If you received an election flyer with the mysouthborough.com logo on it, please note: mysouthborough.com is not endorsing any candidates for political office.
My concern is that residents may misinterpret a flyer with the website logo as being distributed by or endorsed by me. I want to make clear that is not the case and that none of the words are from my writing.
Each candidate for contested positions submitted a “position paper” following my requested format. All of them are available by clicking on the Town Election header.
A flyer that I saw today is apparently crediting the site as source and/or pointing readers to find the candidate’s paper. Since it does not state the reason that the mysouthborough.com logo is at the top, I wanted to make that clear.
Beth, thank you for clarifying this. As I investigated this document further, I determined that it was information on only one candidate and assumed that it had not, in fact, been distributed by mysouthborough.com. It is disappointing that someone who is asking residents to elect him as our representative has distributed material that may be misleading. I’m also concerned that this document showed up in my mailbox, but nowhere on it do I see any kind of markings indicated that it was processed through the postal service.
Perhaps because it was hand delivered? Not sure what would be concerning about no postage marks.
There is a reason that vendors hang advertisements on the outside of mailboxes – it is against the law to put items inside other people’s mailboxes.
From US Postal Service website:
Mailbox access restricted to postage paid U.S. Mail
The U.S. Postal Service would like to warn people that only authorized U.S. Postal Service delivery personnel are allowed to place items in a mailbox. By law, a mailbox is intended only for receipt of postage-paid U.S. Mail. . .
Additionally, the Postal Service has received complaints of flyers without paid postage being placed in mailboxes. Though many may be unaware, it is important to know that this type of activity is illegal by federal law. It may seem to be an easy way to advertise, but only U.S. Mail delivered by authorized personnel may be placed in mailboxes. . .
The Postmaster noted an exception to the general rule: newspapers can be placed in mailboxes only on Sunday; a non-delivery day for the Postal Service.
http://about.usps.com/news/state-releases/tx/2010/tx_2010_0909.htm
Because it is illegal and a Federal offense to put anything in or on a mailbox. Granted, it is done sometimes with the permission of the home owner “Just put it in my mailbox and I’ll pick it up when I get home” but distributing flyers in people’s mailboxes en masse is a crime and a concern if someone running for office is not aware of that.
Why does everyone have to beat around the bush and just tell us who that candidate is. Distributing misleading material and taking endorsements from people and organization who do not endorse that candidate speaks volumes on that candidate’s character. I for one want to know who that is.
I wasn’t looking to post a story about a specific candidate. I also don’t want to get into an inevitable argument over the intentions. I chose instead to focus on making sure my role was clear. In answer to your question, the flyer was David Parry’s candidate position paper.
Thanks Beth. No worries. I did in fact discover it was David Parry. I see he has posted below me and I will not be reading it as it is too long. I will drop the subject now.
Thank you editor, for allowing all candidates to write their own position papers, to any length they choose. I chose to write a lengthy paper covering a variety of controversial issues, occurring all over town.
However in one instance I have had to radically revise my position, following the results of Town Meeting. This is the issue of a comprehensive revision to our Zoning Bylaw. I have concluded that this effort is doomed to failure, if we continue to following the present path. Let me explain.
Unfortunately, the town has wasted 7 long years in a fruitless effort to revise its zoning. Why did this happen? In my opinion, it happened because the consultant and a previous Town Planner led the Town Planning Board astray by proposing (1) overly complex rules, plus (2) a complete reformatting. Then (3) another town committee (Zoning Advisory Committee, or ZAC) worked on the bylaw, laboriously, for years, with only passing reference to the Master Plan. ZAC created an even more complex document based largely on individual opinions unrelated to the Master Plan.
The result is what you would expect from such a process —an incredibly long, detailed, complex, cross-referenced bylaw, with complicated tables and charts which hardly anyone can understand. But worse, hardly anything can be tracked to any origin or purpose, and worst of all, it is extremely difficult to carve out any small section and get it adopted piecemeal.
