Wait for 8th—a campaign to heed

Belmont Citizen-Herald — September 19, 2019

When’s the right time? That’s a question we never had to deal with. Our daughter grew up in an era that preceded “smart phones.” Given that the IPhone was not released in the United States until 2007, my wife and I were never presented with the question of how young is too young for a child to possess a “smart phone.” Today, however, life is different.

I readily admit that I may simply sound like the old fogey that I am. My nieces, nephews, and indeed, my daughter, do not hesitate to suggest that I am “out of touch with contemporary thought and activities.” So be it. I plead guilty. Nonetheless, I grew up in a medium-sized city (250,000 people). And, I grew up in an era where my two brothers and I would leave home on our bicycles in the morning with firm instructions from Mom to “be home for dinner.” The extent of our “screen time” was a half-hour of Yogi Bear before dinner, and, of course, a Saturday morning of cartoons, Sky King, The Lone Ranger, and a horse named Fury.

So, it’s no surprise that life has changed, right? That’s the nature of things. Nonetheless, some Belmont residents believe that the availability of some technology devices in today’s world should not be in the hands of younger kids. More specifically, the “Wait for 8th” movement advocates not making “smart phones” available to our kids until those kids  reach the eighth grade. And, I have to say, I tend to agree with them.

According to the “Wait for 8th” website,” “playing outdoors, spending time with friends, reading books and hanging out with family is happening a lot less to make room for hours of snap chatting, instagramming, and catching up on You Tube. With children spending anywhere between 3 to 7 hours daily in front of a screen, many childhood essentials are pushed aside for online amusement.” And that’s not healthy, emotionally, physically, or from a developmental perspective.

The “Wait for 8th^” campaign reports that “Studies show that the use of smartphones and other portable devices with screens affects the quantity and quality of sleep in children and teens. Adolescents are likely restless because they anticipate receiving texts and social media messages from friends, which affects their nighttime routine. Some children even wake up in the middle of the night to check texts or social media. Sleep disturbance in childhood is known to have adverse effects on health. . .” Moreover, the campaign says, “Children are not emotionally equipped to navigate tricky social media waters at such an early age. . .Research shows that the more time someone uses social media the more likely they are to be depressed.” Another report demonstrated that “adolescents’ psychological well-being decreased the more hours a week they spent on screens.”

Accordingly, the “Wait for 8th” campaign promotes parents taking a “pledge.” Signing the pledge involves a promise not to give your child a smartphone until at least 8th grade. That does not mean that kids would be denied any phone. Many parents who sign the pledge find that a basic phone that just calls and texts provides the security links that they seek. Nonetheless, a basic phone does not present the same dangers as a smartphone at a young age.

The “Wait for 8th” movement does not try to tell you how to parent your child. If you do not share concerns about access to smartphones, you can ignore the campaign. However, if you do share concerns, the campaign provides that as soon as 10 families from your child’s grade and school sign the pledge, the campaign shares the names of those signing the pledge within that group. The belief is that such a social support network is helpful to parents with concerns.

The “Wait for 8th” campaign seems to have a place in Belmont. A more public ongoing conversation about parental practices with the use of smartphones by young children is merited within our community. Parents can find more information about the campaign at waituntil8th.org.

Stop the idling –protect the kids

March 14, 2019 — Belmont Citizen-Herald

We’ve done it before. Can you imagine putting your kid in the car today without buckling the seatbelt? Would you ever put your toddler in a car without using a car seat? Over the years, we’ve learned to protect our children from certain harmful habits. We didn’t merely change behavior, we changed our culture.  It’s time to do it again, to protect our kids from the dangers of the idling car. 

Let’s set aside the fact that, in Massachusetts, unnecessary idling is against the law.  While there are exceptions to this restriction, running the car to stay warmer (or cooler) is not one of them.  Let’s assume, however, that the Belmont police have insufficient resources to hang-out at Belmont’s schools every morning and afternoon to hand out tickets to parents who violate the law.  Let’s assume, further, that parents would not knowingly harm their kids (and others) by engaging in this behavior (whether or not it is barred by law).  They don’t really need the police there to say “stop it!” each day.

