Page Two

As I start my third year of sharing my views on current events with you in this personal website format I feel compelled to remind you that these are just my opinions. Recent events have made me aware that my perspectives are often views from under the proverbial bus. And that’s OK. You can get the party line from other sources. So the page title will be different but that is all.

The View from Under the Bus is my personal perspective. Other points of view and additional information are now on my Guest Book page. Previous VFUTB items can be found in Archives.

Mind your own business. Another phrase in the English language that completely changes meaning with usage. Used in a negative context it becomes a barrier to communication and cooperation. Using it positively has the opposite effect. A positive example is presented by the Small Business Administration.

Readers note and forgive me if this sounds patronizing but my postings are expanded and sometimes explained through the use of hyperlinks. Those underlined words in blue. If you point and click with your cursor (the white arrow thing) it takes you to another page where you can check things out at your leisure. Pointing and clicking on the red X in the upper right hand corner brings you back. Folks, you would be surprised at how many people are not as digitally (computer) literate as you.

The Town of Canton is our business. We are stockholders. We renew our shares every quarter with our taxes. We hold annual elections for our Boards of Directors and every year we hold a Stockholders Meeting. Folks we have an investment in this town – not just our homes – the whole darn town. If you own stock you own stock in the whole company not just the mailroom. What gets the dog barking is when the Board of Directors starts acting as though they own the company and the shareholders work for them. Or in a governmental context – when the executive branch forgets that it is their job to execute the will of the legislative branch and not to start making laws themselves. Modern Town Meetings have delegated so much authority to the various boards that the boards forget where the true authority comes from and they start devising ways to “work around” Town Meeting.

This not always a bad thing. At this month’s Roundtable Meeting of the Canton Association of Industries our Finance Director and Town Administrator provided some insights into our town’s finances and a look at the budget being proposed for Town Meeting and the Lump Sum for the Override. It was all right there in the Recommendations of the Finance Committee to the Voters of the Town of Canton. We call it the Town Warrant but it isn’t. It is the acknowledgement of the Finance Committee that we are the fiscal authority in this town. I had glanced over it when it arrived as I have for the past 26 years but since I already know everything I didn’t pay a lot of attention. I should have.

There is a new format for the Operating Budget By Voting Category. As you know the proposed Override apportions the Lump Sum into increments over the next three years. In three years the money will be spent but the tax increase goes on forever. However, it is alleged that after the three-year hump we should be able to balance the budget based on that increased tax revenue. That is such a fluid situation I don’t know how anyone could nail it down. We need a certain amount of money to run the town. If property values/assessments go down the tax rate goes up. Conversely, when v/a go up the rate goes down. We’ve got to pay the bills – we have to balance the budget. Its legal – the law allows us to do that. However, the law also tells us that when we change the tax rate to balance the budget the adjustment must be based on the assumption that we are collecting 100% of our taxes – period. Abatements and non-payment of taxes can’t be calculated in. That’s where the Assessor’s Overlay comes in. The Board of Assessors tries to squirrel away some cash so that they can cover the difference between the 100% assumption and what we actually collect to balance the budget. So when we raid the Assessor’s Overlay, as we have been doing for 26 years of my certain knowledge – for good reasons and frivolous – we set ourselves up for an override. Spend now, pay later – but you will pay.

I learned that at the CAI meeting – watch for it on Cable 8 – now I know everything. With age comes wisdom but you have to learn that.

Back to the OBBVC. The Municipal Budget comes to us line by line. The School Budget comes to Town Meeting as a lump sum. I’m sure there is a line-by-line breakdown somewhere. I’m still reading the “Town Warrant” so I will probably find it. But the crafty devils on the municipal side have tried to trick us into supporting the override by giving us the information we need to make an informed decision. They are so devious that they have added columns to the OBBVC telling us by department the comparison between the budget with and without the override money. You will know that the Council on Aging would get $6,000 of override money this year. You will know that $142,000 of the caboodle would go to the Fire Department and if you put a Hold on the line they will explain what they are spending it on. Fiendishly clever – they must be getting older too.

