Main Street Project: Boards split, potential amendment, and reminder – DPW meeting Wed

by Beth Melo on March 28, 2014

Post image for Main Street Project: Boards split, potential amendment, and reminder – DPW meeting Wed

Above: The DPW website has added a rendering of what Main Street would look like near the Common after reconstruction plans (Click here for enlarged original)

This week, both Advisory Committee and Board of Selectmen discussed their positions for the citizens petitions to appoint and fund a committee to review the Main Street Reconstruction Project.

The Advisory Committee split 4-3 in favor of appointing the committee but deferred funding. At Tuesday’s BOS meeting, Advisory Committee member John Butler explained his support of the committee. He believes that a “seemingly independent voice” is necessary in order to help the divided community “come together to get this done with some amicability.”

BOS Chair Dan Kolenda and Selectman Rooney were in favor of having a committee. But both preferred it to be appointed by the future 5 member BOS rather than Town Meeting Moderator. Rooney suggested a possible split, with some members appointed by Moderator.

Former Selectman David Parry was among the public commenters who addressed the board. It was his second presentation to this board on his articles.

Kolenda wasn’t present at the first presentation. On Tuesday night, he gave his opinion:

I think makes great sense to have some sort of citizen committee that is heavily involved in and influences how this project goes forward. . .

We represent this town. We are beholden to the residents of this town. . . if it’s a moderator appointed board that comes back to the town in a year, what happens in that time?

We should have a lot more input on a regular basis from a committee appointed by us that can address concerns and make sure our public, and especially those who live right on that roadway, are fully apprised of and have the information they need, but also give information back to our consultant to make sure that we have the best possible project we can.

He said that if it turned out that residents didn’t want the project, thought it was too much, the BOS could halt it.

Selectman Rooney stated that he isn’t ready to give up on state money. But he’s concerned by the overlay plans and “tremendously helpful” DPW video. Now that he has a better understanding of the project, he can’t support the 25% plan. He requested asking the state to postpone the April 30th public hearing by 6 months. 

He would want the committee to be formed at the first BOS meeting after the May election expanding the board to 5 members. They would then have 22 weeks to complete their work.

His ideal committee would shrink from 9 members to 7, comprised of a representative from St. Marks School, a representative from Fay School, and “town elders”,:

Not because they are elderly, but just because they are people very well respected, have been in town a long time and they could probably get their work done in 6-8 meetings.

The committee wouldn’t develop an entirely new alternate plan. Instead they would begin with a public hearing to find out what the community wants the vision of the area to be. Next, they would create a visual. And then, they would work with DPW and state to have that vision come within state guidelines if it’s possible.

Selectmen Bill Boland maintainted his objections to a committee. Boland remarked that no matter what plan they came up with, the best they could get in support is 50%. “That’s the way things work in town unfortunately.”

Boland said if a committee was formed it would end up going through the whole process again. At the end, he was sure they would hear the same complaints about communication.

Boland stated it is the BOS responsibility to oversee the project without committee:

Let’s show some leadership. Let’s show that we are going to involve people and take input, good or bad, as to what might be a better alternative for the town. Or that we find out . . . we’ve got a pretty good plan

The board may work on some language for an amendment to present at Town Meeting. They deferred taking a position on the articles until then.

At points in time, the discussion was a bit heated. To read more about that, I’ll refer you to Southborough Wicked Local’s coverage. (Want to see it for yourself, you can watch it here. The discussion begins about 1:40 into the meeting and lasts about 2 1/2 hours.)

Reminder – This Wednesday, April 2nd, is the DPW meeting to go over the 25% plans with the public and answer questions. That will take place 7:00 pm at the Southborough Senior Center, 9 Cordaville Road.

1 Deleted March 29, 2014 at 1:46 AM

Comment removed for apparent violation of comment policies:
– Be transparent. You don’t have to use your real name when you comment (although bonus points if you do), but pick an alias and stick to it. No using different aliases within the same comment thread (i.e., you can’t pretend to be different people commenting on the same thing). If you’re an elected official or town volunteer, disclose that when you comment on something related to your work.

