It’s time for another open thread.
What’s on your mind this week, Southborough?
For those of you new to the blog, the open discussion thread is your place to ask questions, sound off on town issues, or share information with other readers. Here are some suggestions to get you started:
- Ask questions about programs in town or the town itself
- Post a note about things that you’re selling or giving away, or things that you want
- Share notices about upcoming events (Southborough or otherwise)
- Register your thoughts on town issues or news stories
- Point out interesting or helpful resources
You can add comments to the thread throughout the week. Check back often to see new comments. (If you read the blog via email or RSS, you might want to check the site from time to time for new comments.)
To view past open discussion threads, click here.
(photo of view from Beals Preserve by Beth Melo)
Quiz
You have 10 seconds to answer.
Describe in one sentence the soul of downtown Southborough.
Almost just right. In need of little fussing. Small, quaint, peaceful, but still provides basic needs. Currently, good in scale, fits well with current surrounding uses generally speaking. Most importantly, and of absolute primary consideration, that sensitive village neighborhood infrastructure / roadway(s) cannot withstand more traffic. It is at capacity now and overcapacity during holidays and peak traffic hours, with traffic winding up and down hills and around corners with standing emissions.
It doesn’t take much to ruin it all.
Any increase in density, would be fatal to its current quiet charm and scale.
Wary of the dirty tricksters, good-ole-boys and their behind the scenes crummy tactics and conflict ridden EDC. Wary of developer biased, fee-based persons who lack the skill set (in spite of their own opinions of themselves) barking out nonsense to further their agenda over the legitimate concerns of abutters and taxpayers. Remove and replace them with unbiased, normal citizens. Disband the EDC. Not worth it. The market can take care of itself just fine.
Quiet charm? Quiet, sure, even desolate at most hours of the day or night. Charming? Southborough House of Pizza is a very good and attractive rehab of the old fire station, and the Lamy building is charming enough. The rest of the commercial buildings – under Business Village zoning, so intended for business – are meh, although Mauro’s Market is much better than it used to be.
Traffic backs up at rush hour because it’s rush hour and people are trying to get to and from work, not because there are tons of attractive businesses, which there definitely are not.
I’d love to see a vibrant downtown with successful businesses making money, serving the community’s needs and wants, and paying taxes to the town.
Lucy is spot on. REVITALIZE means anything goes. In our hunger and thirst for improvement, we must be very cautious as to what is eventually done with this downtown lot. Any thought of a restaurant with apartments above is a tragedy waiting to happen i.e. FIRE, and should never be approved.
You do realize this is a ridiculous opinion that is borderline fear mongering? There is nothing dangerous having dwellings above a restaurant–building codes for these sorts of buildings prevent that. Inherently they are no more dangerous than the many more common ways fires begin.
If it was such a fire risk half the eastern seaboard would have burned to the ground by now. Look at Hudson, look at Arlington Center, Cambridge, Boston, downtown Framingham. Let’s not forget NYC where nearly every building has one or more restaurants.
This is simply an opinion not based in reality.
OK “Fire Marshall” Bill — there are numerous examples of fires in mixed use buildings. Recently, there was a dangerous fire in a first floor restaurant (oil fire that could not be stopped) that completely gutted the ground floor in minutes. The resident in the APARTMENT ABOVE THE FIRE called the fire in. If that resident had been sleeping, the already tragic outcome would have been worse with a fatality.
Do you have GOOGLE? Or a telephone? How about a little due diligence ?
Here’s another example in that almost trapped two firefighters. The fire started in the restaurant and spread from there.
. https://www.wmur.com/article/firefighters-battling-restaurant-fire-in-salem/21341581
It’s not impossible to have this combination of uses as some urban communities do have them, some times with fatal results. All the examples you point to are URBAN. The point is this: COMMON SENSE in ZONING. It’s a CHOICE. Any given community does not have to combine these uses. The combination CAN BE LETHAL.
Can you imagine building housing almost entirely out of flammable materials? And then piping in flammable gas and purposely lighting it on fire to cook and to heat? The results can be lethal.
All you people who have wood frame houses with natural gas have no common sense.
Ridiculous, isn’t it? While you’re googling, be sure to check out the single family houses that have burned down, too, for a rational, non-fearmongering idea of the relative risks.
