BY DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, THE WEEKEND EDITION DEC. 15-17, 2017) — Last month, THE PLANET‘s Right Honorable Goods Friends on the Pittsfield City Council met (Committee of the Whole, a special gathering to discuss an issue out of formal, regularly scheduled session) to take out the garbage. Even then, citizen outrage spilled through enough to prevent any chance of a rubber stamping to mayor Linda Tyer’s curious proposal to implement a money-devouring toter trash system.

In an attempt to head this dissent off at the pass, the council’s first December meeting featured a “charter objection” by at-large Kathy Amuso (a charter objection is a procedure put into the “new” charter to immediately halt discussion of an issue or idea). Amuso, clearly acting on the mayor’s behalf, sought to stifle any more dissension. Her move worked — until this week’s council meeting (Tuesday, Dec. 12). The suppressed guyser showed more signs of blowing, as councilors, fueled in large part by the comments of THE PLANET and its readers, pushed back harder against this bad idea. Good for them. Let’s hope they keep their sea legs about them when the Administration begins to strong-arm opponents with the upcoming change in the horses (next month, two new councilors join the club). Word is that mayor Linda Tyer has got her hooks into Ward 1 newbie Helen Moon. Earl Persip, incoming for an at-large seat, will reveal his intentions shortly. Persip wanted the hot seat, and he’s going to get it.

At its Tuesday meeting, councilors wanted more answers about the cost from city finance director Matt Kerwood. Kerwood brought out his best imitation of the Nicholas Brothers‘ flying splits (you young’uns can look them up), Michael Jackson‘s moon walk, and Mr. Bojangles‘ soft shoe across the cell. He danced, but he wasn’t Dancing with the Stars. It was more like Beaver Cleaver‘s first lesson at dance school with a (yuk!) girl. Kerwood isn’t even clear how much the 36,000 45- and 95-gallon toter tanks will cost. The Boring Broadsheet reports $1.4 million. To the rest of the media and to councilors, Kerwood uses $1.3 million. Ah, but what’s a hundred grand among friends?

The $1.whatever million will be a capital cost. That’s a fancy accounting term to say the money isn’t included in the mayor’s already exorbitant, all-time record budget , one that will continue to pulverize both homeowners and businesses with ruinous taxes. Kerwood’s first story when launching the trial balloons for this daft toter plan had it that the cost of the 36,000 Sherman tanks  (actually, 36,760 counting the “mid-sized” 64-gallon vehicles) would be covered by the state.

Right.

Truth in advertising, again prompted by THE PLANET inquiries, forced Kerwood to admit the state’s only going to cough up $150,000 of the dough. Under normal conditions, a discrepancy of $1.15 million would be a concern to an Adminstration, perhaps getting it to willingly admit that the proposal hasn’t been clearly conceived.

But this is Pittsfield.

Caught in this numerical discrepancy, Kerwood resorted to a solution that will drive the city even closer to receivership. He told Our Right Honorable Good Friends he intended to borrow $1.1 million over 10 years at 4% interest. This would:

(a) Add $247,000 in interest

(b) Increase Pittsfield’s debt

(c) Guarantee even more taxes to what residents and businesses now pay

(d) Fail to account for $50,000, using Kerwood’s new figure of $1.3 million, or $150,000 assuming The BB‘s numbers are correct. Does anyone else get the feeling that the finance director conceives of the numbers indicating dollars and cents as nothing more than abstractions written on a piece of paper or as photons on a computer screen? Does he realize, which is to say, does Tyer realize, that these easily bandied about numbers represents REAL dollars and REAL cents that come out of the hides of a bedraggled, beaten-down citizenry that can’t afford one cent more, let alone the extravagence championed by the mayor?

In the interests of fully informing Mary Jane and Joe Kapanski of the charade — dangerous business, that, in a city whose “leaders” so strongly believe in Commonwealth-liberal-progressive neo-fascism — THE PLANET might also add that there would be $280,000 required (source: iBerkshires) for assembly, distribution, and frieght. Kerwood’s magic solution for this little problem: Raid free cash (from the nearly $4.5 million the city overtaxed you this fiscal year).

The most egregious wink-wink/nudge-nudge came from the mayor. Tyer called out taxpayers for being cheapskates, referring to 68 teachers who were “laid off” in last year’s budget. Ward 6’s John Krol, while correctly questioning the cost of the toters, nonetheless repeated the mayor’s bogus claim that taxpayers were once again short-changing the school department.

NEWS FLASH!! No teachers were laid off. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch (naturally, if THE PLANET is incorrect, we expect to hear from school superintendent JIV or the mayor to give us the facts). Some 68 employees were furloughed, nearly all of them paraprofessionals. These are people with no teaching experience put in classrooms to help teachers with baby-sitting. Most of those 68 people were quietly brought back for the school year. Funny how you didn’t hear about that.

Tyer still holds on to the dubious assertion that the new garbage plan would SAVE — save — the city $89,000. THE PLANET has already blown that figure out of the water (see PLANET Archives, Nov. 14, Nov. 28).

Chris Connell (Ward 4) and Kevin Morandi (2) led the council charge against the proposal, citing cost concerns and priorities. Others rode the fence but seemed to be tilting the right way. Let’s hope the tilting isn’t at windmills.

Have a great weekend, everybody.

—————————————————————

“What’s that? Timmy has fallen into a well?” — Timmy’s father, to a barking Lassie.

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.

The views expressed in the comments section or outside opinions and/or commentary within the text other than those of PLANET VALENTI are not necessarily those of PLANET VALENTI or necessarily endorsed in any way by the operators of this website. PLANET VALENTI reserves the right to remove or edit any comment, including but not limited to those that violate the website’s Rules of Conduct and internal editorial policies. PLANET VALENTI is not liable for the consequences that may result from any posted comment, outside opinion, or commentary as provided in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, PLANET VALENTI’s Terms of Service, and the United States Constitution. All users of this website, including but not limited to readers, commentators, or anyone else who makes use of the information therein agree to these conditions by virtue of this notice or of the shortened version of this notice that appears at the end of a column as “The Usual Disclaimer.” When PLANET VALENTI ends with the phrase “The Usual Disclaimer,” that phrase will be understood to refer to the full text of this disclaimer, as presented here.