– Be real. When you submit a comment, you must enter a working email address. Your email address will not be published on the site, but for administrative purposes, it must be valid.

2 beth March 29, 2014 at 8:53 AM

I’m not familiar with the regulation. But the way you worded it makes me wonder –

Are the signs allowed to be up for only 30 days at a time in town? Or are they allowed to be in one location for 30 days and another location for a different set of 30 days?

Do you know that answer?

3 jim foley March 30, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Beth my previous comment was intended to reply to try looking. sorry for any confusion.

4 jim foley March 29, 2014 at 10:46 AM

tell us how you really feel.

5 Publius March 29, 2014 at 11:15 AM

There does not appear to be the prohibition that the poster stated under the town zoning ordinance. I refer readers to the zoning ordinance on the town website. Isn’t Selectman Kolenda’s temporary absence the result of a high profile international mission with the U.S. military? Perhaps he should be thanked for his service to both the town and country. In any event, sign complaints are usually the result of candidates with a weak campaign.

6 Desiree March 29, 2014 at 3:32 PM

“Try looking” you bring up a very important issue regarding political signs. I, too, have seen the early emergence of Mr. Kolenda’s signs and thought this was out of line. I recall most town election signs going up around April school vacation.

Beth, I have taken the liberty of looking up the Zoning bylaw regarding signs in town. This is the clear breakdown:

Sec. 174-11.C.2(h) of the Zoning Bylaws establish political signs as “temporary signs”.
Sec. 174-11.C.11 gives the rules by which temporary signs are permitted. Except for real estate signs, temporary signs are only allowable for a 30 day period and must be taken down promptly after the event has taken place. Here is the section for your review:

“(11) Temporary signs. Temporary signs shall be removed promptly after the sale, event or reason for the sign message has been concluded. Temporary signs shall not be maintained for more than a thirty-day period, except as may be otherwise specifically provided below, as determined by the Inspector of Buildings, unless proper sign permits have been obtained. A temporary sign erected for the purpose of the sale, lease, rental or construction of real estate is not subject to the thirty-day display limitation but shall be removed promptly after such sale, lease, rental or construction has been effected or completed. Temporary signs pertaining to construction shall not be erected prior to the commencement of work.”

In perusing the sign zoning bylaw, I also came across information regarding how many temporary signs are allowed per lot. Sec. 174-11.D outlines sign regulations per district. For residential lots only 1 temporary sign is permitted per lot.

Sign Types:
Residential1, Conservation Districts, Research, Scientific and Professional District
Temporary Signs allowed:
Max Height: 6 ft.
Max Area: 6 sq. ft.
Max Number: 1 per lot

In answering your question, “try looking,” the Building Inspector has full authority when it comes to enforcement of the sign zoning bylaw.

I hope this helps answer any outstanding questions regarding the Town rules for political signs.


7 Deleted March 29, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Comment removed for apparent violation of comment policies:
– Be transparent. You don’t have to use your real name when you comment (although bonus points if you do), but pick an alias and stick to it. No using different aliases within the same comment thread (i.e., you can’t pretend to be different people commenting on the same thing). If you’re an elected official or town volunteer, disclose that when you comment on something related to your work.

– Be real. When you submit a comment, you must enter a working email address. Your email address will not be published on the site, but for administrative purposes, it must be valid.

8 beth March 29, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Dan Kolenda emailed about the signs:

I just saw a posting on your site about my signs. I specifically asked Town Hall and have an email from Vanessa Hale with Mark Purple copied that says there is no time restriction.

Hope this helps clarify. I had a lot of supporters asking for signs and we started now with all my travel for the Army and my work that popped up.

9 Desiree March 29, 2014 at 6:58 PM

With all due respect, Ms. Hale is not the appropriate person to interpret Zoning Bylaws. Mr. Kolenda clearly did not seek the correct adviser in Town Hall to help him with this issue. It’s bewildering as to how a current selectman didn’t know this information and/or know the right person to ask.

On the flip side, as near as I can figure, Mr. Kolenda has 30 days to display his temporary signs. If he put up his signs on March 24, he has until April 24 to keep them up. Then they should be taken down promptly. This seems silly to me, since election day is on May 12th. I would recommend he ask his supporters to take them down temporarily until April 11.

