So according to aging activist Vince O'Connor, somebody (a former Select Board member and long-time Town Meeting member--so my guess is Rob Kusner) will move to divide the CPA article (you already know about the Civil War tablets restoration reduction of $20,000 coming up) to cut the entire funding for the North Congregation Church Slate Roof repair.
You know, that quaint, gorgeous old building that dominates North Amherst center. And gee, the request is all of $7,000 (approved 7-0 by the Community Preservation Act Committee) And for that the town gets a legal permanent promise to maintain the historical preservation of the property.
That way no Frat House could buy it and erect neon Budweiser signs in the belfry. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
16 comments:
Or perhaps it will be Merle Howes?
(Don't mess with Rob, either ;-)
Who owns the building?
Why should the taxpayers be subsidizing a church? That's what parishioners are for.
Oh pleez!!! This is what we have come to? The rich people of the world looking for everyone to subsidize them? Why should some poor widow who is struggling to pay her property tax pay for this, the Kilball House, or any of these "preservation" projects? The church is a historic building, there is no way for it to become a home for frat boys. That's just a red herring.
Anon 11:50 AM. Wow Merle Howes, a power player from the very distant past--that could be interesting.
I love to mess with Rob. And just look where he is now.
Anon 1:19 PM
Well in Amherst we don't have Historic District controls (yet).
And I agree taxpayers should not subsidize the rich game of golf or fancy gold plated toilets at Town Hall (that also has HOT running water I might add) at the expense of police, fire, teachers, and dpw.
That is why I voted against the CPA tax (twice). But I lost, and we are now stuck with it.
So I try to make do.
Better to buy land that needs protecting for wildlife and recreation than to use it for these other boondoggles. No one I know that voted for it thought it was going for anything but protecting undeveloped land or farmland.
Yeah, that's what I love about the typical Amherst voter--they don't read the fine print.
And in the case of the CPA tax the print was not all that fine. Pretty freakin BIG I would say.
Next time, pay attention.
And did you notice the state is no longer matching our local dollar with a dollar?
They are now down to about 33 cents on the dollar (that too was in the fine/medium pretty freakin large print)
Have any of the South Congregational Church's renovations been assisted by CPA funds? I know they've done alot lately, such as the bell, and just wondered.
No. I think they have a bigger flock and probably hit them up for the $
What's the Kimball House used for?
Whatever Mr. Cherwatti wants to use it for.
The $300-K only bought a legally binding promise from him not to tear it down.
But of course if an earthquake should take it down...
hey please let TM know that for ONLY $250,000 I promise not to knock my house down too!!!
It's a classic mid-20th century family-style house, erected during an era when the US was involved in creating housing for the baby boomers to grow up in. A lot of historic value, and it's extremely solidly built.
I also propose that Mr. Shaffer erect some barriers to make my through street a cul-de-sac.
I deserve it. Cause I want it.
: - )
P.S.
Actually I don't think the town should've put any restrictions on what the owners could do with property they bought on the open market.
Town should've bought the property if they wanted to preserve. From an aesthetic side, I've always loved that house and I'm glad it still exists....but how strange that the town paid $ for private owners to use as they see fit.
--E.
That's why I voted against it.
And I really don't blame Mr. Cherwatti in the least.
He was always up front with town (unlike most folks who strike a deal with our Conservation Dept and Town Meeting on APR or Open Space deals); he told them he was building a large house and would either use the land on which Kimball sits or not.
And yeah, as you can tell by the time/date stamp I'm going to be a tad late for Town Meeting tonight. Oh my!
Aftermath: So, it lost, for the wrong reasons.
The building is a "contributing structure" in a National Historic Register District, and eminently worthy of preservation support, which poses no constitutional problem.
By way of background: the church recently spent a very considerable amount on repairs following major storm damage. This was a very modest request for assistance in repairing problems discovered in the course of other repairs.
Anyway, just watch and see what TM will want to spend $ 7000--or $ 70,000--on in the future.
And as for church and state: I--along with everyone else in Precinct 1--have to vote in the adjoining Parish Hall of the church. No problem there?
They should start charging the town rent for Parish Hall next Fiscal Year for every election.
$150 per hour times the 12 hours each Precinct is open for every election.
Wouldn't take long to add up to $7,000 (and without the deed restriction)
Post a Comment