However, you will figure out that the whole kit and caboodle comes out to $1,858,739 ($200,000 fixed costs; $272,000 municipal costs; $1,386,739 school costs) for FY 2009 and that is way short of the $4,491,128 being asked for in the override. That is because the 4.5 mil is spread over three years and they would have to come back to us each year through FY 2010 for that year’s budget approval. Please note that the School share after this year drops to within 100K of the Municipal share.

Check it out. I still don’t like it very much but at least now I understand it – I think.

I have heard the Blue Hills Civic Association referred to as “the NIMBYs from York Street”. I have heard that Canton was once called “Dorchester beyond the Blew Hills”. I like to think of BHCA as “the MYOBs beyond Route 138”. Basically they mind their own business. However, “their business” extends beyond York Street and includes (among others beyond Route 138) Randolph Street. Since they have no intention or desire to incorporate their own town (I don’t think), the business of all Canton can also become their business. For these reasons they keep their eyes, ears and minds open to Canton issues that affect their corner of our town even when it isn’t “the flavor of the month”.

It was a member of the BHCA that caught the decision on Roseland and shared it with me. It was a member of the BHCA that sent me the copy of the decision that I am sharing with you today.

I especially enjoy sharing it with you on this Patriot’s Day remembering the time when hundreds of NIMBYs were awakened in the middle of the night by a future Canton NIMBY to make it clear to an oppressive government that they should “Mind Your Own Business”. The Blue Hills Civic is watching their “store” – are you watching yours?

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF CANTON
v.
HOUSING APPEALS COMMITTEE, et al.

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-10057

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF CANTON vs. HOUSING APPEALS COMMITTEE & another.[1]

Norfolk. February 5, 2008. - April 11, 2008.

Present: Marshall, C.J., Greaney, Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Cordy, & Botsford, JJ.

Department of Housing and Community Development. Administrative Law, Regulations. Regulation. Statute, Construction. Zoning, Housing appeals committee, Low and moderate income housing. Housing.

Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 27, 2005.

The case was heard by Charles M. Grabau, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.

Mark Bobrowski for Zoning Board of Appeals of Canton.
David A. Guberman, Assistant Attorney General, for Housing Appeals Committee.
Brian M. Hurley for Canton Property Holding, LLC.
Theodore C. Regnante & Paul J. Haverty, for Citizens' Housing and Planning Association & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

COWIN, J. As in Taylor v. Housing Appeals Comm., ante (2008), this case requires us to pass upon the validity of 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 31.04(1)(a) (2004), which sets the date at which a municipality's stock of low or moderate income housing is calculated for the purpose of determining whether it has met the threshold set forth in G. L. c. 40B, 20. The zoning board of appeals of Canton (board) sought judicial review of a decision by the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) of the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), which had ordered the board to issue a comprehensive permit to Canton Property Holding, LLC (CPH), pursuant to G. L. c. 40B, §§ 20-23. A Superior Court judge granted the board's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that HAC had no authority to order the board to issue a permit, since the town had achieved the statutory minimum ten per cent of affordable housing while CPH's appeal was pending.[2] CPH and HAC appealed that decision. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We now reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.

Facts and procedural history. The facts are not in dispute. In June, 2002, CPH submitted a comprehensive permit application for a project to be constructed on land located on Randolph Street in Canton (town). CPH's proposed project consisted of two developments: one comprising 196 rental units, and a subdivision consisting of twenty-four single-family homes, one two-family home, and three duplexes. Both developments would qualify as "low or moderate income housing" under G. L. c. 40B, § 20.[3]

After a series of hearings held between August, 2002, and June, 2003, the board denied the application in a decision filed with the town clerk July 11, 2003. The board cited a number of factors, primarily increased vehicular traffic, to support its finding that the proposed project was inconsistent with local needs. In its decision, the board recognized that, as of the date of decision, the town "apparently" had not satisfied the statutory minimum levels of affordable housing. CPH appealed to HAC.

Meanwhile, in August, 2003, the board had also denied comprehensive permit applications from another developer for two other projects, Pequit View and Pequit Village (Pequit projects), and the developer of those projects had appealed to HAC. While CPH's appeal was pending, the board reached an agreement with the developer of the Pequit projects that resulted in the issuance of comprehensive permits for those projects. The board's approval of the Pequit projects, which together comprised 180 affordable housing units, brought the town over the ten per cent affordable housing threshold. The board moved to dismiss CPH's appeal, arguing that HAC's power to decide the appeal had been "extinguished" the moment the town passed the ten per cent minimum, and that requiring the board to approve the CPH project would result in the town's devotion of more than twelve per cent of its housing stock to affordable housing, an "unreasonable" demand.