In response to “try looking,” I would be in favor of a Zoning Bylaw change to have more specific rules and regulations for Political Signs. I don’t mind having political signs in my yard, but I understand the distractions they cause to people. They certainly don’t beautify the neighborhood. That said, a 2-3 week period would give enough time for adequate visibility for political candidates. I believe you only need 10 signatures to get an article on the Town Meeting warrant. This might be a good warrant article for next year’s town meeting. “Try looking” please consider championing this effort. I would certainly support you.

I know fair play in politics is a foreign concept these days. With the high crop of BOS candidates, it would be nice to have a race that consists of fair play and respect in this town. There are good candidates in this race, and this issue should not be a distraction.

10 concerned citizen March 29, 2014 at 9:37 PM

We should be so lucky to have a man like Dan Kolenda put up signs in our town. He is a decorated war hero, a dedicated family man, someone who cares about our town………heck, we should have his signs up in non-election years.

one must ask the motive of those complaining about sign regulations…….might it be not a concern for our town but a concern for something or someone else????

11 Bupters March 30, 2014 at 4:10 PM

He is not the only one, though, who cares about town matters, and he is not the only dedicated family man or woman who is running.

Just because someone is concerned about the appropriateness and legality of sign placement doesn’t mean they aren’t concerned about the town, or have an ulterior motive.

12 Ken S April 3, 2014 at 5:03 AM


There is no doubt about the original poster’s intent and they have something to gain by the negative comments and position. I don’t disagree there are many great people in southborough but I strongly disagree the initial comment was made in the best interest of southborough. It was made with an agenda. If it wasn’t then that person has way too much free time and thinks sign laws are the most critical issue we face. Oh and by the way, this is exactly the kind of discussion that is useless in real life. This only starts as a result of someone who is looking for stuff to complain about or throw stones. Thank goodness for the internet!!

13 Al Hamilton March 30, 2014 at 9:11 AM

I do not believe that the Town has any right to limit political signs. These are considered Political Speech and heavily supported under the first amendment.

Mr. Kolenda has every right to put his signs on his supporters property for as long as he sees fit.

Next time you drive down the road an see yard signs supporting a candidate or commenting on some public issue you should smile. You should remember that these simple placards are a sign that we are still free.


14 Non Libertarian March 30, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Mr. H you are wrong.

t has long been established that a town’s interest in traffic safety and aesthetics allow by-laws with content neutral regulation. Restricting how long a political sign may be displayed in a community has no 1st Amendment implications.

In observing you over the years, while you offer some very good ideas, your radical libertarianism scares me. You cannot always shoot from the hip. I bet you did not even think for a minute whether the town has any legitimate interest in sign zoning. This is another example.

15 Al Hamilton March 30, 2014 at 4:34 PM

You are, in fact incorrect, the town has a perfect right to regulate most signs. But there is an exception and that relates to political speech. Did you read the link. The Supreme Court was unanimous and one of the cases sited was related exactly to this issue:

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court rejected the ordinance in City of Ladue v. Gilleo, writing that residential yard signs were “a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important.” The Court explained:

“Displaying a sign from one’s own residence often carries a message quite distinct from placing the sign someplace else, or conveying the same text or picture by other means. … Residential signs are an unusually cheap and convenient form of communication. Especially for persons of modest means or limited mobility, a yard or window sign may have no practical substitute. … Even for the affluent, the added costs in money or time of taking out a newspaper advertisement, handing out leaflets on the street, or standing in front of one’s house with a handheld sign may make the difference between participating and not participating in some public debate.”

Lower courts have cited the Gilleo precedent with great success in challenging city bans on political yard signs. In Curry v. Prince George’s County (1999), a federal district court in Maryland invalidated a sign ordinance that limited the posting of political campaign signs in private residences to 45 days before and up to 10 days after an election. “There is no distinction to be made between the political campaign signs in the present case and the ‘cause’ sign in City of Ladue,” the court wrote. “When political campaign signs are posted on private residences, they merit the same special solicitude and protection established for cause signs in City of Ladue.”