Southborough has had single-family house fires. OMG, let’s ban single-family houses!
I’m not against fear. It’s necessary for survival. I’m against unreasoning fear.
Southborough should encourage apartments above shops in the Business Village districts. That’s how to make the local economy work, and I’m thrilled that the EDC is now looking beyond Rte. 9 into downtown.
People cook in their houses. They have electricity in their houses. They park their gasoline-filled cars in their garages. They store their gas grills next to their houses. All of these carry a tiny risk of fire, and somehow we tolerate that teensy-tiny risk. We also do things to mitigate it, like smoke detectors. For a restaurant, there’s regular inspection, which is probably safer than living in a house where someone smokes.
But Louise shouts, “Fire.” It seems that fear of any small change dominates her ability to think. And, yes, I know that this means she’ll be back here shouting at me. I’m a big boy, I can take it. Plus, whatever she’s against usually passes Town Meeting.
Wrong and wrong.
She’s not the only one against putting apartments above restaurants. It is dangerous. Also, she is not “shouting fire.” She is emphasizing “SAFETY” and putting prevention of the potential for loss of life over profits of developers.
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/06/13/salem-new-hampshire-fire-china-star-restaurant-main-street/
“A restaurant and several apartments were destroyed in a huge fire in Salem, New Hampshire Wednesday morning that left two firefighters hurt. . .the firemen relied on their training to get out. “They’re in zero visibility. They’re in high heat. The fire was burning above them and beside them, to the point that it sounded like a freight train was in the room and then this collapse occurred. The lieutenant relied on his training immediately and called the mayday. It was muffled but fortunately the operations chief heard it. . .” The firefighters were hit in the head and back by a beam in the collapse.
This is preventable, dangerous and tragic for all those involved in losing their homes and almost their lives. Preventable through zoning.
PS — Mrs. Barron is one of the most well read, well spoken, most thoughtful citizens in this town. What’s your problem? She reads the Town Warrant? She actually takes a thoughtful, considered position? She’s backed many thoughtful warrants that have passed. So stop blowing smoke and stick that in your pipe and smoke it. It is evident from your remarks that you do not value human life or the lives of the fire fighters in this exact restaurant / apartment fire situation. Shame on you.
PS
The EDC should be disbanded. Completely not worth it.
Also, if they are backing this proposed mix of uses, shame on them as well for not valuing human lives and the lives of firefighters.
You and Louise keep doing this. If people question the cherry picked anecdotes you present as not accurately demonstrating risk in an issue you worry about – you indignantly respond that they don’t care about human lives. It’s nonsense.
Other commenters are pointing out that you aren’t presenting any statistics to show that mixed use is more dangerous than a single family or business.
Are the stories linked tragic? Of course, and no one is denying it. But in 2016 2,410 people died in single or 2-family homes. I’m sure that all of their deaths were also tragic. But we don’t ban the building of houses in Southborough.
I honestly don’t know if there is more danger in mixed-use buildings than single use. I’m not arguing that you are wrong or right.
My point is that if you are right – you should demonstrate that through statistics. And if you can’t – stop accusing everyone who doesn’t agree with your assumptions (that mixed use is inherently more dangerous) of being callous people who don’t care if residents or firefighters die.
Beth,
Is DEATH cherry-picking? How callous does that get? That isn’t callous? Are you kidding?
With all due respect, my opinion is not “nonsense” and who are you to judge? It would be great if you were an editor and not a censor. Who made you judge and jury?
In my view, statistics are not the point. Practical, common sense is. (And BTW, look up your own statistics.) And frankly, I don’t care about statistics because to me, it is not about statistics!
I happen to agree with Concerned Voter who gave an exact recent example from 2018. My opinion is based on caution and safety concerns, liability concerns, concern for human life as demonstrated by this recent almost fatal fire in Salem.
So, I suggest you read it again so you understand. My opinion is that it is common sense to prevent a fire like the one in Salem and elsewhere if at all possible through zoning. I care about saving lives and protecting fire fighters. Anything but a restaurant. Fine. That’s how I feel, Beth.
There you go again.