HAC denied the motion, concluding that, pursuant to 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 31.04(1)(a), the town's compliance with the statutory minimum was determined as of the date of the board's decision on the permit application and was not affected by subsequent events. In a decision dated September 20, 2005, HAC vacated the board's decision and ordered it to issue a comprehensive permit to CPH. Among other findings, HAC concluded that the board's settlement of the appeals related to the Pequit projects did not require dismissal of CPH's appeal; that concerns about traffic flow were primarily a matter of "inconvenience" and did not rise to a public safety concern that outweighed the need for affordable housing; and that, in the circumstances, to require that twelve per cent of the town's housing units be affordable was not unreasonable.

The board sought judicial review pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14. A judge in the Superior Court reversed HAC's decision, concluding that 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 31.04(1)(a), which establishes the regulation determining the date for calculating a town's compliance with the statutory minimum, was contrary to the underlying purpose of G. L. c. 40B, §§ 20-23. The judge reasoned that by fixing the date of the town's compliance with the statutory minimum at the time of the board's decision, HAC and DHCD had "skew[ed] the . . . delicate balance [of G. L. c. 40B, §§ 23-23,] too far in favor of developers and against municipal autonomy." This appeal followed.

Discussion. Superior Court review of an agency's properly promulgated regulation is deferential; "regulations 'are not to be declared void unless their provisions cannot by any reasonable construction be interpreted in harmony with the legislative mandate.'" Goldberg v. Board of Health of Granby, 444 Mass. 627, 633 (2005), quoting Berrios v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 411 Mass. 587, 595-596 (1992). Where a statute is silent or ambiguous, the fact that a court might have interpreted the statute differently from the agency is unimportant. Goldberg v. Board of Health of Granby, supra.

DHCD has promulgated a regulation stating that a town's compliance with the statutory minimum levels of affordable housing is to be calculated as of the time a local board files its decision on a comprehensive permit application. 760 Code Mass. Regs. § 31.04(1)(a). As we made clear in Taylor v. Housing Appeals Comm., supra at , DHCD's choice of the date of filing of the board's decision is neither irrational nor inconsistent with the statute.

The judge has correctly identified in the statute a legislative effort to strike a balance between increasing the development of low and moderate income housing and preserving, to the extent possible, traditional municipal autonomy in land use decisions. He then held, however, that the regulation is inconsistent with the balancing by the Legislature because the regulation may impose the chapter 40B process upon a municipality after the statutory threshold has been achieved. We conclude otherwise. We recognize that there is a balancing in the statute of the type the judge describes, but that balance is not unlawfully affected by the timing set forth in the regulation. That timing was a detail within the agency's discretion.

Because the Superior Court judge deemed that HAC was without authority to consider CPH's appeal, he did not address the grounds on which the board denied the permit. Our conclusion that HAC did have authority to hear the appeal requires that the complaint be considered on the merits. The decision of the Superior Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Canton Property Holding, LLC.
[2] Pursuant to G. L. c. 40B, §§ 20-23, if a municipality has devoted ten per cent of its total housing units to low or moderate income housing, it may deny a comprehensive permit application, and that denial is conclusively presumed to be consistent with local needs. A denial in these circumstances is not appealable to the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC). See Taylor v. Housing Appeals Comm., ante (2008); Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Wellesley v. Ardemore Apartments Ltd. Partnership, 436 Mass. 811, 814-816 (2002); Board of Appeals of Hanover v. Housing Appeals Comm., 363 Mass. 339, 366-367 (1973).
[3] The entire project would be subsidized under the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston's New England Fund, and twenty-five per cent of the units would be restricted as low or moderate income housing units for at least fifteen years. See 760 Code Mass. Regs. 30.02 (2002).

Wow what an outpouring of indignation. My mailbox is full of angry people who have used every derogatory term that is printable with regard to the Anonymous Postcard. I’m afraid that although I defend your right to be indignant I just think it was stupid. People who might not have voted for Bob Burr may have voted their indignation instead of their inclination. Nowhere in anything I have read or heard has anyone said, “None of it is true”.