Let’s also set aside the environmental impacts of excessive idling.  We all know, now, that driving automobiles is one of the primary contributors to the emissions which threaten the climate of our world.  Indeed, Belmont’s most recent inventory of emissions identified “transportation” as the primary cause of air pollution in Belmont, More than electricity use. More than the emissions associated with heating and cooling buildings.  We know that if we don’t reduce emissions, the world we will leave our children and grandchildren will be an unhealthy, dangerous place.  What many parents don’t realize, however, is that sitting in an idling car is a major contributor to Belmont’s transportation emissions. Two minutes spent idling a car is equal to one mile of driving.

And let’s set aside the economics.  It costs more to idle a car than to drive that same car.  Indeed, idling for 30 minutes a day, for each work day in the year, with a gasoline cost of three dollars per gallon, will cost the car operator more than $200 a year. That’s $200 spent to go absolutely nowhere.  In addition, excessive idling increases car maintenance costs by increasing wear and tear on the engine.

Setting all that aside–the law, the economics, the environmental consequences–let’s think only about what idling the car outside the school, while dropping off or picking up our kids, does to the kids. We know that air pollution is more harmful to kids than to adults.  While adults take about 20,000 breaths per day, kids breathe about 50% more air per pound of body weight.  In addition, because of their less developed lungs, the pollution they inhale is a particular health hazard to children. 

And being inside the car doesn’t help.  According to the International Center for Technology Advancement, exposure to most car pollutants is actually higher inside the car than at the roadside.  According to CTA, the highest exposure to pollutants inside a car occurs while sitting in traffic congestion on highways or in a line-up of idling cars waiting at a school. 

Not that being outside the car is safe.  Idling a car for one minute produces the same amount of carbon monoxide as smoking three packs of cigarettes does.  One study of four elementary schools in Denver found that 90 cars a day dropped kids off and picked them up at each school, with roughly one-third of those cars idling for five minutes or more.  The study found that the combined idling time of nearly four hours per school per day had the same impact as having parents smoking more than 700 packs of cigarettes outside each school, each day.  It is, in other words, not a trivial matter. 

Come on folks. We’ve done it before.  We work hard to protect our kids. We’ve learned to buckle our seat belts and to put our kids in car seats.  It’s now time to do it again. It’s time we learn to turn off the car while we wait. If we don’t stop idling to protect the environment, or to protect our own pocketbooks, or simply because it’s against the law, let’s do it to protect our kids.

Free range kids: not as fragile as we treat them

Belmont Citizen-Herald — December 13, 2018

Not often. But sometimes.  Sometimes conversations that begin on Facebook merit a move to the newspaper.  That happened recently here in Belmont.

A brief background.  A recent police log published by the Citizen-Herald (November 18, 2018) reported that an eight year old boy was walking alone up a busy Belmont Street.  Police were “waved down” by two adult women expressing concern for the boy’s safety.  When the police responded, they learned that the boy had been dropped off in Belmont Center and was, with his parents’ permission, walking to his grandmother’s house about two miles away. As it turns out, far from being in distress, the boy relished the opportunity to be out on his own marvelous journey.  The parents, far from being concerned, were delighted with their son’s independence and willingness to be outdoors and active.

Did the women who contacted the police over-react?  Did the parents who permitted their young son to take a two mile walk under-supervise?  The answers to these questions, of course, depend on your perspective. And the perspectives in Belmont differ widely.

The issue clearly presents questions of parenting style. However, it seems also to go deeper than that. It implicates what kind of community we want to be. Admittedly, I grew up in the era where my brothers and I would leave home in the morning on our bicycles with a commitment to be home for dinner. We explored our town. Played at the neighborhood park. Visited friends. All this without the assistance of cellphone check-ins or parental supervision.

A number of Belmont parents believe that era merits emulation.  Recognizing, of course, that different children develop and exercise independence at their own speed, there is gathering support nationally for what is popularly known as the “free range” movement.  On November 7, 2018, for example, Ithaca (New York) issued a proclamation making that city a “free range kid city.” Under the proclamation, kids have the right to have unsupervised outdoor play time, and parents have the right to provide such time without being charged with negligence.

