Let’s take the clearest message from this year’s Town election: when it comes to representative democracy, the Bay State’s tradition of springtime local elections are not a positive force: putting significant political power in the hands of a small minority of voters.

Editor’s note: an earlier version of this article stated that Dan Eldridge failed to secure a Town Meeting seat. That was incorrect. While Dan did not secure a three year seat, he did succeed in securing a one year Town Meeting slot in Precinct 3 that he campaigned for. The article has been updated to reflect this. (April 24, 2026)

20% Turnout?! Must be April!

Take last Tuesday’s election: just 3,989 of Belmont’s more than 19,275 registered voters turned out to vote. That’s just 20 percent of the voter population – one in five registered voters in town. And it marks a drop from last year’s town election, when 4,481 voters turned out – 23.6% of registered voters.

Does the vote count? Of course. Would 30% or 40% or – crazy – 70% voter turnout have yielded different results? My guess is: “Yes. Almost certainly.”

But that rarely happens in Belmont or other towns – especially without a major, vote drawing measure on the ballot. Looking at turnout in April town elections versus November elections, the startling gap in participation is easy to see. The average turnout in Belmont for April races for the past 16 years was 28%, while the average turnout for November elections was almost three times as high: 74%.

An election…without races

But that’s not what we got – in part because very few of the races on the ballot were even contested. In fact, just one town wide race had a challenger: Adam Dash, who ran successfully to unseat Mike Crowley, who had been elected just a year prior. Select Board, School Committee, Board of Health, Trustees of the Public Library – none saw a challenger. And then there’s Town Meeting, where just three of the 8 precincts had more than 12 candidates competing for the 12 open slots. In fact, a number fell far short of the 12 candidate number, requiring last-minute write ins for some seats, while leaving others blank. (More on that later.)

Our 100 Year-Old Government Needs a Makeover

How do we fix this? Well – how about we modernize our 100+ year old New England Town Government – a quaint little creation run by volunteer committees and a massive Town Meeting. It was designed to serve a semi-rural community with a small population and hardly any resources and assets to speak of. What we live in now is a small, 21st century semi-urban community. We have 30,000 residents, multiple business districts, significant physical assets, hundreds of employees – union and non-union – a vast array of state and federal regulations to abide by and a more than $160 million annual budget that is under constant strain. Belmont is in the 21st century?! Crazy idea..I know. But our government needs to reflect that in order for this community to function well and meet (and exceed) our goals.

Moderator: Order > Democracy? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Back to last week’s election: given the challenges of a lack of voter turnout, how did Belmont’s progressive cause do?

Let’s start with the race for Town Moderator – the only contested town-wide office on the ballot. As you know, I endorsed the incumbent, Moderator Mike Crowley – a committed progressive with what I thought was a persuasive argument. In less than a year in office, Mike did a great job empowering our democracy. He restored virtual Town Meetings, created a Moderator’s Advisory Committee to make things like committee appointments more transparent.

And, behind the scenes, Mike took big steps to support the rights of rank and file Town Meeting members. Select Board members, Warrant Committee members and other VIPs no longer got open access to the microphone to swing debates in the direction they (and the Town’s power elite) wanted to see them go. I fondly remember seeing Select Board member Matt Taylor standing at the back of the line to Mic B behind other Town Meeting members waiting to speak. That was awesome – and something I’ve never seen before at Belmont’s Town Meeting.

Lots happened behind the scenes to shore up our democracy that you weren’t aware of, either. In the lead up to the heated debate on the Belmont Center overlay, for example, former moderator Mike Widmer was pushing Moderator Crowley hard in opposition to the overlay plan – multiple emails and phone calls. He demanded equal footing in the Town Meeting debate with our Town’s Planning Board which had submitted the overlay article based on years of work. That would have given Mr. Widmer – who had no special stake in the overlay plan, and no special expertise in urban planning, zoning or the like – 10 minutes or more at the podium to rail against the Belmont Center overlay. What justified that special treatment? Well…because he was an important person!