Roseland is back. Roseland is the 200-unit 40B project on the Canton side of the Canton/Randolph town line off Randolph Street. It was the largest of five 40B projects that were facing the town a couple of years ago. The Zoning Board rejected it. The developer appealed the rejection. The Housing Appeals Committee rejected the rejection. By this time one of the 40Bs was pulled and resubmitted for market price housing – thank you Patrick Considine. But the Town Administration decided to go ahead and approve the other three. One for Vazza and two for Barletta. One of the Barletta deals included the playing fields over on Route 138 as mitigation. With these three projects we went over 10% of our housing stock being designated “affordable” which is the threshold to protect us against 40B development. Armed with this fact we rejected the rejection of our rejection and appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth.

Reader info – items in italics were lifted from the Globe article cited above:

The state's highest court ruled in favor of developers in a pair of decisions released yesterday involving the controversial Chapter 40B statute, which was designed to promote the construction of affordable housing throughout the state.

The law allows affordable-housing developers to bypass most local zoning rules and pursue a streamlined approval process in communities where less than 10 percent of the housing is deemed affordable.

Although the 40B law is unclear about when to calculate a community's affordable-housing percentage in connection with a new application, the state Department of Housing and Community Development had called for the calculation to coincide with the zoning board's decision on that application. The high court said that was a reasonable regulation.

First – the folks at Canton Property Holding (Roseland) are p....d-off. We have just spent possibly millions of dollars (their money and yours) on a precedent setting case for which no one wanted to set a precedent.

The rulings should ease the anxiety of developers who were wary about investing in the application process in communities that are near the 10 percent threshold, said Paul D. Wilson, a Boston lawyer who has represented 40B developers since the 1980s.

"There was fear in the industry that towns that were particularly unhappy with a particular project would actually go and help another developer get to the finish line sooner so they could safely deny the one they didn't like," he said.

This means that if there is any negotiating it should be done with someone they haven’t seen before. I think Mr. Wilson thinks we are scurrilous.

Second – The former Revere Copper Company rezoning issue at Town Meeting. This makes an already complicated issue even more complicated. Canton already has a glut of properties for sale and forclosure. Will the prospect of these additional units impact the financing needed to go forward with the 500 +/- units proposed for the Revere Street site? I don’t think Napleton is going to build anything there. I think they are going to get the best zoning deal they can then sell the property to a builder-developer in the same way that Barletta did at Windsor Woods. The more lucrative the zoning the higher the selling price unless the market makes the zoning issue a non-sequitur. It has always been my position that the property should be left industrial and an all out effort made to attract the right sort of industrial user to the site.

Third – The Override. Folks this applecart has been smashed and the 800 pound gorilla that has been chained up somewhere has developed a taste for apples. The demographic of a 40B development does not include Empty Nesters and Over 55. Globe South may think that everyone in Canton makes 97K a year but that is because they don’t realize that we have some really, I mean really, well paid folks who skew the “average income” data to the point that it is meaningless. None of them are going to sell their multi-million dollar houses to move to the Randolph line. On the other hand there may be some folks in Randolph who can resolve their concerns about Randolph Schools by moving a couple of hundred yards to live in Canton and be part of our school bus system. At least they won’t expect much as far as response times for fire and police – or will they? With the looming prospect of 200 plus families coming to Canton maybe we should be factoring in the prospect of a fourth elementary school and a third public safety facility into our long term budget planning. Live for today but plan for tomorrow. The world did not begin on the day you were born and will not end on the day that you die.

Congratulations to all of our newly elected elected officials and good luck to us all – especially you Mrs. Cratchit.

From Ian Cooke at NepRWA: Below is the info we have been circulating to our members about the Bond Rally:

Depending on where people are coming from and what their preference is, folks can find their own way into Boston and we'll rendezvous at the AMC. If folks prefer, they can meet at the watershed association office (directions below) at 9 AM and carpool either all the way into town or over to the Quincy Adams Red Line station depending on how many people we have, whether everyone arrives on time and how excited everyone is about getting gouged on parking fees in the city! After the rally we'll form people into teams to go over and visit the legislators. Directions - http://www.neponset.org/DirectionsToOffice.htm

From The Dog: I have received several emails decrying or asking for explanations about the anonymous postcard sent to so many households giving explicit reasons for not voting for Bob Burr. I don’t know who sent it. I have an idea but it is based on deduction not information. And as we all know 1+1=11 is wrong. It is a logical answer but it is incorrect. With that caveat, I proceed.

