Thistle coming to MSH

Thistle: a temporary art project at Medfield State Hospital
Submitted by Jean Mineo, Art in Public Places, a Medfield Foundation Inc. initiative

Exhibition dates: May – October, 2015

 

2015-02-26_14-58-24
THISTLE
Thistle is a temporary outdoor exhibition of plastic “collars”, installed around tree trunks as a tribute to trees. It is based on a piece the artist created for an ancient apple tree in her backyard. The project first became public in 2011 with nine bands installed as part of Art in the Park, in historic Elm Park (Worcester).

Evans realized the celebratory appropriateness of both the bright pink color and form. The Long Horned Beetle infestation had forced the removal of 28,000 trees, leaving both parks and people devastated. These bands of “Thistles” gave the trees a very distinct look of celebration as victors of the blight. Other installations have occurred in Concord, Stockbridge, Providence, RI and Stowe,
VT.

Each Thistle band is customized in size to the tree, made of plastic hardware cloth and ties, and affixed around the tree by tying the ends of the band together. The tree is not harmed and the bands are easily removed at the end.

MEDFIELD STATE HOSPITAL
An installation of up to 24 Thistles is proposed for the trees lining Hospital Road and within the adjacent open space. Volunteers will be asked to adopt and assemble a Thistle (with instruction from Evans). The artist will run a workshop at Zullo Gallery in March, installation is proposed for May – October.

The goal is to draw attention to the open space at the front of the property and engage people in thinking about the property in a new way (other than a hospital). Funding will be sought from the Cultural Council and sponsors. No additional insurance is needed.

THE ARTIST
Catherine Evans is a Boston based artist. Her art deals with the repurposing of common objects; transforming everyday materials into the powerful, and the unordinary; stretching preconceived notions about that object. Multiples and repetition are an important part of her work. http://www.CatherineEvansArt.com

Globe’s GRANT

Let’s put our Boston Globe GRANT (Globe Readers And Non-profits Together) ballots towards Medfield non-profits this year.  I am putting mine towards the Medfield Foundation, so MFi can run an ad for the Angel Run, as the proceeds from the Angel Run have been used to assist Medfield families in need.

Logo_Small_RGB

All Globe subscribers are getting mailings with the certificate to be mailed in.  If choosing the Medfield Foundation, Inc. use as its location the address of 459 Main Street, Medfield, MA 02052 (MFi mail goes to the Town House).

MFi_AngelRun

Recycling

Commonwealth Magazine has an article on trash and recycling in Massachusetts, and we do not look so good – too much trash per person, and therefore spending too much on trash disposal.  On the map they publish we are one of the few in the red (800+ lbs of trash/person/year).

trashmap

Our single stream recycling has upped our recycling numbers some and brought our trash tonnage down some.

However, DEP consistently tells me that the only way to get our trash numbers down a lot is to go to pay-as-you-throw, but no one likes PAYT.  DEP pointed me to Duxbury’s example, as Duxbury saw a slight drop in its trash amounts when it went to single stream, but Duxbury only achieved a dramatic drop when it implemented PAYT a year of two later.

To me it is an issue of trade offs, how much inconvenience and cost are we willing to suffer via PAYT to save the town money on trash disposal.  We know PAYT saves towns money, but we currently prefer to pay higher taxes to avoid PAYT.

CommonWealth magazine points out that Massachusetts pay-as-you-throw communities-nearly one-third of municipalities in the state-throw out just 432 pounds per person per year on average, compared with 670 pounds in non-PAYT cities and towns.

Blog stats

Word Press Statistics:

I was just looking to see what Word Press statistics tell me, and these were the ones that I found interesting:

479 people get a Word Press email of blog posts

238 get posts via Twitter

149 get posts via Facebook

??? via LinkedIN

 

Biggest view days at Word Press were:

800 (almost) people wanting to know if their street was going to get DPW work done last spring, when Patch linked to the list.

473 people looking at post about Medfield having run out of salt on 2/9/15.

FY16 budget calendar

The annual budget calendar countdown to the town meeting, plus the Special Town Meeting and Election dates for the public safety building –


FY2016 TIME TABLE

November 4, 2014 – Budget meeting with Warrant Committee All Town Department Heads

December 2, 2014 – FY16 budgets due in Accountant’s Office

December 16, 2014 – Selectmen vote to open Annual Town Meeting Warrant

January 6, 2015 – Warrant articles needing legal review are due

January 15, 2015 – Annual reports are due in the Selectmen’s Office.  This date is a Town Bylaw voted at Town Meeting, May 4, 1981

January 27, 2015 – Selectmen vote to close Annual Town Meeting Warrant

March 17, 2015 – Warrant Hearing. Selectmen sign Town Election Warrant for posting

MARCH 23, 2015 – SPECIAL TOWN MEETING on public safety building and solar photovoltaic installation at the Waste Water Treatment Facility

March 26, 2015 – Warrant Report and Town Report mailed to printer Selectmen sign Town

MARCH 30, 2015 – TOWN ELECTION on override for the public safety building and me for selectman (Re-Pete!)