What Widmer got from our Moderator was what he was entitled to: 3 minutes at Mic A or Mic B to voice his opposition (or support) or ask questions, just like every other Town Meeting member. Fairness. Under Moderator Crowley there was no red carpet in our town’s legislature. We all benefitted.

And Crowley paid the price. As I wrote during the campaign, our town’s power elite were outraged by this shift towards a more fair and grassroots democracy in our town that did not grant them a louder voice and special treatment. They put their money and voices and resources behind Adam Dash to oppose Moderator Crowley. And Dash ran a campaign that trumpeted the notion of order, protocol and authority over fairness and democracy.

And, guess what? That won! With just one in five voters turning out to the polls – consistently an older and more conservative electorate- and with a small minority of residents still outraged by their loss over the Belmont zoning overlay vote at the April special town meeting, Mr. Dash’s challenge to Moderator Crowley won at the polls. I should note – this wasn’t just Belmont’s old guard. In addition to backing by Belmont’s power elite like Liz Allison, Ralph Jones and Mike Widmer, Dash enjoyed the backing of a significant number of residents I would consider progressive Belmontonians. Was I surprised? No. (See also: Civil Service.)

In the end, Dash’s campaign to impose order and authority on Town Meeting won at the polls by about 300 votes: 2090 (10% of voters) vs. Crowley’s 1781 (9% of voters). He won five Town Meeting precincts (1, 2, 5, 6, & 7) compared to 3 for Moderator Crowley (3, 4 & 8). And that..was…that.

I want to thank Mike Crowley for his service to this town and the hard work he did to improve Town Meeting and make our legislature a fair and empowered elected body. You’ll be missed!

Rubber Stampification

The consequences are yet to be seen. I’m sure Mr. Dash will do a fine job leading Town Meeting as moderator in terms of following protocols and such. I worry that our Town Meeting will start our journey back to the “rubber stampism” that has been the norm over the past five or more decades. That would be: polished and orderly, but lacking independence – a rubber stamp for our Select Board and Town Administrator who look at the body as a necessary vote to get what they want – but mostly a formality.

What to look for?

• Sidelining of those voices that disagree with the Town’s power elite or are advocating for needed changes to the ca. 1980’s status quo. Belmont needs to change. Town Meeting members and other residents with a vision for modernizing our Town government and addressing some of the structural issues that will weaken Belmont should be given a priority over the Belmont “No!” and “Change is bad!” crowd.
• The restoration of that Town Meeting red carpet where Select Board members and other VIPs (Warrant Committee, Capital Budget Committee, etc.) get multiple bites at the apple when it comes to speaking to matters before Town Meeting and batting down voices the power elite disagree with. No more Select Board members waiting in line behind rank and file Town Meeting members to speak.
• Committee appointments. Crowley was in the midst of a (long) process of unseating the old guard who have held sway our town committees – Warrant Committee, building committees, etc. – for decades. Does Dash continue that and maintain Crowley’s open and transparent process of interviewing and considering appointments? Or is it back to the “friends of the Moderator” / “power elite” model that our Town has defaulted to for decades?

Stay tuned! We’ll see what happens.

Town Meeting: It’s all about the write-ins!

Races for Town Meeting were mostly uncontested. If you were a Town Meeting member and got your paperwork in to the Town Clerk on time, you basically got yourself re-elected. There were, however, competitive races in three Town Meeting precincts: 2, 6 and 8, in which there were more candidates than open slots.

With such depopulated ballots it is hard to read too much into these results. Incumbents had a huge advantage in the contested precincts essentially all got re-elected, with a few new faces added to Town Meeting.

Much more progress was made in the precincts that didn’t put forward enough candidates on the ballot to fill the open spots. There, write-in candidates that Blogging Belmont endorsed did quite well. So let’s look there to see how “progressives” (aka: those endorsed by Blogging Belmont 🙂 ) did.

Precinct 1

In Precinct 1, there were just 10 candidates for 12 open spots. The two write in candidates we endorsed, James Zimkus and Jessica Bennett ,were both elected by a significant margin over the two other write in candidates.