The Ithaca proclamation states in relevant part that “unstructured outdoor free play has been shown to improve children’s creativity, social skills, communication skills, conflict resolution skills, socio-emotional learning, behavior self-regulation skills, (and) ability to assess and manage risk.”

One organization, LetGrow, agrees.  LetGrow is dedicated to increasing the independence of American children.  According to LetGrow.org, “treating today’s kids as physically and emotionally fragile is bad for their future – and ours. LetGrow counters the culture of overprotection. We aim to future-proof our kids, and our country.”

Having a broader public conversation, outside the confines of a Facebook group, about the ways in which a community can support the notion of “free range kids” (whether or not that terminology is ever used) seems merited today.  The tremendous youth participation in Belmont’s Second Soccer is one thing. Participation in unsupervised outdoor play is quite another. Belmont just recently built a new pool. We are on the cusp of building a new community path. Bicycle racks have been added to our schools.  The Town has convened a Safe Routes to School committee. Bits and pieces of the puzzle seem to be in place.

Still, the varied responses to Belmont’s eight-year old boy who wanted to walk to his grandmother’s house demonstrate that there is a broader conversation that may be merited.  One “problem” might be that while many different stakeholders might have an interest in the conversation, no natural constituency exists to convene the broader conversation. It’s not really a school issue, just like it’s not really a police issue (though both the police and the schools would likely want to participate). Neither is it a Board of Selectmen issue, though town policies could certainly have an impact.

Perhaps Belmont’s Vision Implementation Committee, under the rubric of discussing what kind of town we really want to be, is the entity best suited to convene the opportunity to sit down and talk.  It would seem a shame if the conversation is relegated to a brief, easily forgotten, exchange among a limited group of Facebook “friends” in response to a paragraph in the weekly police log.  The questions presented deserve better than that.

Pedestrian safety – assistant police chief speaks out

Belmont Citizen-Herald — November 6, 2018

Since the tragic pedestrian fatality in Belmont this past summer, considerable conversation has been directed toward improving pedestrian safety in town. I recently spoke about pedestrian safety with Assistant Police Chief James MacIsaac on a special edition of the Belmont Journal, the Belmont Media Center’s hyper-local news show. If it were up to me, every kid and every adult who either walks or drives in town would listen to what MacIsaac has to say.

Do not misconstrue the “right of way” in crosswalks, MacIsaac told me.  Right of way is not something one “has,” it is something one is given, he said.  Many people believe that so long as they are in a crosswalk, they have the right of way and may cross the street safely.  However, if a driver isn’t paying attention, accidents happen. Even when crossing in a crosswalk, MacIsaac said, pedestrians should make sure that oncoming (and turning) cars see them and give them the right of way.

Some crosswalks are safer than others, according to the Assistant Police Chief.  For example, he told me, using a “regulated” crosswalk is always safer than using a non-regulated crosswalk.  A regulated crosswalk is one that has a stoplight with a special crossing signal that lights when a pedestrian pushes the button.  An unregulated crosswalk is one that is marked on the street, but has no signal.  For example, we talked about how I often use the crosswalk to traverse Trapelo Road from CVS to the bank next to the fire station. MacIsaac said that while I certainly have the “right” to use that crosswalk, it would be even safer to “take the two minutes” to walk up to Slade Street and use the regulated crosswalk there.

Other instances don’t depend on whether there is a signal or not.  In Belmont Center, for example, the crosswalk by the CVS is the safest one to use.  In contrast, while there is a crosswalk down by the bridge, crossing towards Belmont Savings, it is more dangerous. Drivers finally make the turn to go under the bridge, and then start speeding up.  All of the sudden, there’s a pedestrian there. MacIsaac didn’t say to avoid that crosswalk (though, he said taking the couple of minutes to walk up to the crosswalk in the middle of Belmont Center is a good use of time). But he urged users of that crosswalk (and others) to always “be aware of their surroundings.” A crosswalk is not a shield of armor that protects a walker from harm.