April 7, 2014 – Meeting Warrant for posting

April 16, 2015 – Warrant Report mailed to residents

MONDAY MARCH 30, 2015 TOWN ELECTION

MONDAY APR IL 27, 2015 TOWN MEETING
(if needed, second night of Town Meeting on Tuesday April 28, 2015)


 

The Reps are coming!

The selectmen try to have regular visits/reports/consultations with our representatives in the legislature, but those visits seem to have become increasingly difficult to schedule.  They are no longer occurring on the quarterly basis as in the past.  Several recent scheduled dates had to be cancelled.

Evelyn emailed the selectmen this morning that they have next been scheduled to attend our March 24 meeting.  This was the email from Evelyn –


 

Good morning,

 

I received confirmation this morning that Senator Timilty and Representatives Garlick and Dooley will attend the Selectmen’s March 24 meeting.

 

Let’s keep our fingers crossed!!

Clark Tavern hearing this week

The Land Court is holding a hearing on the cross motions for summary judgment this week on the pending appeal of the ZBA permit issued to the Linnerts to turn the Clark Tavern into a restaurant.

Summary judgment is a mechanism that is applicable only when there is “no material fact in dispute,” such that the judge can decide the case on the legal issues alone, without needing to conduct a trial to determine the factual issues.  A party seeking to defeat summary judgment will attempt to show that there really is a “material fact” in dispute that must be determined via a trial.

Pi Day

This year pi day is even more appropriate, as it come on 3.14.15, a once in a century pi day occurrence.  Hope the snow does not ruin it.

 

BoS agenda for 2/24

Tuesday February 24, 2015 @ 7:00 PM
AGENDA (SUBJECT TO CHANGE)

7:00 PM Andrew Seaman, Energy I Facilities Manager
Discuss solar voltaic array contracts and request Selectmen vote to sign

Review preliminary 2015 Warrant Articles

Establishment of Massachusetts Income Tax

This article was in the Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue’s Div. of Local Services’ newsletter today-


 

A Brief Look Back: The Establishment of the Massachusetts Income Tax
Tony Rassias – Bureau of Accounts Deputy Director

City & Town is pleased to announce a new feature. “A Brief Look Back” will review issues that affected municipal finance in the early twentieth century as written in the Annual Reports of what is now known as the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. This month, City & Town features a brief history of the events that led to the Massachusetts income tax.

Introduction

The high cost of the Civil War and the rapid growth of cities thereafter increased public expenditures and strained the Massachusetts property tax system, especially in the taxation of intangible personal property. Taxation of personal property was vexing. Taxpayers concealed their ownership of it and even moved their property out of state to avoid payment. The problem plagued assessors around the country.

After considerable discussion and review by special commissions, a Constitutional amendment and other legislation on the matter, the old system of taxing intangible personal property was scrapped and a state income tax, in some ways similar to the one already in effect in Wisconsin, was approved.

Revenue from the new tax, to be distributed to cities, towns and districts, was projected to replace the loss of revenue from the old personal property tax. In 1917, the first year of implementation, the new tax raised about $11.2 million, a significant jump when compared to the $8.8 million raised the previous year under the old tax system.

On January 23rd, 1918, Tax Commissioner William D. Trefry gave his annual report for 1917 to Speaker of the House of Representatives Channing Cox. The Tax Commissioner began his report with a brief history of the state’s early form of taxation after which he presented a summary of the new income tax law.

The following are excerpts from his full report.

By the Commissioner

In 1634 there was enacted in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay the first general tax law in any American colony, and included in this act was a provision for the assessment of each man “according to his estate and with the consideration of all other his abilityes whatsoever.” From that date to the present there has been at all times upon the statute books of Massachusetts legislation providing in some form or other for a partial tax upon incomes, although the colonial faculty tax, as this earlier form was called, bears little relation to the modern income tax.

Under the law, therefore, as it had existed for many decades, the income of intangible property, although this class of property had rapidly grown in amount and importance, was not subject to taxation, but in theory the property itself was subject to the varying local rates. With no provision for a compulsory return of this or any other class of property, local assessors were peculiarly at a disadvantage in discovering it for taxation, and there was a great incentive to overlook this class of property, when the usual result of taxing it at its full value at the local rate was either to drive the taxpayer to some other more favorable community with a low rate of taxation, or even to force him to remove his domicile from the Commonwealth.

These two evil results of attempting to apply the general property tax to this class of property gradually assumed alarming proportions.

The movement for a reform was furthered in the Governor’s inaugural in 1911, and after the determination that a constitutional amendment was necessary the proper amendment was enacted and ratified in 1915 by an overwhelming majority of the voters.

To view the Tax Commissioner’s entire piece, click here.