Precinct 2

Precinct 2 – the area around Belmont Hill – had the most competitive Town Meeting race with 15 candidates seeking 12 open slots. Blogging Belmont endorsed seven of those candidates for election:

Ed Barker, Jeff Levin-Scherz, Barry Lubarsky, David Zipkin, Alice Kaanta, Laurie Schenkel & Frank French, as well as two write-in candidates for 1 year slots: Maria Bolletino, and Tony Barnes.

All got elected except for Mr. Zipkin and Ms. Bollettino (a write in cadidate). Not too bad! David absolutely deserved a spot on Town Meeting. I wonder if having a last name starting with “Z” played a part on a ballot stacked first by incumbents and then alphabetically.

Precinct 3

In Precinct 3 there were just 9 candidates for 12 slots. We endorsed six candidates who all were elected:

David Chase, Sarah Griffith, Rachel Heller, Martha Moore. Jung Yueh & Alexandra Machado.

In addition, we endorsed four write-in candidates of which three were elected: Jay Heller, Michael Etkind, and Cassandra Page. Dan Eldridge fell short in the race for a three year spot, but secured the one year Town Meeting seat he actively campaigned for. Not too bad!

Precinct 6

There were 14 candidates for 12 spots in Precinct 6. We endorsed nine of those and all were re-elected:

Karen Bauerle, Laura Burnes, Roger Colton, Elizabeth Gibson, Marcie Hirsch, Suzanne Johannet, Caroline Light, Erin Rowland, Joel Semuels. Congratulations P6!

Precinct 7

In Precinct 7 there were nine candidates running for 12 slots. We endorsed eight of those: Claudia Albert, John Avilla, Paul Gormisky, Anne Mahon, Benjamin Meshoulam, Heather Rubeski, Aisha Traish and John Kuterbach. All were re-elected. We also endorsed two write-in candidates: David Green and Scott Brinker. Scott was elected and David fell short by five votes.  

Precinct 8

There were 13 candidates for 12 spots in Precinct 8. We endorsed 9 and 8 got elected: Angus Abercrombie, Katherine Dilawari, Bill Hees, Alexandra Houck, Caitlin Madevu-Matson, Lisa Starobin, Ted Tieken, and Meenal Bagla. Only Kara Morin fell short of getting elected by just 12 votes.

Thanks to everyone for running! If you didn’t get elected to Town Meeting, my advice: put your papers in next year. You’ll almost certainly make it!

The post The 20% Rule: My Take On Last Week’s Election appeared first on Blogging Belmont.

One way to increase turnout is to spread the word and make people aware that voting is taking place. You’re already in the small group of residents that are interested in- and follow local politics. (That’s why you’re reading this.) Your assignment now: share this link and remind five of your friends here in Belmont about the Town Election next Tuesday, April 7th.

As you get ready to head to the polls, I thought I’d share my picks for this year’s local election where we have contested races -which is only the moderator’s race at the top of the ballot and Town Meeting precincts (including write-in candidates).

For the uncontested races (Select Board, School Committee, etc.) I thank those who are running and volunteering their time to benefit Belmont. I don’t think it is premature to offer you congratulations on your win!

Polls open at 7:00 and close at 20:00 aka 8:00 PM. You can find the location of polling stations, sample ballots for each of our Town’s 8 precincts and other information on the Town Clerk’s website.

For the contested races, here are my recommendations for:

• Town Moderator
• Town Meeting Members
  • Precinct 1
  • Precinct 2
  • Precinct 3
  • Precinct 4
  • Precinct 5
  • Precinct 6
  • Precinct 7
  • Precinct 8

Town Moderator

As I noted in this recent Blogging Belmont post: I strongly urge you to vote to re-elect Mike Crowley as Belmont’s Town Moderator. As voters, we face a choice between Moderator Crowley’s community-focused (“we”) approach and his opponent Adam Dash, whose primary motivation in running appears to be reinstating himself among Belmont’s political elite (aka “me”).

Voters elect people to execute on their campaign promises. And that’s what Mike did in his first year in office: restoring hybrid Town Meetings to expand participation; improving transparency through a Moderator’s Advisory Committee; and running effective, inclusive meetings.