When talking about regulated crosswalks, one misconception pedestrians have is that green lights apply to pedestrians.  They do not.  The pedestrian “walk” signal is what indicates that a pedestrian should cross the street at an intersection. A pedestrian at a regulated crosswalk should push the signal and wait.  A vehicle turning on a green light when the “walk” signal is red may not notice a pedestrian in the crosswalk.  That doesn’t make the driver “right,” MacIsaac said, but when car and pedestrian collide, the pedestrian loses, irrespective of who is “right.”

Speed is not generally an issue in Belmont’s pedestrian/vehicle accidents, MacIsaac said. I asked him, however, why then do people so frequently say “that car came flying at me.”  He replied that the speed limit (in most places) in Belmont is 25 miles per hour.  A car going 25 miles per hour is going roughly 40 feet per second.  Sight lines in Belmont are often about 50 feet. So, frequently, the difference between safety and tragedy boils down to one second (and change).  More than a blink of the eye, but really no time at all.  MacIsaac again sounded a common theme.  Pedestrian safety depends on being aware of your surroundings, knowing what’s happening around you.

If you ever have occasion to attend one of Assistant Chief MacIsaac’s pedestrian safety presentations, it would be time well-spent (no matter your age). In the meantime, if you wish to watch our conversation about pedestrian safety, you can find the October 19th special edition of the Belmont Journal at belmontmedia.org/watch/belmont-journal-101918-special. Watching may save your life.

September 6, 2018–Student pedestrian safety is a community responsibility

September 6, 2018 — Belmont Citizen-Herald

School has begun in Belmont.  Lots of kids will be running around on a daily basis.  It is time that we, as a community, renew our commitment that our kids arrive safely at school in the morning and arrive safely back at home in the afternoon.  The National Association of City Transportation Officials spends considerable time examining pedestrian safety.  Their insights are worth paying attention to.

First, crosswalks are sacrosanct.  Crosswalks are intended to serve a signaling function.  When you see a crosswalk, you should expect a pedestrian.  That’s what it’s there to communicate. And when you see a pedestrian at a crosswalk, the only appropriate action is to stop. Not slow down. Stop. Moreover, NACTO emphasizes, the driver’s obligation is to stop well before the crosswalk, not at the crosswalk.  Even the kids who use crosswalks often cut corners in the street on their way to more quickly get between those stripes. Crowding the crosswalk is not simply inappropriate; it is unsafe.

While we talk about “kids” in referring to student safety, that term applies to the older students attending the Chenery Middle School and Belmont High School as well.  In fact, these older kids can pose some of the most danger.  Safe Kids, an organization dedicated to improving pedestrian safety, identifies a primary student safety problem as involving “distracted walking.”  Safe Kids notes that, in recent years, distracted walking increased from one-in-eight middle school students to one-in-six. It increased from one-in-five high school students to one-in-four.  “Distracted walking” occurs when students are walking while talking on their cell phones, texting, or listening to headphones. Pay particular attention to the older kids, in other words. They are likely not paying attention to you.

As with so many things, drivers can increase student safety with a little planning.  NACTO notes that drivers who find themselves routinely driving routes with lots of students should make a point of learning not only where the students are coming from, but where they are going as well.  Recognizing that students tend to head for a particular school entrance, or for a particular park after school, can help a driver create a type of “map” in his or her mind not only of where pedestrians are, but where they might be likely to head.  According to NACTO, students often travel along well-defined “networks,” whether those patterns are formally marked or not. Minimal efforts by drivers, like paying attention to where kids are likely to head, can help limit their ability to surprise you.  Having drivers pay attention not only to the movement of individual pedestrians at a particular point in time, but also to the larger patterns of pedestrian movement over a period of time, will improve student safety.