The nonsense isn’t death. The nonsense is saying that someone who doesn’t agree with your assumption that one or two tragic incidents means that those types of buildings must be inherently more dangerous must not care if people die.
I’ll assume that you are going to attack me for saying that. I won’t be responding.
Leaving a comment on a small community blog is like walking into a living room and joining in on a conversation. As such, you would think to look for the same behavior you’d expect from any house guest. As in real life, online there are some people who are a pleasure to converse with, and some who are not. Personal attacks, condescending pomposity and general assiness detract not only from the commenter, but from the community discussion. Good comments that positively add to the discussion are knowledgeable, informative, friendly and engaged, which seem to be the majority, thankfully.
While I don’t condone censorship of any kind I do encourage perhaps a sharper eye when it comes to publishing comments from certain posters add zero value to a discussion, seek to make mountains out of mole hills or are so far off the mark they come from a parallel universe.
This conversation is turning strange. If two commenters happen to agree, there’s a conspiracy?
Agreed. Tired of certain few trying to personally attack Mrs. Barron. Her points are well thought out. She is entitled to her own opinion.
Watch out for the same trolls who attack her every time. It’s pretty consistent. Their credibility is questionable.
Hilarious! Louise can attack pretty much everyone, but no one should criticize her.
Nope, I’m not playing by that “rule” you just made up.
You want credibility? You want me not to ask whether you’re a sock puppet? Use your name. Don’t hide.
Case in point — here’s the same troll with yet another personal attack on Mrs. Barron. What the heck is a “sock puppet?” Weird. Is this a conspiracy theory reference? If so, here’s a dose of your own medicine: don’t look now, there are aliens in your backyard (and hopefully they will beam you up).
Not hiding at all. Doing what virtually everyone on this blog does: using a pen name to keep the focus on the message. The message this time is this: IT’S THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. You are entitled to your own opinion. (And it would be great if you would stop personally attacking “trolling” Mrs. Barron since you seem to be a regular at it.)
Bwahahaha!
I’d like to introduce you to my little friend, Google. It’s how I found out what bouf and devil’s triangle mean. I already knew what FFFFF means from back in the pre-Google days I was in high school, although I have to confess that a girl told me the definition.
You can find out for yourself what a sockpuppet is, but here’s what Wikipedia says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet). After that, maybe you’ll try to find some statistics to support your anecdotal fear-mongering.
By definition, CV, you’re hiding – hiding your name. Try to take a moment off from taking offense and keep up!
If you didn’t make me laugh, this conversation would be pointless.
In my defense, I’ve never reached anything close to the level of personal attack that you and Louise engage in constantly.
You and one other in particular are consistently trolling and personal attackers of Mrs. Barron, including your last posts about her above.
You offer up some weird conspiracy theories and personal attacks on her. (What the heck is a sock puppet — it doesn’t get weirder than that, and who cares about the Wikipedia definition.) As for pen name, it is not hiding. It is like virtually everyone else on this blog, keeping the focus on the importance of the message.
What is the problem? She reads town warrants? She is more aware of town matters and participates from town meeting floors? That is called civic duty.
As for your reference to statistics, your opinion on statistics has nothing whatsoever to my forming of my opinion, and likely many others. If you rely on statistics, that’s your prerogative. Good for you.
As for relying on statistics in forming my opinion, it is not relevant. Every human life has value — that’s my opinion. It is my opinion that fire fighters lives matter. Safety and preventing loss of life is the purpose of zoning.
And you know what they say about statistics — check it out on your favorite website Wikipedia: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
Good to know that you and others rely on statistics !! Again, its the United States of America: You are entitled to your opinion. I don’t happen to share that opinion. Thank goodness.
Keep up the good work and outstanding observations, but keep in mind Kelly is just following along with Democratic Party SOP.
See, Louise Jr., Frank gives a perfect example of trolling. You could learn the definition from watching his behavior.
Anyone who refuses to use statistics – and to critique how statistics are misused – winds up with anecdote and no ability to grapple with risk assessment. Which is what you’ve shown continually and even admitted – “As for relying on statistics in forming my opinion, it is not relevant.”
You just admitted to being happy with ignorance. Frank, too, by agreeing with you and trying to make this partisan when it’s not.