Mr. Dash’s claims of “chaos” at Town Meetings just don’t reflect what actually happened at Town Meeting, and he’s been hard put to explain why he’s challenging Mike at all or what he’d do differently. (The answer: Belmont’s old guard political elite urged him to run and have funded his campaign.)

As I see it, Mike has already made good on his promises to make Town Meeting more independent and respectful of rank and file members. And he’s demonstrated real effectiveness as Town Moderator, even amidst highly contested debates. His vision for the future of Town Meeting is also inspiring. That’s why I urge you to continue backing Mike’s reforms by re-electing him as your Moderator.

Town Meeting

Your vote for Town Meeting varies based on what precinct you live in.

You can check out the Voting Precinct Map here. Each precinct elects 12 residents to three year terms. In some cases additional seats open up and partial (1 or 2 year) terms are up for grabs.

Pro tip: because only the top 12 overall vote getters for each precinct will be elected, it is important to remember to vote for who you want to see on Town Meeting – but no one else. If you have 12 people you’d like to see elected? Great! You can use all your votes. If you only have 4, vote for them but no more – as you don’t want to aid candidates you don’t support and hurt the candidates you do just to cast the 12 allowed votes.

This year a number of precincts did not receive enough candidates to fill all 12 available slots. In those cases, write-in candidates are proposed. I have endorsed a number of these below. When you vote, be sure to write the candidate’s name and address on the ballot as that is required by the town’s bylaws!

Click the link below to view my recommendations for:

The post Belmont votes on Tuesday. Here are my picks. appeared first on Blogging Belmont.

I will cast my vote to re-elect Mike Crowley, our smart and effective moderator with a career spent working for the federal government and serving on Belmont’s School Committee, Warrant Committee, and Town Meeting. 

In his next term, Mike will build on his accomplishments: refining hybrid Town Meetings to ensure broad, accessible participation—while continuing to foster a respectful, inclusive, and well-functioning deliberative body. And he’ll work with the Town’s leadership to lock in hybrid Town Meetings for our community, even as our state legislature dawdles and drags its feet amidst calls from communities to modernize our state’s open meeting laws. And Mike will continue his work to strengthen transparency through the Moderator’s Advisory Committee: expanding and diversifying committee participation, and improving recruitment to bring more residents into civic life. 

Town Moderator Is About “We” Not “Me”

As I see it: we have a clear choice between an incumbent moderator whose actions have shown a deep commitment to fairness and supporting rank and file Town Meeting members (aka “we”). And then there’s his challenger whose motivation appears to be getting himself back in the Town’s political spotlight (aka “me”). Would that agenda help us, as a community? I have real doubts. 

A Candidate with Vision and Determination

It was just two years ago that Mike challenged longtime moderator Mike Widmer. Mike Crowley and Mr. Widmer had very different visions for moderator. Offering Belmont Town Meeting members hybrid town meetings? Widmer was “no.” Crowley: “yes!” Providing transparency around Moderator committee appointments and other decisions? Widmer: “no.” Crowley: “yes.” Supporting Town Meeting members’ First Amendment rights to voice criticisms of town committees and officials? Once again: Widmer: “no!!” Crowley: “yes.” 

Mike fell short in that race. But he showed the tenacity and commitment to run a year later and defeat Mark Paolillo, Moderator Widmer’s anointed successor and a staple of Belmont’s “old guard” political establishment.

In both campaigns, Mike’s platform was the same: 

• Broadening participation and representation in Town Meeting
• Restoring (and securing) hybrid Town Meetings
• Transparency around Moderator appointments
• Conducting efficient, well-run meetings with fairness and impartiality

Promises Kept

It’s a year later and Moderator Crowley delivered on his campaign promises from last year’s election. He stood up the Town’s first ever Moderator’s Advisory Board that sheds much-needed light on Moderator appointments via public meetings. He has led a series of effective and civil Town Meetings – some dealing with hotly contested issues like the Belmont Center overlay. He restored hybrid Town Meetings after they were terminated by Moderator Widmer and a conservative Select Board, giving Town Meeting members with young children, mobility and health issues or professional conflicts the ability to participate and vote.  