Sorry, the town has no authority to limit political signs. We should be appalled that someone wants to use the police powers of the town to stifle the views of a candidate or one our citizens.

I find this entire line of discussions maddening. We have had far too many examples of the town throwing its weight around trying to suppress free speech.

I hope that the other candidates for Selectmen will join me in condemning this attempt to muzzle Mr. Kolenda and his supporters.

Further, I am declaring my front yard 35 Pine Hill Road a FREE SPEECH ZONE from Now until April 12. Any candidate for any office including my competitors may post their yard signs on my front lawn. Any public officer that wishes to challenge my right Free Speech Rights may do so.

So, Yes If you like the idea that we use our police powers to suppress free speech, I am not the candidate for you.

16 Ken S April 3, 2014 at 5:05 AM

Al Hamilton

Amen brother, amen.

17 Bonnie Phaneuf March 29, 2014 at 4:24 PM

try looking,
#1 Call the Building Inspector, I think you will find that the sign by-law is vague on how long political signs can be up.
#2 On a more serious note. you may think that his signs deserve to be thrown in the town dump at once, Not a GOOD IDEA….. if you or anyone else decides to remove or destroy a political sign and caught in the act it is not longer a Building Inspector issue it becomes a Police issue. Think about it.

18 Kim March 29, 2014 at 7:57 PM

I live on a corner lot and find signs on my property all the time that I didn’t get ask permission to put there. I wonder if I can take them down as sometimes they don’t reflect my views or the candidate I support.

19 Tim Martel March 30, 2014 at 1:03 PM

If someone puts a sign on your land without your permission, by all means remove it. Just make sure its actually your land.

20 Kim March 30, 2014 at 11:28 PM

Technically I don’t own about 5 feet from my property line to the pavement on all my frontage, the town does. But I maintain the land and think everyone has the same issue. If this was allowed to play out though candidates could put signs in front of anyone house. I also believe people feel different about corners as there is a street and stop sign there so they are convinced the town owns it even though I own the frontage on both connecting streets. This was in fact one persons view when I questioned them while placing the sign there.

21 Publius March 30, 2014 at 3:07 AM

So as stated in the ordinance, signs can go up now or a month ago. Again, sign issues complaints are the last vestige of a week campaign. Stolen signs, too many signs, too early signs, I have no signs. Run on the issues.

22 Bupters March 30, 2014 at 12:06 PM

I find the early emergence of Mr. Kolenda’s signs irritating. But the rules do seem fuzzy. I particularly like and agree with Desiree’s comments.

Regarding Mr. Kolenda’s military accomplishments and continued military service, they are to be commended. However, they are not relevant to me in deciding whether I vote for him or not, or in how I feel about his signs.

23 Publius March 30, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Mr. Hamilton, no relation, posts the law on this matter with an excellent link. A few communities over the years have found out the hard way and at significant legal cost. Each homeowner is free to put the signs up now or later. It’s tough weather to have signs up this time of year but can be expected in a contested campaign. If one candidate has a large amounts of signs it is usualy a “sign” of the support in the community. The adage “signs don’t vote” is often misleading. Charcter counts for much and is usually manifested by service to others.

24 Bupters March 30, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Yes, service to others–people in the military, nurses, ministers, teachers–is often a great indicator of good character. And as someone whose father and spouse are army and navy veterans, I have great respect for those who serve. I still, personally, find the early signs kind of pushy, and I am not convinced that they should be up yet. That is all.

25 Kathy Kolenda March 30, 2014 at 7:45 PM

I do not usually comment on blogs however, I feel a personal need to set the record straight concerning the signs and Dan’s actions. Obviously I know Dan far better than anyone else who comments on this blog, as I have been married to him for over 20 years. I have one thing to say… will be hard pressed to meet a more honest man. When it comes to following rules, you will not find someone who abides with more conviction. When someone called to tell him about the signs, Dan then called the Town Administrator’s office. He was told his signs were fine….not sure why he owed a phone call back ? Especially since you claim you made the call in the spirit of “doing him a favor”. But I guess another dig is what you were looking for. Yes, Dan is gone sometimes for the Army Reserve work he does, he also has a full time job and a family. Maybe we should look at the experiences and character of our representatives/candidates instead of bashing them by trying to dig up little technicalities or complain about minutia that, when you think about it, really doesn’t matter. Isn’t it really life/job experience (what they bring to the table) and character that makes them better candidates? I am thankful for all of the elected officials, as well as all of the people who work and have committed their time to helping our community.