The Planning Board’s recent attempt, at Town Meeting, is a case in point. The Board attempted to carve out the easiest section for 2014 Town Meeting , but it had to be withdrawn because even that simple section (Site Plan Review) was too complicated. What this tells us is that future progress (beyond updating Site Plan Review) is virtually impossible. This is because the reformatting of the proposed zoning will make any further attempts to carve out other, small pieces impossible, because of all the new cross-referencing.
My conclusion is that the proposed zoning bylaw can never be adopted section by section, which is the ONLY way Town Meeting has ever changed zoning, which requires a 2/3rds vote. Town Meeting has only approved changes in small, understandable chunks.
I am a City Planner and Architect, by profession, and I believe that it is time we faced up to the bitter truth ….. That we have no chance of getting the proposed zoning bylaw adopted. Instead, we have no alternative except to return to the existing format, which we are all familiar with, which is perfectly modern, workable and appropriate. (It was recommended by Professor Herr of MIT in the 1980’s). We have no alternative except to abandon the new format, not necessarily because it is worthless per se, but rather because of a simple, practical truth — it prevents us from taking out small sections and adopting them one at a time. The cross-referencing in the new format makes this literally impossible.
The only alternative would be to have Town Meeting adopt the ENTIRE, proposed zoning bylaw as one, new, “package deal”. But this will never happen, because there are literally thousands of changes, and therefore the real possibility of harmful projects.
Northborough tried that 5 years ago, (adopting an entirely new zoning bylaw), but they lived to regret it, because, no sooner had the new Northborough zoning bylaw been approved, when developers immediately filed development applications, locking in the zoning changes for their particular projects. When it became apparent what was now possible, due to the recently approved bylaw with a multitude of changes, Northborough residents voted to annul entire sections. But the harm was already done, because the new filings were grandfathered, and the new developments could not be stopped.
Southborough is extremely unlikely to approve an entirely new zoning bylaw. Instead, we may have no alternative except to face up to the truth and return to our workable, existing format. Not all will be lost, because we can take out of the current proposal many of the ideas which have merit. Also, this new tack, (back to our familiar roots and format), need NOT require a consultant, but can probably be handled by the existing town planner. We have no further use of the consultant.
This new approach will allow the Planning Board to consider small changes in a familiar format. Eventually, and incrementally, it can result in an updated, understandable, familiar zoning bylaw. This can incorporate all the worthwhile ideas buried in the draft proposal. Then the un-approved, proposed zoning bylaw can be assigned to the dustbin of history.
Why no mention of the mistake in the inappropriately delivered election flyer or the implication on the flyer that it was elaborating a position endorsed by mysouthborough.com???
He has never addressed any of these character issues. The election flyer, misleading posts, representing himself as a selectman to the State….maybe even the “stolen” nomination paper…
The flier:
I have apologized to Beth personally about the confusion with the first version of my flier. There is a very simple explanation.
I wrote my position paper as requested by My Southborough, submitted it to My Southborough, and it appears there now, today, along with all the other candidates position papers. When I decided to create a flier, I printed my position paper from the My Southborough website and, for some technical computer reason, the My Southborough logo always appears at the top left above the text. It will not print out without the logo. If anyone tries this, you will find this to be the case. So that is the reason why the logo appeared on the top left of the first flier, because it printed out that way. It was never my intention to imply any endorsement or sponsorship by My Southborough, and no such words were added or appear in my flier.
However when Beth brought this matter to my attention, I re-looked at he flier from her perspective and fully understood her concerns about possible confusion. Therefore I immediately agreed with her suggestion — to cover over the logo. I corrected this several days ago, and have also given Beth a copy of the flier with the logo covered over.
So just to reiterate, the problem only occurred in the first version of the flier, it was immediately corrected, and it no longer appears in any subsequent versions of the flier, which is the overwhelming majority.
Once again, I apologize to Beth for the confusion, which was promptly corrected.
Respectfully submitted
David Parry
To be clear, it wasn’t printed from the site. So, not that simple.
I provided each candidate with a word document template to complete and return. That document had a header with the logo in it.
As you explained it to me when you edited that document, you “coouldn’t get rid of” the logo when you printed it.