Dash’s “Me Too!” Campaign

That hasn’t sat well with Belmont’s Old Guard. That’s why they recruited Adam to challenge Mike and have funded his effort to claw back a powerful position that sat firmly in the hands of Belmont’s conservative establishment for decades. 

That surprised me. I considered Adam a progressive ally here in Belmont. He’s someone I endorsed for Belmont’s Select Board back in 2017 and again when he ran unopposed in 2020.

When Adam called me a few months back to tell me he was going to challenge Mike for re-election, I asked him why a professed supporter of progressive change would challenge a clear political ally like Mike rather than work with him as moderator? 

His answers confused me. Adam offered lavish praise for Mike defeating Mark and for the changes he introduced like the restoration of hybrid Town Meetings and creation of the Moderator’s Advisory Committee. He promised he would keep Town Meetings hybrid and keep the Moderator’s Advisory Committee in place. 

“OK,” I said. ”So if your ‘platform’ is to continue the incumbent’s policies, why challenge him for re-election?” The answer was less about Mike than about Adam. He alluded to the ’prominent’ figures who recruited him, saying we needed more “fairness” and “experience” from the moderator. But those arguments don’t even pass the “sniff test.” Mike has ample skills and professional experience relevant to the moderator role. And he (like Adam) has held multiple terms in a town wide office as a member of the School Committee. As for fairness? Mike has made a fair and equal Town Meeting his hallmark. 

In the end, I strongly advised Adam against challenging Mike so early in his tenure. No surprise: that advice didn’t register. And soon after, Adam declared his candidacy.

Keep The Positive Change Coming!

As you read this, our choice as Belmont voters is simple. Do we want a Town Moderator who has promised- and delivered on meaningful changes to our town’s legislature and promoted the rights of ordinary Belmontonians? Or do we want to toss those accomplishments aside and start anew: voting for a candidate who parrots the positions of our current moderator, but whose motivations are more…extrinsic.

This much is sure: if re-elected, Mike Crowley won’t rest on his laurels. He’ll continue working to enhance on the improvements he’s enacted, to ensure the continued accessibility of hybrid town meetings and further empower Town Meeting members and Belmont’s legislature. I hope you’ll join me in voting to re-elect Mike Crowley for Town Moderator. 

The post We vs. Me: Why I’m Voting To Re-Elect Mike Crowley as Moderator appeared first on Blogging Belmont.

If you’ve been reading letters to the Belmont Voice or dropped into any of the various social media forums on Facebook or NextDoor frequented by residents, you know these are contentious issues. But a series of really odd amendments proposed by Town Meeting member Bob McGaw makes what was going to be a lively Town Meeting even more contentious.

If you ask me, that’s actually the point. Mr. McGaw’s amendments related to the zoning overlay proposals appear to be poisoned pills: vague calls for changes and corrections that are intended to confuse and disrupt an important Town Meeting debate.

In this post, I’ll break down my “read” on the McGaw amendments. I’ll also share insights from our Town Planner and ask questions about the intent and potential impact of these amendments.

(I did reach out to Mr. McGaw to seek explanations of his Amendments. Bob declined to take part in either a phone or email interview so… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If Bob does ultimately respond after this post goes live, I will update this post as needed.)

The Overlay: Clear Rules To Encourage Development

Some background: The Belmont Center zoning bylaw amendments that are “the overlay” are laid out in two Town Meeting articles: Article 2 and 3. The goal of each is to create an optional zoning “overlay” that applies to specific areas of town and encourages private developers to update and modernize the Belmont Center commercial district. The areas affected are Belmont Center (Article 2) and the “Center Gateway” – that small commercial strip of Concord Avenue just outside of Belmont Center (Article 3). If passed, Articles 2 and 3 will add new sections to Belmont’s Zoning By-Law: Section 10, the “Belmont Center Overlay District” and Section 10A, the “Center Gateway Overlay District” containing the overlay zoning language.

