my first Stockbridge Town Meeting last night and left it feeling utterly disillusioned. Like many attendees, I came to support Article 17, a citizen’s petition to prevent large-scale development of the Moffatt Trust property. While I expected debate on Article 17 to be heated, I assumed that transparent and consistently applied rules would govern the meeting. What I observed instead was a concerted effort to put the citizens who submitted the petition at the grossest possible disadvantage.
First, the moderator introduced Article 17 in what can best be described as a disdainful and dismissive tone. In my experience, moderators are in place to ensure consistent application of rules and should take a neutral stance. This was clearly not the case last night.
Second, the rules governing who could speak were inconsistently applied. At the start, the moderator stated that voters would have the right to speak first and that non-voters could follow. The moderator then selectively permitted some non-voters to speak early on, including a real estate lawyer (from New York) who was granted the floor twice. When I stood up to speak, the moderator changed the rules midstream and denied me the floor in an aggressive manner and ruled me “out of order.” It was shocking and humiliating.
Third, many speakers repeatedly misrepresented the facts in the citizen’s petition, including the total sum being requested. The Finance Committee and town leaders had an obligation to ensure that the facts being laid out were correct. They failed to do this. Similarly, a fair number of others stood up and implied that the petition was counter to building affordable housing. Only if Article 17 passed could the town determine how this land would be used. The developer has stated that he would be build high-end homes on 35 acres—not exactly affordable housing.
Fourth, no one was aware that Article 17 would require a two-thirds vote to pass instead of a simple majority. The moderator did not tell us this critical fact until after the debate when it was time to vote.
From the inception, this meeting seemed designed to derail the citizen’s petition, which was focused on thoughtful development and conservation in favor of ensuring wealthy developers have a clear path to achieving their aims.
Natasha Hritzuk
Stockbridge
Click here to read The Berkshire Edge’s policy for submitting Letters to the Editor.