You said it was only intended to be you’re own words. However, you did edit the document, including inserting a border that enclosed the logo in a box with the words “Read his ‘Fascinating and Controversial’ paper”. (A phrase I have never written or posted.)
Part of my concern was that the word “his” seemed to reinforce an impression that the printing was done or endorsed by the site.
Yes. But I only post on weekdays.
We received the aforementioned flyer with “MySouthborough.com” proudly displayed across the top, in our mailbox with our regular US mail on Saturday. Would have thought after reading through all of the above that the originator wouldnt be distributing this in this way any more.
Flyer-gate
I would like to create an objective table/matrix to compare the candidates on key metrics: main street plan position, split tax position, relevant town experience, and maybe 1 or 2 other items. A simple table to screen out the fluff and help those of us who just want the basics. Anyone want to work with me on this?
Hickory Rd
If you visit my website http://www.al4selectman.com you will see under positions that I have addressed the issues you raised and others.
Thank you for your consideration.
Hickory Rd resident,
Great idea.
I’m not quite sure why the endorsement of mysouthborough.com would be particularly meaningful. (Intention: Laugh here.)
I don’t know, every time I visit this site I get side-tracked by rubbish. I am not going to vote or not vote for someone based on whether they sent something out with a mysouthborough.com logo.
Let’s get back to the issues and see where the candidates’ stand.
Sidetracked by rubbish? Mr. Parry started his campaign by stating that his nomination papers were stolen, told a state official he was a current selectman, has left unanswered accusations that he’s posted under several names on this blog lambasting a fellow candidate (then harped on others for posting anonymously!), has used the mysouthborough logo and the U.S. Mail inappropriately, and as I drive around town, has placed signs in inappropriate locations. This from a former Selectman and someone with a strong background in public policy and procedure. I’m stunned at this list, and I may well have left something off. This isn’t rubbish–it’s a series of questionable behaviors centered around one candidate, and one candidate alone. “Where the candidates stand” is one thing–running a decent and honest campaign is, I think, equally important.
“Sidetracked by rubbish” is exactly right. Mark Ford obsesses over personal attacks and avoids issues at all costs. Has he once responded to any comment I have made on substantive issues? No. He just repeats the same old personal attacks, ad nauseam.
Mr. Parry, I’m sorry you feel that I’m engaging in personal attacks. It does seem like every time I turn around there’s new issues involving your campaign. For example, I just learned of Mr. Thomas’s letter from Beals & Thomas dated 4/24/14 which says he finds your “misrepresentation and interpretations of [your meetings with them]…particularly troubling,” in fact enough so that Beals and Thomas ceased working for your group. Odd.
But since you ask…I’m perfectly ok with the path Southborough’s taking with the Main Street working group. Good folks there, and I trust their judgment. In any event, the 2/3rds majority needed to proceed with the State plan seems unlikely under the current scenario. You do raise good points about the Park Central 40B, and I hope the developer will return to the negotiating table to find a project that will make him some money and suit the neighbor’s needs better. The rezoning plan seems doomed to me, too–and that’s too bad because it really ought to be rewritten. I don’t like the idea of a bridge over Route 9 connecting Parkerville North and South. The cemetery worker’s layoff seems poorly handled at best, and it’s starting to look like it’s not “at best.” I’ll take Mr. Butler’s thoughts on that one into serious consideration as I form an opinion.
I think that wraps up my views on your published opinions. If I’ve left something out please let me know. You could do me the same courtesy and address each of the concerns I raised above…and toss in the Beals and Thomas discrepancy, too.
Well said Mr Ford. Been looking for explanations myself. I am astounded these character issues have not been addressed directly by Mr Parry.
Regarding the “letter” you referenced, more than troubling. If I am not mistaken, the firm he hired for his local plan terminated the relationship, what state does that leave the plan in?
Dear Hickory Road Resident:
Please find below the information you requested in your comment. I hope that this provides answers to some of your questions.
(This information also appears on the flyer that I have been distributing.)