Belmont Center is one of our community’s largest sources of commercial tax revenue. The proposed Town Meeting articles provide an optional “overlay” to the Town’s current, outdating zoning bylaws that encourages the construction of multi-use buildings. They do so by creating a “form- based zoning framework” that will guide redevelopment in Belmont Center: providing clear regulations for the size, scale, and design of buildings and allowing a broader mix of uses (retail, commercial, residential, hotels, etc.) The goal is to give potential developers and investors clear rules and a streamlined process for getting their proposed development approved and completed. New commercial spaces will attract new businesses (see the new mixed use buildings in Waverley Square as an example) that draw in shoppers – generating more commercial tax revenue and helping the existing Belmont Center businesses, as well.

Condemnment: A new take on the “amendment”?

But the ideal of a fair and fact based debate of these two articles and their impact at Town Meeting is complicated by a series of amendments submitted by one Town Meeting member: Bob McGaw, a longtime Town Meeting Member from Precinct 1 and Chairman of the Bylaw Review Committee.

I won’t dig into all of the amendments Bob has proposed. (There are a dozen!) Instead, I’ll focus on the two Amendments that relate specifically to the zoning overlay proposals. As outlined in this letter from Mr. McGaw to Town Clerk Ellen Cushman on January 14th, the purpose of the amendments is to essentially erase the overlay language regarding Belmont Center and the Center Gateway in Articles 2 and 3 and replace it with a single word: “(Reserved)”.

What gives? As Mr. McGaw explains in his letter to the Town Clerk and a subsequent email to Town Meeting members: he is concerned that the proposed articles have ”errors, (lack) needed definitions, (fail) to identify definitions consistently…and (violate) the General Bylaws.” The proposed bylaw language “needs to be carefully reviewed and corrected before submitting it to Town Meeting,” McGaw suggests. The articles need to be ”made understandable, made consistent,” he argues.

In my experience, amendments to Town Meeting articles are straight forward. They propose clear changes to the language of a Town Meeting article. As the Town Meeting handbook explains, that might include adding, deleting or substituting words in the motion to be amended. Town Meeting then votes to approve or reject the amendment before voting to pass or reject the article as submitted or as amended.

What amendments don’t do is gut all the language from an article, then ask Town Meeting to pass the blanked out article as a placeholder. From what I can tell: that’s a first. After all, if your opposition to an article is so substantial that you want to gut it, don’t amend it – move Town Meeting to dismiss the article and, failing that, lobby to defeat its passage.

McGaw’s Amendments: a ‘head scratcher’

That’s not the case with Mr. McGaw’s amendments, which cite errors and inaccuracies that his amendments make no effort to identify. Amendments that call for copy edits to articles aren’t unheard of – but they’re unusual. That’s because things like the factual errors, typos, formatting issues and flawed definitions that Mr. McGaw refers to are typically called out and corrected before Town Meeting.

The Planning Board held more than 17 public hearings on the proposed zoning overlay for Belmont Center going back to April of last year, Belmont’s Director of Planning and Building Christopher Ryan pointed out. “We took a lot of comments from the public that were actionable and reasonable and made a number of changes to the bylaw,” Ryan said.

As a member of Town Meeting and the Bylaw Review Committee, Mr. McGaw has a long record of working with committees like the Planning Board to do this in the lead up to Town Meeting.

“Typically in the past, Bob reached out well in advance and gave detailed assessments of what needed to be changed. This time he did not do that,” Ryan told me.

A February 17th report for the Planning Board by Director of Planning and Building Ryan notes that “amendment sponsor Robert McGaw submitted a list to the Town Administrator purportedly to show evidence of how the proposed By-Law is not ready for consideration.” But “this list provided no details… Without specificity, there is nothing to review or consider for revisions or error corrections.”

“Bob gave relatively broad descriptions of things with no details and nothing to look to specifically.” Director of Planning and Building Ryan said.

