Cherry Hill Golf Course shanks again

So before the Town Manager or LSSE, our expensive recreation empire, spews a disingenuous positive spin on the numbers, here’s what the illustrious business of golf really cost taxpayers this past year (FY-09, ended June 30, 2009):

“Operation Budget: $211,000
Hidden costs: (employee benefits, insurance): $31,000
“Capital costs” Commercial lawnmower $22,000
Total taxpayer funded budget: $264,000

Total Revenues (with about half the patrons from outside Amherst): $254,000

Or a loss of $10,000.

Not bad...compared to the six consecutive years of $100,000 losses between 1999 and 2005, or South Hadley’s usual annual losses of $500,000 on their B-I-G-G-E-R white elephant, the Ledges.

But this loss does not reflect the $30,000 “opportunity cost” of privatizing the operation. The Town Mangler rejected Niblick Management because they wanted a 3-year-deal.

But Shaffer wants Town Meeting next week to approve a 5-year lease/buy on experimental photovoltaic, solar panels for two in-town locations. Hmmm…

And even if you ignore the $30,000 privatization opportunity had Amherst never absorbed Cherry Hill for $2.2 million over 20 years ago (still the most expensive land purchase/taking in town history) the former owner would be paying property taxes of almost $10,000 per year.

As former Czar Anne Awad told Town Meeting in June 2006 (back when she still lived in Amherst): “Numbers can be used in many ways, statistics in many ways” Yeah, for sure. It would help if town officials told the truth.


Hey, at least he was accurate (gotta love the facial twitch) when admitting the golf business would not cover capital.

A haunting reminder

This "ghost bike" appeared near the spot on University Drive where cyclist Misty Bassi was run down by a hit-and-run driver on Memorial Day morning. She was hit head on, so at least her death was instantaneous.

When Umass students return and The Hanger starts packing them in again, maybe more folks will be reminded that a car is a deadly weapon.

CBS reports

Sunday morning...

Don't try this at home kids.

The cost of doing business

So yes, as an Amherst Town Meeting member with too many years business experience I will of course support the property tax break for Atkins Farm stand my South Amherst business neighbor. But if somebody asked me over the past 20 years or so for a list of the top retail businesses in Amherst, Atkins would be high on my list.

And I remember 45 years or so ago when they were neck-and-neck with Wentworth Farms for farm stand fresh produce sales. At the time Atkins was on the other side of the main road and they had a GIANT bright red apple on top of the tiny farm stand.

But today anytime you drive or cycle by during business hours the Atkins parking lot is overflowing. Wentworth Farms is long gone.

Good for me of course since the building I have occupied for the past 26 years or so was originally apple storage for Wentworth Farms, thus if they had not gone belly up due to Atkins…

But how about the Lord Jeffery Inn? Yeah, I know--they are owned by tax-exempt Amherst College who has a BILLION in their endowment. But a year ago it was a LOT higher than that. Thus they cancelled the $20 million renovation of their cozy Inn, although they seem to find the cash to do millions in renovations to their other tax-exempt infrastructure.

Now the decaying Lord Jeff sits forlornly in town center as a high profile public embarrassment. Why not offer Amherst College a tax break over the next five years or so to do the damn renovation?

The Lord Jeff generates collateral business for everybody in the downtown and when Amherst increases the hotel/motel tax to 6% (that too, I will support) the Lord Jeff would pass thru over $100,000 annually to the town.

If we can subsidize Atkins why not Amherst College?

Fast turnaround (Joys of dealing with the Private Sector)

A week from dirt to pavement, not bad.

Last week

Sotomayor & Me

Top row: Nunchakus, brass knuckle knife, push dagger
Middle row: Ninja claw, throwing stars
Bottom row: Balisong Philippine knife, and my favorite: a razor sharp double-edged dagger made from plastic rather than metal so you could easily sneak it aboard commercial airplanes.

Sotomayor on martial arts weapons

While I don’t agree with Ms. Sotomayor playing the race/gender card or her ruling upholding reverse discrimination in the Connecticut firefighter case (recently overturned by the Supreme Court) we wholeheartedly agree about Martial Arts weapons.

Back in the mid-1970’s (yeah, well before that tank ride with goofy oversized helmet) Governor Mike Dukakis signed "emergency legislation" outlawing double-edged knives, samurai swords, throwing stars, nunchakus and such because they were being used against Boston Police trying to keep order during the tumultuous busing crisis.

A very sad use of the American flag

After I first opened a Karate school in the early 1980’s we did an anonymous survey of what else could we offer to customers, and a bunch of responses craved “weapons classes”. We could tell by the handwriting they came from young children.

I then discovered lots of kids were getting their naïve little hands on dangerous mail-order martial arts weapons. Because, after all, the mail carrier does not check I.D’s. “Latchkey kids” could order anything and monitor the mailbox over the next month before Mom or Dad returned home.

The martial arts industry went from the Bruce Lee era (mid 1970’s) to the Ninja mania craze in the early 1980’s. Now it is of course the Mixed Martial Arts which has better staying power then either of the previous fads (although to this day they don’t come any better than Bruce Lee.)

Ninja’s were Japanese assassins who would kill their grandmother in her sleep if the price were right; not something you want American kids worshipping. And of course they used all sorts of nasty weapons to achieve that ignoble end.

The martial arts media hyped it because they sold advertising and magazines. And the weapons dealers loved it because they sold tons of cheap weapons.

