City Council meeting of 7/16/24
I must admit that last week’s meeting of the City Council was pleasant to watch, mainly because some of the councilors I’ve complained about kept silent.
We watched Luis Robles speak about controlling the motorbikes around the city. That’s what residents should do: if they have a concern, they should speak up, letting the council know what is affecting the quality of life for all of us. Mr. Robles was right; I often think they hug the streets like cockroaches, and I fear while driving.
Councilor Vivian Marmol used the public participation podium to represent a constituent who could not speak about the city’s parking situation. There you have a bright member! She is respectful, well-spoken, and opinionated without being forceful. Please, Vivian, don’t change; we need people like you on the council.
The councilors also discussed a matter that the Budget and Finance Committee submitted regarding installing solar panels in city-owned buildings. The contract calls for Solar PPA and Lease Contract with Solect Electric for 150 solar panels at City Hall and another 600 panels at Arlington School. After much discussion, the council approved the contract, including asking how they decided on the Arlington School and not one of the newer schools (Frost, Guilmette, or Parthum). I never understood the answer regarding the selection. I should watch the meeting again.
The second contract with the same company called for a 20-year agreement on any other private property choosing to install panels in the future because it will benefit the city financially. It is a good idea to table it because this technology is still new. Twenty years is a long time, considering the fast-paced technological advances.
Anil Navkal, Energy Advisor to Mayor Brian A. DePeña, insisted on the money the city will save, but the councilors were very cautious.
I’ve researched this subject because sales representatives will not tell customers about the pitfalls. For example, roofs have a limited life and may need to be replaced before the 20-year contract expires. Who is responsible for taking down the solar panels and re-installing them once the new roof is up? That sounds like a big job!
My biggest concern is what happens if a panel breaks and needs replacement. The property owner is responsible for discarding the solar panels, and they need to be recycled, but at this point, there is nowhere to do it.
The only way to see some savings is if you spend $30,000-$40,000 to buy them without being attached to a contract “selling back” to the electric company. I’ve heard of customers who have seen very little savings because of having solar panels installed.
I would only venture into solar energy for my home right now if I had a big yard and placed the panels on the ground away from my house.
Then, of course, is the property value in case you decide to sell. Potential buyers refuse to buy a house with solar panels on the roof for the above reasons.
Still, entering a twenty-year contract for something unpurchased or installed sounds illogical.
Voter ID proposal
Then, the council discussed Councilor Ana Levy’s proposal to require voters to show some form of identification on election day. As a proponent of that, I have often written about the need to do something to prevent non-citizens from voting at election time. You can read an article published in Rumbo on September 1, 2003, which you can find on our webpage, www.rumbonews.com.
The photo in that article depicts the moment we delivered a home-rule petition approved by the city council and signed by Mayor Michael Sullivan to State House Clerk Steve James, Marie Gosselin, and Dottie Incropera.
Our efforts resulted in Secretary of State William Galvin saying he could not grant this measure to one city only; it would have to be approved for the entire State. So, why do we continue insisting on that? Times have changed, and maybe we can get the State to grant permission for Lawrence to become a test city and implement it statewide.
Voting by mail should be eliminated because it’s well-known that it’s problematic and lends itself to mailbox theft. For residents unable to go to the polls due to physical difficulties, which will not be too many, the city should provide a service by sending a city employee to their home and bringing the ballot right back to the election office.
Due to the electoral problems that arose in the past elections, some states, such as Ohio, N, Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, and some other states and cities, will begin requiring identification when voting. So, why can’t we do the same? What do we fear? Perhaps, if we approve this proposal, we can restore some of the lost credibility in the electoral process of the city of Lawrence..
I invite everyone to City Hall to the next council meeting, August 7, 2024, at 7 PM. Let’s raise our voices and let our opinions be known and see who says Yes and No when approving or disapproving the requirement Home Rule Petition for ID to vote.
Let’s also let our state representatives know that we want their support. We need clear and transparent elections.
Be the first to comment