“You’ve just admitted to being happy with ignorance.”
False. Just ignorant people.
I don’t need my opinion rehashed by you.
Try to stick to your opinion and not articulating it for others, including myself. I don’t need statistics in this instance having spoken to the victims of such a fire. In this instance, I will form my opinion on the actual experience of such a fire. But you plow ahead with your conspiracy theories and your own opinion. It’s still the U.S.A. and you are still entitled to your own opinion.
Thanks Louise.
You are leaping to your own conclusions that don’t apply to Mrs. Barron’s opinion.
She is entitled to her own opinion.
Also, it is not true that you are necessarily correct either.
Hi Beth, are you sure that Louise and “Concerned Voter” are actually two different people, not one person with two different emails playing sock puppet?
To CV: Louise thoughtful? I have a different definition of thoughtful, one that requires thought, rather than outrageous fear-mongering over the smallest change in Southborough that might cost her 30 seconds in traffic twice a month.
Gas line repairs and uneven pavement.
Very busy at noontime, nice and quiet in the evenings
Anyone else try the new pizzaville. I had a pizza and sub so far. The pizza was ok but the sub was not so good.
I moved to Southborough about two years ago now and the one thing I really think this town could use is an awesome locally-owned bakery. If I could go somewhere and get fresh bread or chocolate croissants in the mornings I would probably go almost every week. Also, I feel that a locally-owned bakery would actually add to Southborough’s overall appeal.
This would be amazing. I’m fine having DD on the south side, people love their Dunks. But another option with different offerings would be amazing. I’d prefer that over a bar/pub.
Or a cute little ice cream shop
I’d love a tea shop like Special Teas in Northborough
You don’t have to go far…Yummy Mummy Bakery in Westboro is terrific!
The “downtown” area used to be much more vibrant. When the post office moved to its current location, lots of activity moved with it. I feel like businesses there are struggling.
From a historical perspective, The Southborough Arms Hotel was where the dental office, bank, etc is today. And the passenger train stop was there in the center of town.
So developing that corner lot would not be a big departure from the past! I am in support.
Changing things up a bit…
I’ve read that a vehicle parked in the same location on a street for more than 72 hours may be considered to be abandoned. I am wondering how this would apply to a pickup truck that’s been sitting on the east end of General Henry Knox for several weeks(!).
It was first parked there in August at the end of a trail of petroleum-based drips which seemed to originate at a large stain on the road on Devine Lane. It was moved once shortly after that, again leaving a telltale trail of drips/stains, then reappeared back on Henry Knox a few days later.
It’s been sitting on Henry Knox for a few weeks now – in the same spot. The license plate has an 18 sticker on it, the inspection sticker expired in April 2017 and there’s a green transfer station sticker on the windshield – suggesting ownership by a Southborough resident.
The stains on the road have persisted for several weeks, although there doesn’t seem to be a puddle beneath the vehicle.
Perhaps the owner is just waiting for a big snowfall and a town plow truck will take care of the pickup?
We have an overnight winter parking ban. I think it starts November 1. Once the tickets start, it’ll move!
Actually, it has generally started on December 1st.
I believe the truck is parked there while the house on Devine Lane is up for sale. I believe once the house sells, the truck will go with the owners.
Wait, so you believe this vehicle belongs to someone who lives on a different street and has put it there to rid their property of “junk” so they can sell their house. That is ridiculous. If that is the case, the SPD should step in and tell the rightful owner to park their car on their property and not on a public road in front of someone else house.
Thanks to all for weighing in on the ‘soul’ question. I would say this about whatever comes to be downtown.
Facades matter. Brick sidewalks and proper street lights matter. Trees matter. Retail that provides enjoyment to our greater population matters. And what a deal to find a small apartment here. Done right, it will all go together and make us feel good about downtown.
Not that Gloucester was lacking in soul, but this thriving family business contributes much to the situation. Note in the link what the Phantom Gourmet had to say.
Oops, forgot the link…..
https://goodmorninggloucester.org/2014/03/11/joe-virgilio-making-the-saint-joseph-day-bread/
For the record, almost all fires in apartments above restaurants have been in old buildings. New construction comes under much stricter codes. Stop by the fire station and ask Lt. Neal Aspesi. He’s in charge of inspections.