26 Deleted March 31, 2014 at 12:50 AM

Comment removed for apparent violation of comment policies:
– Be transparent. You don’t have to use your real name when you comment (although bonus points if you do), but pick an alias and stick to it. No using different aliases within the same comment thread (i.e., you can’t pretend to be different people commenting on the same thing). If you’re an elected official or town volunteer, disclose that when you comment on something related to your work.

– Be real. When you submit a comment, you must enter a working email address. Your email address will not be published on the site, but for administrative purposes, it must be valid.

27 James Kolenda March 31, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Alison, you show a lot of nerve saying this stuff about my dad. Sorry he wakes up every day and defends our country so you can wake up every day and live in the beautiful town of Southborough. If this zoning rule makes you so upset, you should rethink your priorities. He is a busy man, but he also cares a lot about our community. If you don’t want to vote for him, that is fine, but publicly bashing him is just disgraceful. Saying this about a man who had to get his signs out a little too early for “your” liking just because he is defending our country is crazy. Remember, he took the time, did his due diligence and asked about the signs. Anyone who is saying this about my dad really doesn’t know him well enough to say all these horrible things. He wakes up at 6am, goes to work, comes home from work and continues work at home. Whether it be work for his family, job, town, or our country, the man is always putting in long days of work. I am extremely proud of what he does and the amount of work he puts into this town. I hope you can learn something from my post. Thanks

28 jim foley March 31, 2014 at 3:26 PM

James you and your mother should be very proud of your dad. I don’t know him personally but it is very obvious he is a good man. The world would be a better place with more people who cared as much about our community and country as he does. I know you feel the necessity to defend him. But it is pretty plain to see the character of the person doing the ranting against him. Some people just have a need to hear themselves complain. Most of us just disregard it as soon as we read it. your dad has many who truly appreciate all that he does.

29 RB April 1, 2014 at 7:28 AM


I though that post was way out of line!

30 Publius March 31, 2014 at 10:08 AM

If “dozens’ of towns have such regulation and chose to enforce it and a citizen felt aggrieved and challenged it then yes the town at taxpayer expense would have to defend the regulations. Most towns with outdated or illegal regulations choose not to enforce them considering election season comes and goes. Remember the real issue isn’t with the candidate it is with our neighbors who choose to put up signs. Perhaps rather than complain an aggrieved candidate could go door to door and get the homeowner to put up their own sign.

31 Matthew March 31, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Political Signs
Men in Kilt Signs
i9 Sports signs
College Pro Painters Signs
Southborough Little League Signs and Banners (on town property no less)
Yard Sale Signs…

Unless you have a permit to install a sign that adheres to code for advertising your “business” then it’s a temporary sign. Let the building inspector determine what type of sign is temporary and which is permanent. Per our own bylaws the inspector has the final say. (The town admin should know this but I won’t attack him for his mistake like others attacked Candidate Parry for not being able to keep track of a clipboard…tough crowd.)

If it’s on town property and advertises a business then its trash, DPW should pick these up ASAP but they don’t.
If it’s on private property then the owner owns it but only for 30 days. Then the Building Inspector can fine them.
Political signs are protected and you can get in trouble for removing them wherever they are but they still are governed by the 30 day limit.

The code is not vague; it’s simple so as not to necessitate discussion. If you put it up then you better take it down in 30 days.

Any sign attached to a telephone pole is trespassing on the utility’s property but they don’t care. You can take down anything off a pole especially yard sale sign that are still up months after the sale (yellow ones with black arrows are the worst).

Don’t make this more complicated than it is. 30 days and then take it down. There is enough to talk in town without this distraction.