Thank you,
Bonnie Phaneuf
TOWN EXPERIENCE
• Elected Positions: Board of Selectmen (2002-2011), Board of Commissioners of Trust Funds (2002-2011), Southborough Housing Authority (5 years), and the Regional School Committee (2 years)
• Appointed Positions: SHOPC (Housing Partnership), MBTA Study Committee, Finn School Road Safety Committee, Council on Aging, Advisory Board, PILOT Committee, and the ADA Committee
• School Volunteer Roles: Finn School (1980-1988), Neary School (1983-1991), Woodward School (1987-1992), SPED Programs (1983-1990)
• Serving the Community: Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Police Explorer Fund Raisers, Fire Department Fund Raisers (25+ years), SMOC Meal Program, Care /Maintenance of the All Wars Monument garden (2007- present)
MAIN STREET PROJECT:
Understanding that the Route 85/Mains Street Intersection operates at a poor-to-failing level of service during the morning and afternoon peak hours, the Board needs to make this a top priority to build community consensus. The first step in this process is with the appointment of the Main Street Working Group, which will meet to revisit all documents before the MassDOt Public Hearing scheduled for June 18, 2014. I applaud the current members of the Board for moving this Working Group forward.
There are outstanding questions that need to have answers: Will the scale of the proposed improvements at this intersection invite more regional traffic onto Main Street and local roads that are not designed to handle increased vehicle traffic? Will Main Street become the new east/west corridor because of the increasing congestion on Route 9? What are the traffic calming measures to control speed and safety? Does the Main Street Reconstruction Project enhance the rural character of Southborough? What are the additional costs to the residents that are not covered within the TIP program? No further funds should be expended before the MassDOT Public Hearing.
PARK CENTRAL PROPERTY:
This site’s close proximity to Routes 495 and 9 make it a prime location for development. The recently denied residential (40B) development posed unique problems, including its potential impact upon Bantry Road, Tara Road, Blackthorn Road, Flagg Road, Deerfoot Road, Clifford Road, Lovers Lane and the residents within this area. This project is now in the appeal phase. Each 40B project brings with it new issues on traffic, safety and water needs all which require public safety review and public comment from the Fire Chief, Police Chief, DPW Superintendent. All boards involved must work together to insure that the traffic created by a development of this size must not use residential streets as access and egress routes, except for emergency situations. It is my opinion that we must work to find solutions that find safe access to route 9, as has been done with existing commercial developments.
SPLIT TAX RATE:
I am not in favor of a split tax rate. The Board of Assessors, in each Tax Classification Hearing, has presented information and options to the Board of Selectmen to determine a single tax rate or split tax rate for various classes of property. The Board of Assessors in their own annual letter to the Board noted, “The Board of Assessors unanimously recommends that the Town of Southborough continue with a single tax rate. We believe a single tax rate helps a small town like Southborough attract new business into the community while retaining those already located in the town. Expanding business within the community provides new tax dollars with little impact on costly town services” (Board of Assessors Letter, 11/5/2013). This recommendation was consistent with previous recommendations during my nine years with the Board of Selectmen.
K-12 SCHOOL BUDGETS:
I still feel we need to be cautious of the economy and not too reliant on receiving state aid at the levels we have seen in the past. Education reimbursements are necessary for transportation, SPED, and other mandates. Although the Board of Selectmen does not have direct jurisdiction over school budget policies, we must work with the school to find solutions and continue to invest in our K-8 School System and 9-12 Regional School System.
9-11 FIELD:
I have supported this field over the past nine years, including signing off on two five year lease agreements with DCR. The length of these agreements are too short and do not allow for long-range planning in maintaining and replacing this field. For this reason, I support the Town Meeting’s vote to work toward a twenty year agreement with DCR.
BUILDING AND DEPARTMENT NEEDS:
Southborough is fortunate to have multiple properties for use. However, in this economic climate, we as a community must objectively assess the value and use of these facilities as we seek to maintain our fiscal status. The data we have collected is nearly ten years old; the Board must re-examine that data in the context of our population and its needs.
