Another public safety committee meeting

Wow, after months without one - two weeks - two meetings.

There was a Public Safety Committee meeting on Wednesday 23rd of April.
It appeared that this was a meeting to clean the slate of old business.

The agenda included 9 petitions from 2002, 4 from 2003, 1 each from 2004 and 2005, 5 from 2006, one from 2007 and 1 from 2008. The committee will had a mere 30 minutes to cover all 22 petitions as there as a Finance Committee meeting scheduled for 7:30 and both were in Council Chambers.

Most of the petitions were of the constituent service (aka pork) variety. You know the kind where a voter wants something and the councilor files the petition to “buy” their vote in the next election. I was unable to attend since I didn’t get home from "work till around 7:20. Hopefully they were all given leave to withdraw.

A couple questions.
Why were petitions allowed to linger since 2002?
Shouldn’t petitions expire (allowed to die gracefully) when say a new council is sworn in, or maybe two years from when they are filed?

Now just a week later another Public Safety Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 30 April. The agenda is online here, at least till the next meeting agenda is posted.

Of particular interest to me are:
249 – 07. An Ordinance: Amending Chapter 169-76 of the Code of the City of Fitchburg
(Stop Signs)

15 – 08. Councillor Thomas J. Conry to implement automated photographic traffic enforcement systems in accordance with Massachusetts Traffic Laws.
(Note: No police report received)

53 – 08. Councillor David Clark to place a Stop sign at the corner of Walton and Seneca St. 321 Walton.
(Note: No police report received)

The wording of the 249 - 07 is vague. It would be nice to know exactly how they’re proposing to change. It has thus peeked my interest.

15 - 08 ought to be a no brainer. Since Mass General Laws do not permit photo enforcement it was foolish to introduce this petition and should be rejected by the council without the need for a police report. Further I did speak in opposition at the January council meeting when this was proposed. I referenced the report from Swampscott where photo enforcement was rejected by a vote of 5 to 0. I had a copy of the report with me at that meeting. No councilor asked to see it then and none has asked me how to get a copy since then. No surprise there. Here’s a link where you can download a pdf copy of the report, just in case you want to read it.

53 – 08 is not really a new petition since the same sign was request just one or two years ago. Is the plan to keep re-introducing it till it slips by when no one is looking? With or without a police report this should be rejected. That particular intersection has a stop sign in one direction and none in the other. And that’s how it should be. The direction with the sign is a blind intersection. The home on the left is raised up from road level and prevents drivers from getting a clear view of traffic approaching from the left. However, the opposite approach is wide open, approaching traffic from either side is clearly visible and it’s obvious that Walton has right of way. That means that the traffic on Seneca must yield to traffic on Walton, thus no stop sign is needed. Don’t understand why it’s not OK to just go ahead and install a stop sign then read this.