Free speech is not being stifled, any reasonable mind could conclude this so I don’t believe the Supreme Court nod was necessary however personally gratifying it may have been, but at some point these sign become a nuisance and over time any message can become noise pollution if it’s not presented correctly. It’s also really good marketing to get your message out and not tire the demographic with too much junk mail and trash signs.

It might also be a simple matter of courtesy and not wanting Southborough to look like Marlborough or Framingham.

Lastly – This is an issue completely independent of the candidate. I don’t care who the man is behind the sign and nor should you. Is it legal? Who makes that call? If we can’t all agree to disagree then let the candidates make a “gentleman’s” agreements on their advertising so that this subject doesn’t distract from the real issues.

As a side note – Did you know that the guy behind the i9 Sports signs all over metro west is a former Marlborough selectman and he would get fined $25 for each sign in his own town while he served? I’m not sure about our current inspector but the last one had no interest in these signs and could not have cared less about how many or where they were. I would like to hear some numbers on how many signs the DPW picks up too.

Here’s my link…Citizens Against Ugly Street Signs

Now back to more meaningful discussion.

32 SB Resident March 31, 2014 at 1:19 PM

I agree with much of what you said. The reality is it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, there shouldn’t have to be a law. It comes down to courtesy and it is courteous to not make our town ugly. Cluttering your yard with signs for an extended period of time is rude regardless of your rights. 30 days seems like a very reasonable limit and it would be great if our local leaders would show us that they can be courteous rather than stubbornly defending their rights.

33 Al Hamilton March 31, 2014 at 2:59 PM


For the record, my intent is to wait until after Town Meeting (with one exception), which I view as the traditional campaigning season.However, we have real races this year and if another candidate thinks that it is in his or her interest to put their signs out earlier that is their right.

34 Tim Martel March 31, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Having thought this through, I’ve decided that I will not be putting signs around Town even though I am running for School Committee. Here are three reasons (in no particular order):

1. with over ten candidates in different races, the signs will quickly become a big heap of colorful clutter.
2. it seems odd that someone would spend hundreds of dollars on signs for what is essentially a volunteer position, especially with so many worthy causes desperate for donations.
3. I’d prefer that we be judged on where we stand on issues, rather than blind name recognition.

35 Frank Crowell March 31, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Mr Martel,

Glad you are running and I am looking forward to your stand on current K-8 school issues.

36 Mark Ford March 31, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Again I ask, are you posting under your own name? (I’ve checked directory assistance, the web, and the school directory, and don’t come up with you–why the pretense of a pseudonym that sounds legitimate?) So what’s pathetic to me is that you don’t even have the courage to stand by your own disparaging remarks. As to “Al Hamilton’s world,” that is these United States, and he’s presented some strong evidence that the Courts would overturn any legislative effort to inhibit political sign posting on private property. I’m not sure that Aldo weighed in on this on the town’s behalf, but if you feel strongly about it, Al will offer you advice as to how to demand enforcement of the town’s bylaw…which might likely trigger a subsequent court challenge and judicial overturn…but that would require that you use your own name, if you haven’t already.

37 Al Hamilton March 31, 2014 at 12:59 PM

The town of Westfield tried to silence a candidate by taking his signs off of private property citing “Site Lines ” and other such nonsense. They were slapped down hard by the courts which issued a summary judgement for the person displaying the signs. The court said that such behavior violated the property owners constitutional rights under both the US and Massachusetts constitutions and for a violation of the property owners civil rights.

Mr. Kolenda and my daughter are both serving in the Army protecting my right to free speech. I am going to honor their service by using that right and standing up for it. Let me make this real easy for you. Please make me the target of your objections rather than Mr. Kolenda who I understand is off protecting you and me. I will freely stipulate the following:

1.Within the next 24 hours I will have a campaign sign in my front yard, on private property.

2.I have not and will not seek permission from any governmental authority to display my sign.