The card is obviously from someone or someones frustrated, angry and more than a little bit bitter about the way that things are going in “the best run town” in the region. When I hear that quote I am always tempted to ask “for whom?” Let me go on record at this time – I had nothing to do with that postcard. I understand the bitterness and frustration that motivated the unusual step but I don’t do anonymous. I use a “nom de plume” which is an old journalistic tradition but all one needs to do is to click on my web site link to see who I am.

I found nothing in the card to be surprising. Almost all of it was “old news” but to see it itemized in one long litany was shocking. Let me correct myself – I did not know that Selectman Burr was unmarried and without children. I seem to remember campaign photographs that gave the impression that his family tree had it’s own branch.

The point is – it doesn’t matter. Burr’s supporters know all this stuff and they are going to vote for him anyhow. He is their guy on the BOS and that is all there is to that. While everything else was falling apart we focused on having the best playing fields and sports amenities in the region and that gets votes. End of story.

As a “rebuttal” the day after I received the cheap little card outlining Burr’s failings I received a large expensive card listing all of his achievements. I remember them all.

I especially remember the strong support for our 5 million dollar Senior Center a couple of years ago. An especially interesting item was the cash mitigation promise made by St. John’s Church in aid of the zoning change that made Washington Commons a possibility. A percentage of the purchase price was to go to the town for a good purpose and it was decided that the best purpose was the building of the Senior Center. When that tubed I naturally assumed that the mitigation would go towards the much needed and much deserved improvements to the current center. I have heard that the town’s cut from the Washington Commons developer was in the quarter of a million dollars range. When you ask how much has been spent to upgrade the Senior Center – once the most important item on the municipal agenda (next to playing fields) – you will see how quickly “appreciation of our seniors” joined the new center in going down the tube. I don’t know who was Chairman of the Board that year – it seems to alternate between Burr and DelVecchio with the other three rotating the duties between Secretary and Vice Chair – but this is one of the generators for my “bitterness and frustration” assessment. Oh yeah – add that the Little League Fields are going forward as planned and they will be lighted for night practice.

So – who made up and sent the cards? I really don’t know. Why did they do it? I do have an opinion about that. What difference will it make? None – not a bloody bit. Consequences?

My teapot runneth over. This little tempest was quickly addressed by our representative on the MBTA advisory board – George Comeau and Selectman Sal Salvatori.

Carl, some of the information that you received on this topic is correct – for folks who want a closer look at this project, they might want to look at the South Coast Rail website which has plenty of information and includes dates for upcoming public meetings. As for “scare tactics” there is still plenty of planning and money needed for this project. Also, whichever alternative line is chosen for this project, the impacts in Canton are such that the additional rail traffic will affect people, environment and commuter rail passengers. I would stress, however, that the real issue for Canton is the potential for the line to go through and extend the Stoughton Branch, where we would encounter a second set of tracks at Canton Center and perhaps new gates and much more of an issue with traffic and frequency.

The person who wrote this email to you is – in part – responding to the study aspects of the project and I can assure you that no decision has been made on the routes, cost, or timeline for implementation. I have been in contact with the South Coast Rail coordinator and will continue to monitor and report on this project. In fact, we have known about this possible extension for over 5 years and during this time, there have been several plans for the route and the impact – it must feel like 1820 (when the original line was built) all over again.

Carl, there is limited merit to this issue. The Governor apparently wants to see this project come to fruition. The Project Manager for this project is tentatively scheduled to appear before the Canton BOS on 5/20. FYI, we are told this project is not even close to being funded. But rest assured we are monitoring it, in its reported concept stage, as the scheduling of the 5/20 “update” illustrates. Sal

Now – while I have your attention – a tea kettle that is about to boil:

We need as many people as possible to come to the State House in Boston (gathering first at the Appalachian Mountain Club at 5 Joy St., Boston) to tell the legislature that it must pass the Environmental Bond this session! We only have until July 31 before the session ends and already many key environmental agencies and organizations (including NepRWA) are suffering from a lack of funds. If the Bond does not pass this session, some programs will effectively cease to operate - putting our water quality, land protection and tourism industry at risk.

