We are beginning to think that Hartford town officials are channeling the late Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City and a notable wit, who famously quipped after a primary election defeat, “The people have spoken . . . and they must be punished.”
Decisions on, first, parking meters and now, on curbside recycling, strongly suggest that Hartford government officials distrust the voters’ judgment and prefer to substitute their own.
The town is about to roll out metered parking in downtown White River Junction, with 16 new kiosks regulating 211 spaces, both on-street and in the parking lot opposite the Hotel Coolidge. This decision was made last fall by the Selectboard despite a 2020 Town Meeting vote in which voters rejected using $160,000 in local option tax revenue to install meters. It wasn’t even close: 2,088 opposed, 906 in favor.
Message sent, but not received. The Selectboard later opted to use $145,000 in COVID-19 relief aid to buy and install the metering system. (How that acquisition ameliorated the ill effects of the pandemic is anybody’s guess.)
As we recall, the disingenuous explanation for ignoring the stated will of the voters was that they may have only been expressing their opposition to using the local option tax revenue for the parking meters, not to meters themselves. Far more likely is that the Selectboard listened more attentively to business interests that were anxious to promote more frequent turnover of downtown parking spaces. If that’s the case, then Selectboard members and town officials owed it to the public to explain themselves.
So those parking downtown will be required to pony up $1 an hour with a two-hour limit after entering their license plate number (in the freezing cold) and paying with cash, credit card or a mobile phone app, if they can figure out how that works. Those not thrilled for privacy reasons about entering their license plate number and location in a government-controlled machine have the option to use the South Main Street lot, which will remain free, providing they are physically able to walk safely to the downtown.
As for curbside recycling, voters supported it as part of the town operating budget at Town Meeting last year. The Selectboard pulled the plug on it a few months later, citing a significantly higher than expected bid from Casella Waste Management to renew the contract and the fact that only about half of town residents used the tax-funded program.
That left residents who wanted to recycle with two unpalatable options: to contract with a waste hauler or to wrangle their own bins to the town’s recycling and waste facility. Those in favor of ending the service were quick to note that Vermont law requires haulers to pick up recycling without a separate charge, but of course they cannot be stopped from raising fees across the board to cover their costs.
As for the recycling center, disposal is logistically cumbersome and dangerous. Required traffic flow is not delineated (as it is on the schematic on the town website), with the result that vehicles are moving in opposite directions at the same time people are out of their vehicles unloading their recyclables in a half-dozen separate receptacles. A Hartford resident died last year after being pinned between his truck and an oncoming vehicle at the recycling facility.
At the end of December, the board declined to put on the warning for the upcoming Town Meeting a question asking voters whether they wanted to restore the program for a three-year term while the town seeks a long-term solution. This proposal by board member Ashley Andreas failed on a 3-3 tie vote, with Vice Chairman Michael Hoyt absent. (He was also absent last year when the program was killed, and, having recently been appointed to the Legislature, his appearance could not be guaranteed if the board deferred action on Andreas’ proposal to its Jan. 6 meeting. He ought to resign immediately if he is too busy to attend to the town’s pressing business.)
In opposing the ballot item, board member Erik Krauss asserted that voters would not have enough information on the costs and benefits of the program and “what serves the community well.” But the town staff is certainly capable of producing and disseminating factual information about costs and benefits. This sounds to our ear an awful lot like, “The voters are too ignorant to be trusted.”
As to the $1.87 million cost for a three-year renewal, here’s a bit of context. At Town Meeting last year voters agreed to spend $442,000 in one year to replace town-owned vehicles. As to the participation rate, we would like to hear from the Selectboard which town services, outside of road maintenance, are used directly by more than 50% of residents each year. Maybe parking meters?