3. I intend to keep that sign in place until after the election on May 12th

4. I acknowledge that if this was a commercial sign it would be in violation of the town’s signage by laws.

5. I assert that my right to place the sign is protected by both the US and Massachusetts Constitutions.

6. You may contact the building inspector Mr. Mark Robidoux at 508 485 0717 x3018 or by email ( If you want to file a complaint with the Town Clerk, Mr. Paul Berry he can be reached at 508.485.0710 ext 5 or

I await your complaint if you have the courage to file it.

38 Bupters March 31, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Not sure which of us you’re addressing, Al, but for the record I’m not concerned enough about the sign issue to lodge a complaint. That doesn’t mean I or others don’t get to air our feelings on My Southborough about when signs go up, or about other issues, provided that it is done respectfully. I would also have no trouble using my real name if I were going to complain about anything to the Town Clerk, or to anybody else. People have different reasons for using aliases on blogs, and they have every right to do so.

In terms of voting, I always vote on the issues, and on how I feel a candidate is performing in office. Most of us deeply respect the hard work our servicemen are providing, but I do not base my local political decisions solely on that
criteria, nor do I hold someone running for office, or in office, exempt from criticism. It comes with the territory.

39 Al Hamilton March 31, 2014 at 2:57 PM

My apologies, this was not directed at you but at “Allison” who was asserting that Mr. Kolenda’s signs were illegal.

40 Bupters March 31, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Al: Thank you, I did not take the comment particularly personally, and am not trying to single out any of the other people who have expressed criticism about the signs. I frankly don’t know if the timing of the referred to signs is legal or not.

41 Bupters March 31, 2014 at 1:38 PM

I meant to include servicewomen, as well as men.

42 Mark Ford March 31, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Bupters, I was definitely responding to Alison, above, whose post was taken down. While I definitely respect posters who use their own names, I find it distinctly annoying when people post under “real” sounding pseudonyms. I find your posts courteous and often helpful. And btw, I like political signs, but then, I’m a big supporter of the printing industry. ;-)

To James Kolenda, above: I think it’s safe to say that most people in town are proud of your dad, and grateful that he helps defend our country and tries to help out the town too. (I’m sure he’s proud of you, too!)

43 Bupters March 31, 2014 at 4:52 PM

In general, I like signs too. Have even had them up myself.

44 Bupters March 31, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Thank you for the kind comment about my posts.

45 sl April 1, 2014 at 7:21 AM

I want to thank Beth for taking the time and effort to review some of the recent posts here, in other posts and, in particular, the “Town road news” posting for fake people (the ONE that started IT ALL so to speak) and deleting those comments as policy violators. In addition to the many people who comment here, there are many, many more who silently read it and appreciate your efforts.

46 M April 1, 2014 at 12:28 PM

(Editor: sorry, I am catching up on S News after being away. This series of comments refers to what? I wanted the comments on the BOS meeting and Main St project and as I scan these comments, they appear to be about political signs??)

47 beth April 1, 2014 at 7:35 PM

You are in the right place! As often happens, someone made an unrelated comment and others responded.

48 beth April 1, 2014 at 7:36 PM

If it helps there is a newer post related to Main Street that went up late today.

49 david Parry April 2, 2014 at 10:46 AM

In is not fair to pick on Mr Kolenda when he is out of the country. This seems like a non-issue which can be resolved one way or the other, very simply: by a ruling from the Building Inspector, sent to all candidates, as to what zoning does or does not allow. Then all candidates will know what they can and cannot do. Meanwhile can you please lay off a person who is not even here to respond. .

50 John Boiardi April 22, 2014 at 7:49 AM

Who needs Main Street reconstruction? Leave the intersection of Rt 30 and Main Street alone! Do we want more traffic diverted from Rt9? The plan will remove trees and move the stone walls for what? So travelers passing through downtown can move faster. let them use Rt9 and the Mass TP. We should be trying to slow traffic down not speed it up? As for down town are we going to take away sidewalks? How much will it really cost the town?

51 Frank Crowell April 22, 2014 at 3:12 PM

I wonder how fast traffic would be if Main St were a dirt road…….wait a minute……..come to think of it a dirt road would be a way of keeping downtown historic. I’ve got to go and get my resume into the BOS.

Previous post:

Next post: