Bummer, I thought, when I saw that the item I intended to speak in support of (convening Town Meeting on a weekend afternoon) was last on the Selectboard’s November 4 agenda, only later realizing that I was fortunate to have a front-row seat in a master class in community action. This is how it is done.
The Brookside Neighbors Group—those most affected by the Brookside Road Bridge closure—showed up on November 4. And I mean showed up. Standing room only. Overflow packing the hall. But it was not only that. Thanks to the efforts of Town Manager Mark Pruhenski, all stakeholders that will also have a hand in making this right attended, in person or remotely—folks from MassDOT, Tighe & Bond (engineering consultants), Department of Public Works Superintended Joe Aberdale, Fire Department Chief Scott Turner, and Police Department Chief Paul Sorti, among others.
Unofficially at least, the Brookside Neighbors Group (BNG) appears to be led by Merle Kailas. Before the meeting began, they passed out a booklet in support of their efforts—the Brookside Road Bridge Closure: Impact Book, found here—providing a “compilation of statements from the Brookside Neighbors Group.” The Impact Book served to avoid repetitive discussions about uniform bridge-closure impacts to the neighborhood—increased emergency response time, service provider inaccessibility, and considerable financial loss. The booklet’s key points:
- Prior to the bridge closure, it was an eight-minute, 3.1-mile trip to Fairview Hospital. With the Kellogg Road Bridge closure, since September 20, it is a 30-minute, 12-mile trip to the hospital. Less than ideal for Brookside Road’s older population (not that it is ideal for any population).
- “Medical emergencies are inevitable but the response time for EMTs arriving at the scene of an emergency strongly influences whether or not the patient will survive, especially if the individual is encountering a cardiac event.” Hard to argue with that.
- Financial losses, both realized and unrealized. Annual fuel costs tied to 180 additional hours of drive time of are approximately $1,936. Home values diminished by 12 to 19 percent, according to a real estate broker’s assessment. Service providers, pet-care workers, landscapers, and snowplowers (reasonably) add additional charges to regular fees, if they are willing to come.
Tamar Halpern from the BNG stepped to the microphone at the outset of the meeting with notes in hand. Outside of scripted television, Ms. Halpern’s interrogation of the MassDOT representatives and Tighe & Bond engineers was about as good as you are likely to see. Remarkably, Ms. Halpern’s questioning uncovered that the town was not aware that it had possessed since June MassDOT’s full report on the bridge. An awkward revelation, to be sure, but Ms. Halpern was in the pursuit of progress not discomfiture. With the full report available to it, once funded, Tighe & Bond will be able to assess the viability of opening a bridge lane to emergency vehicles. The prospect of driving long distances to get downtown is tragic; the prospect of emergency personnel unable to timely reach a Brookside Road resident in need could be catastrophic.
Following the meeting, Ms. Halpern sent the Selectboard and Mr. Pruhenski a list of matters in need of follow-up, found here. Most urgent, the BNG requests that the town immediately hire an engineering firm (presumably Tighe & Bond) “to assess what type of opening (if any) can be made on the bridge before winter to accommodate (at a minimum) ambulance and police in emergency situations.”
Bummer, I thought, our Open Town Meeting form of government does not permit expenditures to swiftly respond to situations such as the one presented by the bridge closure. Mr. Aberdale noted that even if the consultant funding request went smoothly through the Finance Committee and Selectboard for consideration, town funds would be available no earlier than July 1, 2025. So, immediately hiring an engineering firm “before winter,” as requested in Ms. Halpern’s follow-up request, would be “before winter” 2025. That makes for a scary winter of 2024.
Bummer, I thought, when I saw that the Great Barrington Board of Health voted to appeal Superior Court Judge John A. Agostini’s October 21 order enjoining the Board of Health from enforcing its order that HWW provide customers 1.5 gallons of bottled water per day or pay crippling fines. The board’s vote followed an executive session with Town Counsel David Doneski, and the board announced that Mr. Doneski would collaborate with lawyers from the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards in the Board’s appeal efforts (the same folks that drafted the ill-advised Board of Health Order in the first place).
Outside of scripted television, the court’s order granting HWW a preliminary injunction, found here, was about as damning to the board’s efforts as you are likely to see. Any reader of this column will know that I am no friend of HWW, and readers may recall that I took Stockbridge to task for not joining Great Barrington and West Stockbridge in their efforts to appeal the DPU’s July 31 rate case settlement with HWW. Appealing Judge Agostini’s recent order, however, is distinct from the towns’ other appellate effort. Judge Agostini’s perfectly considered opinion is founded in unassailable law that the board is preempted by federal and state law from imposing additional requirements on HWW. It is hard to imagine that Mr. Doneski advised the board that there are strong, or any, legitimate grounds for appeal. It is hard to imagine why the town, and Mr. Doneski, are participating in this effort.
Any reader of this column will also know that I am not fond of litigation as a public relations mechanism. Since the board’s appeal is not founded in law, the proposed appeal must simply be a vehicle for the board to show that someone is doing something for HWW customers. That amounts to a waste of the town’s scarce legal resources, and giving false hope to HWW customers serves no legitimate purpose. Hopefully the Selectboard will confer with Mr. Doneski concerning this latest appellate effort and conclude, as I do, that it is not worth pursuing.
Bummer, I thought, when Selectboard Chair Steve Bannon noted at the top of the November 4 meeting that, while the town is aware of its rights under the 1897 charter to purchase Housatonic Water Works, the town would prefer to negotiate with HWW’s owners. Talk about being between sediment and a hard place. Perhaps the town should go down both tracks. Pursuing the purchase under the 1897 charter is sure to be a lengthy process potentially involving adjudication, but at least there would be an end in sight. If we have learned anything over the last few years, it is that direct dealings with HWW are unlikely to be fruitful.
Survey Monkey Question
Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll: “By whatever means possible, including a Special Town Meeting if necessary, should Great Barrington undertake an immediate effort to obtain approval to fund engagement of Tighe & Bond to analyze opening the Brookside Road Bridge to emergency vehicles?”
Survey Monkey Results
Here is the result of the following recent survey question: “Should Alford contribute to the cost to implement the 14-point Great Barrington Comprehensive Traffic Control Strategy?”
As of publication, 77.78 percent of respondents said “yes.”
Days Great Barrington has wrongfully withheld Community Access Fees: 256