Clearly, the entire responsibility to promote student pedestrian safety does not lie with the drivers. The kids, themselves, must also help. For example, from time immemorial, kids have been taught to “look both ways” before crossing a street.  However, a more recent lesson which pedestrian safety experts encourage parents to teach is that of making eye contact.  Kids who make eye contact with an oncoming driver before crossing a street are more assured that they have been seen.  In addition, a pedestrian’s smile and a simple wave to acknowledge a car that has stopped have been shown to result in identifiable on-going impacts on promoting the sanctity of the crosswalk.

Many people, including myself, believe that more students should get out of cars, whether driving or being dropped off, and instead walk or bike to school each day.  That won’t happen unless we as a community make a specific ongoing commitment to promote student pedestrian safety.  Promoting student safety is not solely a parental responsibility.  It is not solely the school system’s responsibility, though both have their roles.  Ensuring student safety is a community responsibility. But it doesn’t “just happen.”  It requires conscious, continuing attention to how each of us go about our day-to-day lives.

Kids, welcome back to school. I hope you find your year to be both fun and interesting.  Here’s hoping, also, that we all take seriously our responsibilities, as both drivers and pedestrians, to keep the school year safe as well.

November 16, 2017: The “gift of presence” for hospice veterans

Belmont Citizen-Herald — November 16, 2017

It was cold that day. The day before Christmas in the Midwest usually is. The black hearse wound its way down the narrow lane to the grave site. A veteran was gone, to be buried with full military honors in a national cemetery in rural Iowa.

The bugler raised his instrument. Taps echoed through the trees and rolled over row upon row of headstones. The 15-member military Honor Guard from Fort Leavenworth (Kansas) fired its 21-gun salute. The head of the Honor Guard solemnly took the flag, having been removed from the casket and properly folded. He delivered it to. . .

No-one.  Nobody was there.  No family. No friend.  No neighbor or colleague or former roommate.

And the head of the Honor Guard that day, Belmont High graduate Bill McEvoy, realized right then and there that this was not the way the world should be.

The image from that lonely rural cemetery remained seared in McEvoy’s mind over the years. When he retired, McEvoy decided it was time for him to pull out that memory and finally act on it.  He began to volunteer at the Veteran’s Administration hospital in Bedford (MA).  He quickly became involved with the No Veteran Dies Alone program.  He’s volunteered there ever since, more than eight years now.

The program is directed toward veterans in hospice care at Bedford’s VA hospital. (No Veteran Dies Alone is a national program through many VA hospitals.)  Some veterans are in the hospice care beds at the Bedford hospital.  Others are admitted for hospice care, but remain in the general population. The vast majority of veterans McEvoy has worked with are Vietnam veterans or older.

The No Veteran Dies Alone program, McEvoy says, has two components to it.  The first component involves “socialization visits.”  Through this part of the program, a volunteer sits with the veteran. Sometimes they talk; other times they listen to music.  As a volunteer, he may read poetry or do nothing at all other than to hold the person’s hand.  The point, he says, is simply to “be there. To get to know them.” What you provide, McEvoy says, is the “gift of presence.”

The second program component is directed toward veterans determined by the VA medical team to be “actively dying.”  Sometimes these veterans don’t have anyone. Sometimes, it has been a long process and the family simply needs the ability to take a break. Sometimes geographic distance makes a family’s presence impossible. McEvoy’s role through No Veteran Dies Alone, he says, is to “stand in the place for those who aren’t there.”

That’s not to say he’s present whenever someone passes.  He eventually learned, however, that “it is not so important to be there at the end of the journey, as it is important to walk with them along the way.”

“Be sure to emphasize,” McEvoy urged me when we sat down together, “that the story is not about me. It is only about the veterans.” In fact, he says, there are no limits on who can be a No Veteran Dies Alone volunteer.  “Every volunteer has their own reasons for being there. Anyone can do it. All you need is a good heart, a capacity for understanding, and the ability to be a good listener.”

One need not stand in a cold Iowa cemetery on the day before Christmas to appreciate the importance of the No Veteran Dies Alone program.  Persons who might want to volunteer for No Veteran Dies Alone should call Laurel Holland, 781-687-3074.  Persons who know a veteran they would like to receive hospice care through the VA hospital should call Karen Budnick, 781-983-9170.