Thanks Frank. I will continue to speak against the wrong doers, the liars, those who take advantage of us, whether members of boards or otherwise. I’ll fight against those who show partiality and deference to deep pockets groups, whose interests lie in their own agendas, and not the good of the people. I will also speak against those elected officials who do not live up to the job. Anyone you know.
Also appointed individuals belong to this group who blatantly call their own shots. Too much power. Time to strip it.
“having spoken to the victims of such a fire” does zero to assess risk. Well, not quite zero. Knowing of a case shows that risk is non-zero. It does not show that risk is high or low. A woman died from a fire apparently caused by smoking in bed this week. Should we ban beds? We’ve had single family house fires here in Southborough (OMG!!!). Should we ban Residence A and Residence B? Or only if you talk to the victims?
Statistics, not anecdotes, are the only sound way to assess risk. You’re simply showing ignorance. Again.
“You’ve just admitted to being happy with ignorance.”
False. Just ignorant people.
Literally – read it again – you state that you’re happy with ignorant people. Guess that must help a lot in the mirror.
I’m perfectly happy for you to rehash your opinion over and over again, which seems to be all you have, that is, no ability to rationally respond to criticism of your innumeracy. But of course, I’m going to need to quote you to illustrate how ridiculous your opinion is. Legally protected but still ridiculous… And I’m here to ridicule it, strictly for my own amusement.
Here you go again: “Should we ban beds?” Ludicrous remarks. Keep embarrassing yourself with the unreasonable strange remarks, conspiracy theories, and trolling of Mrs. Barron.
As for the remark on “ignorant people” — obviously a bit hastily written — but thinking people can guess on how to fill in the blanks, i.e. “Disgusted” with ignorant people — meaning those who presume to rely on solely on statistics for their thinking. Not just this issue, but any issue. However, again, that’s your prerogative. Go for it.
As for speaking with victims, actual experience, actual fires, the accompanying dangers apparently carry no weight with you. So be it. You are entitled to your own oddball opinion, if you are willing to dismiss safety issues and actual fires.
I am not in favor of zoning that places a restaurant uses / fryerlators under apartments. You are. Apparently, if only 1% of a certain population is endangered or loses their life, that’s ok by you. I just happen to think it is preventable via zoning.
Apparently, if only 1% of a certain population…
Progress! One percent is a statistical claim. You are capable of dealing with statistics, not merely one-off anecdotes. Congratulations!
It’s still true that you’ve made a dishonest claim about my position, which just means we need to work on your morals, too. I never said or implied that endangering 1% of the population would be ok – and you know that, I would bet. You’re just willing to cast me as a villain to “win” this argument, in which you’ve taken a silly, unthinking, and frankly dumb position.
I’m sure that all the people who live above restaurants in the North End and Chinatown don’t feel they are at the high risk you imagine from deadly fryalators. (But we absolutely should be sure to inspect vent hoods regularly in all restaurants.)
Zoning, by the way, is about compatible neighboring uses. That doesn’t exclude safety, but there is lots of other law and regulation about safety.
By the way, smoking is the single largest cause of home fire fatalities. Cooking is the largest cause of home fires, and the largest cause of cooking fires is the cook leaving the kitchen – which strongly suggests a plurality of cooking fires are in a private kitchen, not a restaurant.
Dang statistics!
Apparently you cannot distinguish an example analogy and “statistical claim.” Kelly, you are not going to believe this, but not everyone agrees with you and your rants. Any one can use or misuse statistics. You seem to engage in rant to get others to form their opinions around your “statistics,” and have a talent for misinterpreting others opinions.
On a different note, BYOD is a policy that should have been presented last year perhaps to give parents and students adequate time to prepare in advance.
Thanks, Kelly Roney, for insisting on using statistics and logical analysis rather than fear-mongering. And Concerned Voter, if you insist on attacking other contributors, tell us who you really are. Stop hiding behind a pseudonym.
I’m glad to see the Police at the transfer station the past couple of days.
I see that the officer had pulled over multiple people both days .
Why is it that the majority of people can get a sticker and others can’t .
The cost of our trash is high enough without paying for others to dump freely.