I do have a concern about Mr Parry’s mention of a bridge over Rt 9 connecting Parkerville rd. Over 45 years ago a walking bridge was proposed but never came to be. With all the increased construction on the south side of town, the new dealership and the fact it is a known cut through already, a car bridge would further overwhelm Parkerville rd on the south side. I would think with Finn School there we would not want to increase traffic. I also find it interesting that Mr Parry is working hard because he concerned about traffic at his Main St home but has no concerns about the traffic increase on our road, a road with a School and would become a bigger cut through from one end of town to the other.
My second concern is the placement of some of the candidate signs in town. A perfect example would be the two at the end of Middle rd on the south side. They are clearly on town land that the transfer station and the DPW are located. Candidates should be asking land owners permission and not be allowed to put them everywhere.
Ihave asked permission and that sign is on property of john Leeds , put there with his permission.
That is not John Leeds property, that is the town of Southborough’s property purchased from Al Phillips. Ask John Leeds.
You can also look at map 28 of the assessors maps and see the swap shop and recycle center on that land.
Before accusing people of wrong doing, you should take the trouble to be accurate. You are not looking at the right map. I have asked John Leeds, and it is his property, and I called him, and he gave me his permission.
Why don’t you take the trouble to drive around town and look at all the other signs, placed by the hundreds, and up for months on end. My signs just went up this weekend, and will be up for just one week, that is all. Just one week. Yet you choose to target me alone. That mere fact alone should give readers some indication of your real motives.
Then why did you take the signs down????? They were on town land. There were four at the end of Middle rd now there are only two. Every other candidate puts one sign up per property, you put two, one at each property line so it is vague if you are actually on that persons property. Some roads look like a Dave Parry parade. I will in fact be happy when the election is over and my town looks normal again.
And map number 28 is correct.
“Some roads look like a Dave Parry parade.” Funniest thing I have read in a while!
In years to come our community will not remember who placed signs where or who looked crossed-eyed at us. What will remain is the changes our elected officials help formulate. Now is the time to look at the issues and vote accordingly.
As for the rest of this noise……I live in a glass house so I wont be throwing any stones.
Karen’s post is one of the very best that I have read this year. We should all listen to her wisdom.
Thank you!
This town is an absolute clown act.
Embarrassed, Please vote on the 12th.
Just a reminder: the Library Trustees are holding their annual “Candidates’ Night at the Library” on Wednesday May 7 (tomorrow). Meet & Greet starts at 6:30 PM and Moderated Program (with candidate statements and Q&A from residents) starts promptly at 7 PM. Our former Town Moderator John Wilson will serve as Moderator.
From the comments on this blog, it seems like folks still have alot of questions for their candidates. The Library is the place to be on Wednesday evening! Refreshments will be served!
I will be there to hear from the candidates themselves.
Thank you, Karen, Betsy, and Bonnie for your information and perspectives.
By the way, there was (note, past tense as I moved it) a sign on our property without our consent for Bill Boland.
I can only wonder why David Parry is such a threat to everyone. Maybe I’ll find out tomorrow evening.
Confused. Are you referring to a past election year?
Why Start Now, The state of Parry’s local plan is the same as it was before.. full of misrepresentations, incorrect facts and efforts to incite people. Who ever heard of an architect firing a client? It really shows how pervasive Parry’s lying really is, and how he will go to whatever length necessary to mislead. Unfortunately Mr. Ford’s list only reveals those lies and falsehoods we know about. You can be sure there are at least an equal number of things we do not know about.
I am truly amazed at how people can put Parry signs in their yards when he is an admitted liar to the state, lied to Mr. Kolenda, lied to his own architect, tried to mislead people to believe this site endorsed him, violated US Mail law, and tried to lie to everyone of us readers by posting under so many different dames. Are we to take it those those people which his signs condone this conduct?
Yet another load of personal attacks. It reminds me of the National Enquirer. Whoever “Townie” is, he or she dare not reveal their real identity, and anyone can easily guess why. My supporters are not intimidated by this rubbish.
Hello Townie and Resident Charlie,
I admire your passion for this election but please tone down the ‘ad hominem’ attacks on Mr. Parry. You should be promoting ideas for candidates you support, positive comments that relate to meaningful issues. Slamming Mr. Parry with slanderous statements won’t sway any voters. It sounds petty and malicious.
