Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Town Mangler to bosses: Butt out!

So Princess Stephanie arranges for a fresh faced Umass student government rep to appear at the Select Board meeting and complain during Public Comment period about the sudden crackdown on unrelated housemates greater than four in any Amherst abode.
video

The Republican Reports

20 comments:

Neil said...

Is Shaffer trying to help the student place the petition in the proper forum or is he fighting it with chickshit procedure?

LarryK4 said...

Both. Mostly the latter.

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised you haven't commented on this from the Gazette, "But Shaffer acknowledged there have been two goals that he hasn't achieved as well. One is in collection of so-called customer satisfaction feedback and suggestions from the public."

"I haven't done anything with it, but I will," Shaffer said.

Neil said...

What do the majority of Amherst residents want? Do they want the law upheld (to have a legal tool on the books) or not?

I think Shaffer's wrong about where the petition should go. If the student's objection is to how the law is enforced (unequally)then he's brought it to the right place. The other place he could go is court.

Probably most telling are the details of the incidents he and others find objectionable. Knowing those is knowing the problem.

Anonymous said...

What most of the people in Amherst want is irrelevant. What is legal (meaning constitutional) is what matters and this law is unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

What is legal (meaning constitutional) is what matters and this law is unconstitutional.PROVE IT.

Anonymous said...

Why did the nincompoop bring it to the the political policy makers and not the courts?

Realist said...

Good lord...here we have a student doing the absolute RIGHT thing - which is to bring a carefully thought out position on a "problem" that is impacting him and his fellow students - to the proper authorities, instead of just grumbling in his beer about it, and he is met with stonewalling from our Town Manager and namecalling in this blog (nincompoop?)...what a shame!

The reason he didn't bring it to the courts is because THAT would be Step #24 in a process that BEGINS with exactly what he did: let everyone know that there IS a problem and allow them (the proper authorities) the opportunity to FIX the problem before you start trotting out the heavy artillery. I say "good for you!" to that young man who had the guts to sit in front of the Select Board and state his position. I wish there were more adults in this town who possessed that same level of courage.

Anonymous said...

"I wish there were more adults in this town who possessed that same level of courage."


Oh B*llshit.

Anonymous said...

The young man also showed respect by wearing a dress shirt and tie.
With the habitual speakers we are lucky they are wearing a shirt!

Anonymous said...

Under this bylaw a couple taking in three foster children would be in violation. Someone would have to leave.

Anonymous said...

"What is legal (meaning constitutional) is what matters and this law is unconstitutional.PROVE IT.

That's the problem when towns make obviously unconstitutional bylaws. You have to waste time and money to get them overturned.

Realist said...

Uh, oh...looks like Mr. "It's Over" has stepped out of the shadows once again (I assume that's you delivering the "Oh B*llshit" comment above). What's the matter - did you think that I was referring to YOU with my comment about wanting to see more ADULTS with a backbone in this town? Sorry to disappoint you but, nope...I don't hold out much hope that you will EVER have the kahunas necessary to sit in front of the Amherst School Committee - like this young man sat in front of the Select Board - and tell them EVERYTHING that you know re: alleged improprieties w/in the Amherst Schools. Ain't gonna happen. Why? Because I think you have even BIGGER secrets to hide. (eg "Why WERE you fired by the Schools?")

Anonymous said...

Under this bylaw a couple taking in three foster children would be in violation. Someone would have to leave.not if they have custodial rights, which they would have concurrent with receiving the children. why do stupid argue stupid argument?

Anonymous said...

That's the problem when towns make obviously unconstitutional bylaws. You have to waste time and money to get them overturned.People keep saying it is unconstitutional but saying it doesn't make it so. You should try to explain why it is if you want anybody to agree.

LarryK4 said...

Gotta wonder about 'A Better Chance' (celebrating 40 years of service).

The ABC program attracts 6 or 7 inner city kids every year who live in one big old house.

Are town officials going to limit them to only four?

Anonymous said...

Why did the nincompoop bring it to the the political policy makers and not the courts?He wants the glory of being able to say that he resolved it within the political process without having to go to court.

You do not want to know how much money this kid's parents (and thus he) have -- he has the ability to bankrupt the town in litigation and might just do it to impress his girlfriend. Like I said, you don't want to know how much money he has....

This isn't a UMass student. This is a young multi-millionare who just happens to be playing around at UMass....

Anonymous said...

One of the articles said that a landlord can apply for a variance on this bylaw. It didn't go into any detail though on the how or why they could get one.

Anonymous said...

When kids live in ABC, they are in the custodial care of adults and thus not in violation of the bylaw.

Anonymous said...

Nobody can say why this bylaw is unconstitutional but that doesn't stop commenters from asserting it repeatedly in these comments.

The kid says the problem is selective prosecution and therefore in violation of equal protection under the law. On that basis, he's going to have to prove it in court.