The Coalition for the Environmental Bond will provide training to help you be more comfortable and knowledgeable with a unified and straightforward message to deliver to your own state representative and senator. You only need to visit two offices and deliver your message! At the rally, some of the state's top environmental specialists and lobbyists will provide you with tips and you'll receive a hand-out with more information to pass along to your legislators.

P.S. If you can't attend, please call or e-mail your representative and senator between now and April 6. For their phone numbers, e-mails, and State House room numbers, see: http://mass.gov/legis/; Under "Legislators," click on "House" and "Senate."

Meet at Appalachian Mountain Club, 5 Joy St., Boston by 10 AM (NOT the State House).

Punxsutawney Phil only gave us 6 weeks of additional hibernation and it was over in March – busy times are coming.

This is information that was provided to me today. I haven’t had time to check it out so I can’t vouch for it. It could be just a scare tactic but the logic of it gives a ring of truth. However, although this is just their side of the story it is something to check out.

*****

Subject: An Issue to be Aware Of - New Rail Line from Canton Junction North.

Hello to all you Canton & NepRWA folks from the people down in the
Norton / Attleboro area.

Did you know that the MBTA and the Executive Office of Transportation
(EOT) are looking to spend $1.4B to have a new commuter line run from
Boston to New Bedford / Fall River ?

This new rail line is called the South Coast Rail Line.
The line is in the study phase right now but there is already good
opposition from my surrounding area as we do not want the line to run
thru our towns (like the Greenbush Line is on the South Shore).

If the MBTA and the EOT chooses to run the line thru the Attleboro
Alternative, then the train will hook into the Providence to Boston
"Shoreline" and this will crowd the tracks from Canton Junction north
into Readville and then into the Back Bay and South Station.

Here is where you in Canton come in: Since there will be new crowding
on the "Shoreline" tracks, The MBTA and EOT will need to add a third
set of tracks from Canton Junction up to Readville. So, you residents
in the Chapman St and Dedham St area will see not only an increase in
the train frequencies, these new trains will be closer to your houses.

The real problem right now is that the MBTA and the EOT have never let
you known about this possibility.

We down here (who have been fighting this rail line for over 10 years)
just found out about the added rail line in mid March.

Also, for you at NepRWA, this additional rail line cuts thru the Fowl
Meadow & Ponkapoag Bog ACEC.

This new line will effect the Neponset River Watershed and many NHESP
Certified or Potential Vernal Pools.

This effort is currently being headed by the Mass EOT.

For more information go to www.ccats.org.

*****

Check it out and good luck to us all.

This time of year, the time between the anniversary of the Boston Massacre (March 5^th) and Patriot’s Day (April 19^th) always puts me in a historical frame of mind. Doing a little research I found documentation that my great-grandfather⁶ John Elliot of Boscawen, NH was in fact a private in Captain Joshua Abbott’s Company in Colonel John Stark’s 1^st New Hampshire Regiment at Bunker Hill. A history of the town of Boscawen affirmed that in December of 1775 a call went out for reinforcement for the company and my great-grandfather⁵ Nicholas Elliott joined them for the Siege of Boston. By this time the New Hampshire Regiments had been incorporated into the 5^th Continental, which made them harder to track.

Mix that in with my just finishing a book entitled The Lost Constitution by William Martin and being immersed in the audio book version of John Adams (why did I drop HBO?) by David McCullough and starting the Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis – I’m ready for a powdered wig and knee britches! But you knew that.

It was the William Martin book that got me going. If you want a totally painless method of learning about New England history check out this novel and two other Martin novels that I can vouch for – Back Bay and Cape Cod. Intriguing historical mysteries using the flashback format. That is: one chapter in the present focusing on a historical subject or object, then the next chapter flashing back to give you the historical context of the events in the previous chapter. Could make you dizzy but Martin does it very well.

Every scribbler thinks about “the book” they are going to write and if mine ever happens it will be in that format. So I started flashing back. I did K through 5 at the Ralph Waldo Emerson and 6 through 8 at the Hugh O’Brien schools in Roxbury. Hugh O’Brien was the first Irish mayor of Boston and to make sure no one knows about it they tore the school down. It had nothing to do with me. In Grade 5 I had woodworking shop. In Grades 6 through 8 we alternated sheet metal, printing and advanced woodworking. I also took three years of Spanish and learned the Pledge of Allegiance by heart in Spanish. This was when “under God” was inserted into the pledge and set off the “sobre de” or “debajo de” controversy. When I graduated from Grammar (Middle) school I had training enough to get a job or enter an apprenticeship. The year was 1951.

I had high school options. Roxbury Memorial with it’s printing program; Boston Trade with automotive – I think Brighton had automotive too; Dorchester High School with carpentry; Commerce with a start in business administration; Boston Technical that I knew nothing about; Boston English with college prep or Boston Latin with college prep on steroids. Geographically, it was looking like Memorial. If you have ever set type by hand in what I think we called a “printer’s key” you know that I didn’t want to go to Memorial. That makes me smile. Here I am, 57 years later, boring you with my brilliance but still setting my own type for publication.

Then came the life-changing event. Sister Mary Valentina, my aunt, set me up for the entrance exam for Cathedral High School. Somehow I passed – I think. You never know with the blessed Sisters of St, Joseph – I mean that with all the love I can muster. However, it meant jacket and tie for class every day, pay for books and tuition and all the other little expenses that go along with a Catholic high school. We flat couldn’t afford it. End of story – until Jacky McGuiggan (who was in the same boat at BC High) told me about a golf club in Canton that was looking for caddies. The Blue Hill Golf Club whose sign I vaguely remembered from clandestine trips to a place in Canton called the Reservoir years before. So in the summers of 1951 and 1952 I traveled every day from one end of Blue Hill Avenue to the other – Roxbury to Canton - to earn the money to put myself through high school. From the Fall of 1952 through and after graduation in 1955, I worked as a veterinary assistant for Herbert S Carlin, DVM both in Jamaica Plain and Brookline. By this time I was living in the Franklin Hill Avenue projects on American Legion Highway in Dorchester. I’ll tell you about my treks in the dead of winter from Dorchester to Jamaica Plain across the back of the Franklin Park Golf Course some other time. All of this prepared me to join the United States Air Force. The year was 1956.

After 22 years in the Air Force I went back to school full time at Southwest Texas State University, now named Texas University at San Marcos – the alma mater of President Lyndon B. Johnson. The GI Bill covered most of my college expenses but with a wife and son it wasn’t enough, although my wife had a great job working in the front office of the San Antonio Spurs. I worked as the Night Manager at the NCO Club on Randolph Air Force Base during undergrad years and in grad school as the Overnight Manager, six nights a week, for StopN’Go (also known as StopN’Rob) a convenience store chain in San Antonio. A Master’s Degree in Public Administration with a Human Resources specialty was earned in 1981.

So after 20 years in the private sector finding people for jobs I find myself in the public sector at your One Stop Career Center trying to find jobs for people. Too often for college graduates who have no marketable or transferable skills. People who are taking or being laid off from jobs that do not require a degree to do the job. You just need a degree to get the job. Brilliant. Right now I am scrambling to put together programs for welders to build power-generating plants so that there will be enough electricity to run all those computers that support the rest of the workforce. And for those who have made it big time, I am trying to support programs to train marine technicians for those gorgeous forty footers that “boaties” are striving for. But nobody wants to get their hands dirty. Not around here anyhow. The year is 2008.

I doubt that my story has made you cry. So please stop trying to make me cry with your rhetoric about “haves and have-nots”. If we restore fee-free activities does that mean that everyone will make the team or get the part they want in the class play? Or will we go back (if we ever left) to the “jock, jerk, nerd” caste system that has been the hallmark of the Canton student body for the past 25 years that I am sure of. Our Public Safety and Military Services have adopted “Protect and Serve” as their motto. Maybe “Educate and Train” should be spread around a little bit.

Bottom line – compared to places that I go and have gone – everyone in Canton is a “have”.