August 31, 2017: Cell phones are the new “bouncing balls”

August 31, 2017: Belmont Citizen-Herald

As our kids head back to school this week, let’s think again about the safety implications of mixing cars with kids walking to school.

Some lessons you just never forget. I’ve been taught since I was a young driver to “beware the bouncing ball.” I will always carry the memories of those afternoons practicing driving around our neighborhood, gripping the wheel of our family car, my instructor at my side. My mother would lecture (sometimes, perhaps, in louder tones than others), “bouncing balls, and the children who chase them, are the bane of the driver. Watch for them. Notice them.”

The numbers today tell us about a different type of “bouncing ball.” These numbers warn that it is perhaps the teenager that is most at risk as a pedestrian.  According to one report, “Teens on the Move,” every hour of every day a teenage pedestrian in the United States is killed or injured.  According to this study, “while teens account for one-third of children in the United States, they make up two-thirds of the pedestrian fatalities.”

Safe Kids, an organization dedicated to improving pedestrian safety, agrees.  Safe Kids attributes the problem to “distracted walking.”  Safe Kids reports that by the end of 2015, 88% of high school students owned cell phones, up from 45% just ten years earlier.  This trend has safety implications for students walking to and from school.  Safe Kids collected more than 34,000 observations of students crossing streets in school zones.  It found that “one-in-five high school students, and one-in-eight middle school students, were observed crossing the street while distracted by phones, headphones and other mobile devices.”  Indeed, according to Safe Kids, from 2013 to 2016, distracted walking increased from one-in-five to more than one-in-four among high school students, and increased from one-in-eight to one-in-six middle school students.  In today’s world, in other words, cell phones are the new “bouncing ball.” As my mother would have said “watch for them; notice them.”

It is not just street crossings, however, that merit increased attention as our kids go back to school.  Driveways can be deadly as well.  In the United States, 50 children are backed over every week because a driver could not see them.  Every vehicle, I am told, has what is called its “blind zone,” that area behind the vehicle where the driver cannot see even when looking back and properly using his or her rear and side view mirrors.  The larger the vehicle, the larger the blind zone.

Driveways are often made even more dangerous to kids walking to school by bushes and other shrubberies that line the driveway or sit close to the sidewalk and impede sight lines.  In addition, cars like our Prius hybrid are so quiet, they can “sneak up” on pedestrians, both young and old, without being heard.  Situations where the driver cannot see the pedestrian, and the pedestrian can neither see nor hear a car backing out of the driveway, will daily present the potential for tragedy without the exercise of utmost care.

Unlike the teenage dangers of distracted walking, backing out of driveways poses the most danger to younger children.  According to KidsAndCars, a national safety organization, “children do not understand the danger of the slow moving vehicle; they believe if they see the vehicle, the driver can see them.”  The need to protect our kids from our cars, in other words, arises before one’s car ever hits the streets.

Kids, welcome back to school. I hope you find the year both fun and interesting.  Here’s hoping, also, that we all take seriously our responsibilities, as both drivers and pedestrians, to keep the school year safe as well.

March 9, 2017: Marijuana regulation: Opinions need to surface early

March 9, 2017: Belmont Citizen-Herald

Belmont will soon face the complex task of deciding how to regulate local marijuana dispensaries within the community.  Under “Question 4,” approved by Massachusetts voters in November of 2016, the recreational use of marijuana was legalized in Massachusetts.  While the state legislature is now considering amendments to the marijuana statute, legislators who are involved with that process say that no major changes will be made to the intent of what voters approved. The new statute gives the authority, and the responsibility, to develop local regulations to the town’s Board of Health.

Despite the flux that is present at the state level, Belmont residents should be thinking even now about what types of local regulation they might wish.  On the one hand, it might seem that since marijuana is now legal, the town could not prohibit its sale within town borders.  That conclusion, however, may well be wrong.  Not long ago, for example, Belmont was still a “dry” town, even though the consumption of alcohol has been legal for some time.  In contrast, David Alper, chair of the Belmont Board of Health, has said, rightly so in my opinion, that the Board will consider the fact that a majority of Belmont voters approved Question 4.  The community, in other words, has already expressed its preference.