Mr. Parry should avoid responding in kind, it’s below his stature in the community. High ground, my friend, high ground.
Mr. Parry, This is a discussion about your personal character. I have never elected a President of the United States without knowing both there political views and what they do with there personal time and beliefs. What you have said sounds like a threat or I just don’t understand what you mean with comment “Whoever “Townie” is, he or she dare not reveal their real identity, and anyone can easily guess why”.
Townie, you can stand behind me if it gets ugly.
Mr. Parry has people who believe in him and they can vote the way they want, just come and vote.
Please vote! It is the only way we can separate the adults from the children in this town! It it always very important to vote, but this year gives us the chance to clear the clutter and get down to town, not personal, matters.
Parry’s comment “my supporters are not intimidated”. This coming from the man who started this mess in the first place. Lies, misrepresentation, unsubstantiated claims, twisting of the facts, threatening public officials, violating local Bylaws, misuse of federal property and making citizens uncomfortable when he’s in your face and doesn’t know when to stop.
Geez! For a minute there, I thought you were describing my mother-in-law.
Let us all remember this Sunday is MOTHER’s DAY!!!!
[Thanks for scrolling down this far!]
One section of candidate David Parry’s statement puts into question his claim that his “style is cooperation, partnership, and teamwork.”
Specifically, he writes that, “compared to longer term residents,” it is “MOST often” the “new homeowners” who care the most about preserving Southborough.” The reason? Newcomers make a “”huge investment” in their homes here in order to escape the surrounding “suburban sprawl” they have seen as they “travelled more extensively, across the USA”—UNLIKE [my caps] long-time residents.
Thus he asserts that newer people are more intensely interested in preserving “our beautiful assets and “charming character.”
At Candidates’ Night I asked David how he could draw our community together in light of what he wrote in this campaign statement.
He did not respond directly but reminded of the question simply repeated emphatically how “intensely” newcomers care about the town.
I find it very disturbing that a would-be selectman ignores and insults those who have made our community what it is today, namely a place that these “new homeowners” want to live.
I truly think that David Parry has become completely out of touch with everyone but himself. He would not be good for the town at this point.
Ms. McDaniel –
I attended the debate and heard your question.
Mr. Parry’s print literature and response to your thoughtful question are a “thank you” to you and others like the Beals family and the late Peter Kallander (as well as earlier generations) for making Southborough today a desirable community to raise a family and age gracefully.
I enjoyed reading your book “Southborough Memories.” Also, congratulations on this well-deserved award:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/x715750524/Southborough-resident-Donna-McDaniel-honored-at-State-House
Donna McDaniel.
I find rather remarkable your comments above, because they do reflect the debate record.
You quote my written statement, which I stand behind, and then you state the following, quote:
“He did not respond directly, but reminded of the question, simply repeated emphatically how “intensely” newcomers care about the town. I find it very disturbing that a would-be selectman ignores and insults those who have made our community what it is today, namely a place that these “new homeowners” want to live.”
Unfortunately, it seems you were not paying attention. If you listen to the TV replay you will see that I DID reply to your question. I did not “ignore” you. I stated very clearly that just because I say that new residents care deeply, which is a fact, that does not mean that long term residents do not also care. I even gave YOU as an example.
I said we ALL care, but the IRONY is that new residents appear to care most, because of (1) their recent travels searching for the ideal place to live, seeing all the surrounding sprawl, with their search ending in Southborough, and (2) their giant investment in their new house — usually as much as they can possibly afford.
Apparently you do not see that as an irony, nor as a sign of hope. I do. I see it as a very positive sign of hope, because it is the newcomers who are most aware of our uniqueness, and I welcome them here because they will continue to protect it.
I am very thankful to the older generation who have worked hard to keep our town values and character largely intact. And I have very positive hope that coming generations will do likewise, for the reasons cited above. I see that as bringing the community together, not as dividing it.
Maybe you might listen to the tape again. I hope many residents do. I stand behind everything I wrote and said.