Public Comment

Transcript (~7 min @ 35:18)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 35:24 Speaker 1: digital hand we have a couple people so I'm going to unmute Mr. Dittmer Mr. Dittmer can you hear us

▶ 35:34 Speaker 1: yes can you hear me yes okay hi my name is myra ditmer i live at 93 altamont ad my comments refer to order 2021-104 which as you know i am against since among other things it deletes the prohibition of selling or consuming alcohol and land managed by the park commission as noted in section 173-2 of the city ordinance doing so will create a slippery slope which will open the possibility for the city to allow the sale and consumption of alcohol at any parkland including on the fairways of mount hood golf course first i want to express my ongoing concern with the council for playing ping pong with this order over the past month or so this order has gone to a subcommittee for consideration and was sent to the full council with no recommendation then the full council sent it back to the subcommittee and now it's being sent back to the full committee for a second time again with no recommendation it is obvious that many of you counselors still feel uncomfortable with this order since your request to the mayor for more information has been essentially ignored my first comment about this order has to do with mount hood and although i have mentioned this in previous city council meetings you must consider the ability of gmc to control alcohol drinking on the golf course before we allow them to sell alcoholic beverages on 18 fairways the fact that they've been caught twice serving alcohol to minors in 2009 and 2012 and sting operations authorized by the melrose liquor commission should be considered when evaluating and assessing gmc's alcohol control practices it is interesting to note that city solicitor van campen never mentioned this fact to you in in his May 5th letter on this matter. Have any of you counselors taken the time to investigate these instances? And if so, kindly discuss this during your meeting. And if you have not inquired about these violations, this should be done before deciding to approve this order. Police Chief Lyle already has provided the council with his recommendations and some of the mitigation actions he would like to see done by GMC to alleviate neighbors' concerns of increased alcohol consumption on the fairways if it's done, as well as speeding in the area. Also, GMC has told us recently that the Mount Hood Golf Course revenues have increased dramatically, and that business there is going, in their words, gangbusters, and that golf memberships have significantly increased. So what is the financial issue here that require us to approve the sale and consumption of more alcohol on the golf course? I encourage you to consider what problem exactly is order 2021 dash 1 for addressing. Are there not enough venues for weddings, birthday parties. And such events that we need to use our parts to the exclusion of families, children. Baseball teams, soccer teams, and others using these green space resources. Really, and you all think that this is a good or great idea. Governor Baker just informed us that all COVID restrictions, which include capacity limits and mask wearing, will be lifted on May 29th. Also, he said that COVID state of emergency will end on June 15th. This means the economy is now opening up to normality. And that the pressure and the need to move to outside venues will soon be diminished greatly. Again, what is the real financial purposes for loosening of liquor regulations for our parks and green spaces? Several of you counselors have asked the same questions in previous meetings and the answer is always the same, no answer from the administration. Until these questions are adequately explored and answered, there should be no further loosening of liquor regulations for our parks and green spaces. This should not be a situation where we need to pass the order, to find out what the impact of the order is the residents of melrose deserve better from you in terms of due diligence in such an important decision as loosening liquor requirements on parkland you all have an obligation not only to seek but demand more information from city officials to address the many concerns raised by some of your own constituents who would be most impacted by this change. Quite frankly, those constituents who have voiced safety concerns should be addressed and resolved before approving this order. And the fact that they have not been articulated nor thoroughly explained by the mayor or his administration requires you to vote against this order. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you, Mr. Dittman.

▶ 40:28 Speaker 3: Madam Clerk, do you have anybody else? Hey, everybody. Ben McSweeney, 160 West Wyoming. I'm speaking on a really specific item. I'd normally talk about this at appropriations, but just because I don't know how these are being scheduled with the budget stuff going on right now. I'll just mention it tonight. And that comment, as some of you probably already know, is the water chestnut line item within 2021, 133.

▶ 40:53 Speaker 3: Commend the city for taking this seriously. Um, by submitting this funding request, it's a really serious problem at L ponds and it could have an extremely negative effect on the ecology of the pond. In the very near term, if it's not addressed. Um, and so the, in light of that, with everything that's going on, I just want to humbly. Make a plea to the council to try to do what you can to consider that particular item as soon as possible in appropriations. You know, the stuff, the, the water chestnut, it doesn't grow on the city's schedule. It grows on its own. Extremely aggressive schedule and the sooner we can try to get everything buttoned up the better. The proposal that's been submitted is really the only feasible. Thing the city can do to address this. And it sets us up to do like a classic Melrose municipal volunteer partnership, where what we'll do, hopefully, is be able to hire a contractor to come in, clean up as much of the pond as possible. And then there's still going to need to be a lot of volunteers that head out to El Pond with their waders on or their kayaks to help clean up the pole plants around the edges. It's potentially going to set up really a best-case scenario for the community to start to deal with this effort. And again, I just really want to thank the City for taking it seriously and encourage everyone to try to do what you can to consider that item quickly. Thank you, everyone, for your time. I appreciate it.

▶ 42:34 Speaker 5: Thank you. Claire?

▶ 42:38 Speaker 1: I do not see any other virtual hands.

▶ 42:43 Christopher Cinella: All right, if there is no objection, we will close public comment at this time.