Some topics are outside the scope of local regulation. The licensing of marijuana dispensaries, for example, is within state control.  Belmont, therefore, would not have the authority to require background checks of owners/operators or to require local ownership of marijuana facilities.  In contrast, governing the location of marijuana dispensaries is clearly within the town’s control.  We presumably would not want such stores to be close to schools, day care centers or parks. One question is whether we wish to limit marijuana dispensaries to one part of town, or whether we should allow them throughout town. For example, like liquor sales, we might want each major business center to have at least one sales location.

Local regulation of marijuana dispensaries will have some (but not all) aspects of the regulation of both alcohol and cigarettes. The form of marijuana sales, however, makes the issue of local regulation complex almost beyond belief.  In some ways, the sale could be like that of tea, where a customer can ask the proprietor to mix and match different types, flavors or potencies of the product.  However, marijuana can also be mixed with candy, with food, or with baked goods.  On-site consumption of marijuana is allowed (e.g., sitting down to eat on-site).  Each type of sale presents its own issues.

Some aspects of local regulation are very traditional zoning-type issues, including fencing, lighting and hours of operation.  Other aspects might not be traditional at all. Should there be regulation of trash disposal, security, and days of operation?  Would it even be legal to require local businesses to display information on the potential adverse consequences of using marijuana (e.g., impaired driving)?

Belmont could do nothing, but that would not be wise.  In the face of local inaction, the state would step in to regulate. Belmont would have to accept what the state decides.

In short, Belmont is facing major decisions on whether and how to regulate the local sale of marijuana.  People will have strong opinions. The Board of Health not only deserves to hear those opinions, but is striving to solicit those opinions.  Belmont residents should work with the Board to help craft marijuana decisions, not simply wait to respond to regulations, once published, on a straight up-or-down reject-or-approve manner.  When opportunities arise for public input, this topic of the local regulation of marijuana dispensaries deserves everyone’s attention and involvement.

February 9, 2017: Belmont’s drought response: Increasingly ‘too late’

February 9, 2017: Belmont Citizen-Herald

While the poor quality of water that Belmont dumps into the Mystic River has gained considerable attention in recent years, the quantity of water in Belmont, not merely the quality, should also be of concern.  In five of the last seven months of 2016, the northeast region of Massachusetts, the region of which Belmont is a part, has been subject to a Drought Warning by the state.  In the state’s system of drought classifications, Drought Warning is just one step down from a Drought Emergency.

Under a Drought Warning, Belmont is not under the threat of mandatory water conservation measures.  Mandatory state restrictions on water use, such as a ban on watering one’s lawn, can only be imposed when the drought becomes a Drought Emergency.

Nonetheless, according to Belmont resident Julia Blatt, executive director of the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, Belmont should take the Drought Warning seriously even during these winter months.  People have been poorly conditioned by other warning systems, Blatt believes.  For example, when one hears a winter storm warning issued, the caution is about a storm that will occur in the future.  In contrast, Blatt says, a Drought Warning is not a prediction of a future event.  The Drought Warning under which Belmont has been placed means that the drought is here today.

By the time a Drought Warning has been issued, in other words, it is largely too late for people most effectively to respond.  The adverse impacts of the drought are not coming, they have already arrived.  In addition, Blatt says, those adverse effects cannot be alleviated simply through a few rain storms.  It takes months of wet weather for the impacts of a drought to be undone.  Moreover, she continues, hard rain storms are not generally helpful in ending drought conditions.  Big storms result in rain water quickly draining into the streets, being funneled into streams and rivers through stormwater pipes, and eventually flowing into the ocean.  In contrast, lots of snow could help.  Snow can melt slowly, soak into the ground, and help replenish ground water and drinking water sources.