So around 1984 in the middle of my five year run as Top Ten nationally ranked tournament karate competition (and professional writer for the national karate magazines) I started my crusade against mail-order martial weapons into states—like Massachusetts and New York—who had declared them illegal.

My theory was the Federal Government should not overrule state government especially on this public safety issue.

And precisely because of my use of the term “states rights” in a cover letter to all US Senators containing a throwing star with the tag line "illegal weapon legally enclosed" on the outside of the envelope, southern Senator Strom Thurmond (Judiciary Chair) co-sponsored legislation with northern Senator Edward Kennedy. Yikes!

At that point even a novice like me could get the Daily Hampshire Gazette, Springfield Union, Boston Globe and Boston Herald, New York Times and NY Post, and finally LA times and LA Herald (where the karate magazines were based) to do editorials supporting the Kennedy/Thurmond bill.

The Senate Bill 1363 passed the Judiciary Committee 11-1 with only Arlen Specter dissenting. Although Orrin Hatch (grilling Sotomayor on nunchakus yesterday) was a Judiciary member back then, he did not show up to vote that morning.

The bill never made it before the full Congress and thus died. But because of all the national press the industry started to police itself (using the disclaimer “will not ship to where prohibited by law” and something about only “adults” can order.)

I never wrote another word for the martial arts media; and I was blackballed on the national karate tournament circuit. A small price to pay.

The Christian Science Monitor reported (way back then):

Typical ads circa 1985 (click to enlarge)

UPDATE: Thursday 11:40 AM

AOL main page is doing an interesting "poll" about Sotomayor: So far 57% do NOT want her approved but (Question #2) 84% think she "will win" approval. Politically speaking is it a BIG enough deal (I would guess not) for those unhappy campers to vote against their Senator in the next election who approved Sotomayor.

Inside baseball (of the Gay variety)

So that disembodied voice you hear responding, “No, I was hoping the Select Board would comment, so I have no comment,” was indeed me. I had emailed the entire Select Board earlier that morning suggesting they make a (brief) public statement in support of Massachusetts State Senator Stan Rosenberg, who ever so casually mentioned in a Daily Hampshire Gazette July 4th column that he was, gasp, gay.

Even earlier that morning, finishing up a bike ride, I ran into (almost literally) former SB Chair Gerry Weiss and pitched the idea face to face. When I got home two minutes later I emailed the entire Select Board.

From a PR perspective I can see Princess Stephanie’s point (play-it-safe, keep silent), as back when she actually worked for a living as a flak in the Detroit car industry (obviously W-A-Y back in the good old days) you let a negative lie low (or is it lay?) and blow over. Don’t address it because it simply feeds the news cycle. But my theory is that Stan’s being gay is not a negative

And today’s crusty Daily Hampshire Gazette editorial demonstrates (better late than never)they agree with me: What Stan did was pretty damn courageous and should be publicly applauded; while what the Amherst Select Board did was pretty damn cowardly.

Of course the little old Gazette is happy Stan Rosenberg did it on their editorial page rather than their competition the BIG city Springfield Republican. Although I couldn’t help note that when the AP picked up the story they did so from the Springfield Republican's article a few days later and not the Gazette.




Today's Gazette editorial:

Worth noting: Sen. Rosenberg's news

We have to admire the courage of convictions, no matter what they are or how they are demonstrated. It is why State Sen. Stan Rosenberg's disclosure that he is gay generated a bit of news, after it appeared as a brief mention in a guest column on this page.

We live in a time when, right or wrong, we want to know about our elected leaders' private lives, as well as their public pronouncements. Rosenberg, 59, the Amherst Democrat, widely known as a hard worker, good listener and a consensus builder, is not one to speak in sound bites. He didn't do that this time either.

His 750-word column published July 4th spoke to the historical reasons Massachusetts is considered in the vanguard when it comes to tolerance, equal rights and social justice. Halfway through, he offered this insight into how his own political views were shaped: "As a foster child growing up as a ward of the state, as a gay man, as a Jew, I understand what it's like to be cast as ¿the other.' "

It made perfect sense that he would include these pieces of information about who he is to explain a belief system he holds dear.

Perhaps to explain why he has never come out as a gay man before, Rosenberg said he doesn't practice "identity politics" - and indeed the fact that he is gay, Jewish, and was a foster child, does not make him a spokesman for the gay community, the Jewish community or adopted people.

It does, however, make him sensitive to their issues. That's not identity politics, that is simply letting all of who you are guide you in the opinions you hold and the decisions you make.

It is also letting the public you serve know you more fully.

Since the column was published, Rosenberg has declined requests for interviews. Since he does not practice identity politics, we suspect he does not want his hard work on policy and legislation to get derailed by this news.

It is his choice to make such a statement and then move on, especially considering that the only reaction to the column and the news from his constituents has been positive. That may well be because Stan Rosenberg has a distinguished political career of 22 years on Beacon Hill. He served in the state House of Representatives from 1987 to 1991; and in the Senate since then. People see him doing the job they elected him for, and that's what counts.

So, bravo, Stan Rosenberg, for making this announcement and doing it in the way that felt right to you. Your constituents are glad to get to know you a little better.

-----Original Message-----
From: amherstac@aol.com
To: selectboard@amherstma.gov
Sent: Wed, Jul 8, 2009 10:45 am
Subject: A vote of support for you know who.

I hope the Select Board will take a moment at tonight's meeting to remind the general public that the town of Amherst is an "equal opportunity employer" and does not discriminate based on race, creed, color, religion, gender, transgender, sexual persuasion or political affiliation (although the last one I'm not so sure about.)


Larry K