Thank you Mr.Hegarty and thank you Southborough Police.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I see lots of opinions expressed as though they were facts. I would ask the trolls to keep in mind the differences between fact and opinion when posting – here or anywhere.
This unfortunate nonsense about ‘alternative facts’ surfaced a year or two ago by a former television personality now holding political office. There are NO ‘alternative facts’ – only facts. If one chooses to believe otherwise, one is creating their own ‘alternative reality’. That may be fine for the individual. The challenge may lie in trying get others to believe in that so-called ‘reality’ with its own set of beliefs/opinions pretending to be facts.
“The challenge may lie in trying get others to believe in that so-called ‘reality’ with its own set of beliefs/opinions pretending to be facts.”
That statement explains the last few weeks perfectly.
The first I heard about BYOD was at the beginning of this school year when a one call email went out to parents from the principal at the high school. There was going to be an informational presentation about the upcoming BYOD program that would soon be implemented. The presentation was canceled.
Last week’s one call email from the high school principal addressed the BYOD program again and for the first time I realized that this is not an option. All students at Algonquin will be required to have, and bring to school each day, their own qualifying device (BYOD: bring your own device) that has a full keyboard (phones don’t meet the requirements). This mandatory program will be implemented on November 5th.
I’m wondering how many parents are aware of this? Shouldn’t this have been discussed at least a year in advance? Or was it and somehow it got passed me? Won’t this be a financial burden to families, especially (but not limited to) those with more than one high schooler? Is it legal for the school district to put this financial burden on families?
I would like to hear opinions from other town residents, whether you have high school students or not, on both the financial aspect and general thoughts on each student being required to use a computer in all classes. I’m envisioning a class of students sitting at their desks starting at computer screens and clicking away at those key boards instead of looking at the teacher.
I have been struggling to keep up with meetings recently. The Regional School Committee meeting with its agenda item on BYOD was on my to do list of things to watch. I had hoped to get to it last week and is now high priority for this week.
I don’t know what public discussions I may have missed previously. This item did fly under my radar as well.
You are correct BYOD. I really hate addressing someone with initials. Anyway, the future for kids, like adults, glued to their phone/computer screens, as if humans didn’t exist. Teachers will be obsolete as well. There will be tele-teachers in all classrooms very soon. This is our new reality.
How soon is ‘very soon’? I highly doubt Southborough schools will be all ‘virtual’ classrooms any time soon. Using a device of some sort is the future, our kids need to learn and keep on top of technological trends.
I do agree more notice would have been nice, and I do agree with the concern about this being mandatory and a financial burden. Hopefully there is a scholarship of some sort.
I googled, and from what I could find online it seems that for those students who don’t have, or refuse to buy, a device for school, a chromebook will be provided by ARHS. It appears that there has been some good discussion on this topic, and there are differing opinions, even from Algonquin faculty members. You might be interested to read some info on this in the Harbinger, which is available online. Computers will not be used all the time, or in all classes, and I’m sure WIFI issues will pop up on a fairly regular basis, so no need to ditch all the pens and paper. One positive would be fewer printed handouts!
Would the owner(s) of the dog(s) who REPEATEDLY let their dog(s) defecate on the sidewalk on Parkerville Road (north) as well as on the sidewalk leading to Neary school please begin to behave responsibly and PICK UP after your animal?
A Good Samaritan has left new plastic poop bags tied to a stick for you several times in various locations over the last couple of months. You continue to refuse to take the hint.
Leaving the dog poo behind for people to walk through is both a health hazard and in defiance of town regulations – it’s a $25 fine each time for failing to clean up after your animal. You will be photographed by someone – not if, but when. When it does happen, you’ll have to pay the piper.
If you have a problem with being a RESPONSIBLE pet owner, perhaps you should give your animal up for adoption. You’ve already sent a (FY) message to your neighbors by your repeated IRRESPONSIBLE behavior.
Get with the program, like 99% of the local dog owners, and clean up after your pet – and DO NOT throw the poo-filled plastic bag into the woods – or leave it in the road or on the sidewalk! Both behaviors are only a small step above your current misbehavior. We already have some person(s) leaving their poo-filled bags. What do they think – someone will be glad to dispose of it for them?