Belmont residents are in no danger of turning their kitchen faucet on and not having water come out.  That, however, is not an entirely crazy notion.  Cambridge, for example, was forced last fall to begin to buy water from the Mass Water Resources Authority because of the decline in water levels in the city’s own reservoir. That need to purchase MWRA water not only imposed substantial costs on Cambridge residents, but also reduced available water supplies to other MWRA communities (of which Belmont is one).

I realize that as I write today, snow is on the ground and the Super Bowl (and, even more importantly, the coming start to baseball’s Spring Training) are more on peoples’ minds than things like restrictions on watering one’s lawn.  In fact, however, that is precisely the point.  The longer the Belmont community postpones its responses to the existence of drought conditions in Massachusetts, the more likely two things will occur.  First, the restrictions that may eventually be imposed will need to be more severe.  Second, even those more severe restrictions will be a less effective response to the drought conditions since it will increasingly be “too late.”

Through its water department, the town should be taking an aggressive response to the drought that has befallen Belmont (and many other parts of Massachusetts).  At the least, community education regarding ways to implement water conservation, even during these cold weather months, would be an important beneficial response to dry summer weather.  Waiting until the summer months to respond to continuing dry weather will be too late.

October 20, 2016: Child care: addressing children’s well-being in local planning

October 20, 2016: Belmont Citizen-Herald

A public input meeting on the renovation of the PQ playground, over behind the VFW Hall and the tennis courts, brought together an eclectic group of folks recently in the Butler School cafeteria.  Groups that were represented in the gathering involved not only parents and abutters, but also child care providers who regularly use that playground.

Belmont has a particular need for playground facilities.  According to data published each year by the Kids Count Data Center, Belmont has the highest penetration of young children in our region. While 14.3% of Belmont’s population is age 9 or younger, the next highest penetrations are Arlington (12.4%) and Lexington (11.5%). Watertown (9.5%) and Waltham (8.9%) fall further behind.  The need for playground facilities is not the only need presented by this segment of our community.  Adequate child care is an important resource needed by these families as well.

Adequate child care requires a sufficient supply of child care facilities.  While Massachusetts overall has one of the highest rates of child care facilities in the nation, Middlesex County does not reflect that performance.  Only three counties in Massachusetts have fewer child care facilities per 1,000 children than does Middlesex. In addition, while Massachusetts nearly doubled the number of child care facilities per 1,000 children in recent years, Middlesex County’s rate remained constant. Data for individual communities is not reported.

Adequate child care also requires a sufficient diversity in the types of facilities offered.  Massachusetts, for example, has a shortage of slots available in family child care homes.  Fewer than one-in-five (17%) of all child care spaces in Massachusetts can be found in licensed family child care homes.

This shortage has substantial cost implications to families with children.  In Massachusetts, while the annual cost for an infant in a family care home is $10,679, the cost for an infant in a child care center is $17,082 (2015 dollars).  Similarly, while the cost of a family care home for a four year old is $10,012, the cost for a four year old in a center is $12,796.

Belmont places restrictive zoning regulations on family day care providers.  In Belmont, family day care providers must receive a special permit before they can operate.  No consideration is given to the number of children being cared for in the home. The zoning by-law frequently pits the interests of families, particularly young families, who are faced with the need for two-incomes (and thus regular child care) against the concerns of neighbors about noise and traffic (at times of drop-off and pick-up).  Those who object to family day care providers often argue that such homes are like any other “commercial” enterprise in a residential neighborhood.

Belmont should follow the guidance of the American Planning Association on child care facilities.  APA states that “there is increasing recognition given to the importance of including children’s well-being in our planning practice.”  In addition, APA continues, “child care is seen as a critical support for working parents and their employers.”  The APA says that “just as roads, sewer and water are needed for housing and business development, so, too is child care.”

Progress has been made.  In some places, small family day care providers have been exempted from zoning regulations entirely.  In other places, child care has been made mandatory in new large housing developments.  Whether from the perspective of dual income families, the perspective of promoting economic development, or the perspective of providing for long-term child development benefits, Belmont would be well-served to examine how its planning and zoning supports local child care.  A multi-stakeholder study group reporting to the Board of Selectmen would be a good start.