The same lack of specifics was a point of discussion during Mr. McGaw’s meeting with the Select Board to discuss his amendments on February 9th. Check it out here starting at around the 2:19:00 mark. He is asked by Select Board Chair Matt Taylor as well as Select Board Member Taylor Yates to provide specific details on what changes he wished to see in the articles – but Mr. McGaw failed to do so.

“These amendments are a bit of a head scratcher,” Select Board member Taylor Yates said. “Bob and I tend to get along because we share a passion for tidiness, which is why in the past we’ve worked collaboratively during the drafting process to review his suggestions and, where they have merit, incorporate them. This time around Mr. McGaw ignored or declined multiple invitations to collaborate on the bylaw, including ones sent to him in writing months ago.”

Fixing the articles: “We had to guess.”

That left the Ryan’s team and the Planning Board in the position of having to guess what McGaw’s critiques were referring to.

“We had to guess. We went through the (proposed) bylaws one more time and found some things that needed to be capitalized. Small issues (but) nothing that rise to the level of rendering the bylaw not ready,” he said.  

With the edits made, the Planning Board shared a draft with Mr. McGaw last week in order for him to review the document and give them his feedback at last week’s meeting. “We thought (McGaw) would be at the Planning Board meeting to talk about his amendments, but he didn’t come. We didn’t have a chance to hear from him,” Ryan said.

Ryan and McGaw did eventually connect last Friday to review the Planning Board’s changes, Ryan said.

Planning Board recommends rejecting McGaw’s amendments

In the end, the Planning Board voted to reject Mr. McGaw’s amendments seeking to remove the zoning overlay language with the word “(Reserved)”, as well as his proposed amendments regarding overnight parking.

(As it turns out, parking is part of the Town’s general bylaws, not its zoning bylaws, so the Planning Board doesn’t really have a say in parking-related matters.)

Director of Planning and Building Ryan told me that he is “confident that we have a complete and workable bylaw.” The errors identified have been small, copy-related issues (spelling, capitalization, heading and caption placement) and not material to the articles themselves. “I think the bylaw reflects that fact that the Planning Board listens and is responsive to the public,” Ryan said.

“No one waited around,” said Select Board member Yates. “The Planning Board, Office of Planning and Building, Select Board, and Town Counsel all reviewed the bylaw and are satisfied with it.”

For Town Meeting: keep it simple

The question now for us as Town Meeting members is “what to do” with these Amendments? To be clear, not all 12 of Mr. McGaw’s amendments are “poison pills.” One of two amendments Mr. McGaw proposed last week seeks to update the town’s zoning bylaws to establish regulations for Hotels and the classes of hotels allowed in Belmont as well as where they can be built. Specifically, that ”the Center Gateway Overlay District and other districts, should be the zoning sections that allow hotel use as defined by §6.15.” So – hotels only go in the Center Gateway Overlay? That seems straight-forward and focused so…sure. Let’s have the debate.

As for the amendments that call for the gutting of Articles 2 and 3 based on vague criticisms? It is Town Meeting’s job to stay focused on the issue at hand and the facts (not innuendo) associated with that.

Mr. McGaw’s presentation on the articles should clearly identify any specific issues with the articles that warrant corrections. If the message is to gut the language of the articles, Mr. McGaw owes Town Meeting a better justification than spelling errors and missed punctuation. At the same time, we as Town Meeting members should be ready to call out any vagary and hand-waving by Mr. McGaw and others as we debate these amendments and articles and vote to reject or approve them.

That’s my 2c. If you support the Belmont Center Overlay, contact the Town Meeting members for your precinct and ask them to vote to reject Mr. McGaw’s amendments and pass Articles 2 and 3 as written.

The post Poison Pill Amendments: The Challenge Facing Town Meeting appeared first on Blogging Belmont.

That’s why I’ve submitted six citizen petitions for the May 2026 Annual Town Meeting. These six articles are practical, low-cost proposals that build on state laws and proven ideas from other communities. They aren’t about radical shifts—they’re about strengthening our traditions while addressing real gaps in transparency, accountability, and engagement.

Let me walk you through them, starting with what I see as a foundational step: an annual address to bring us all together. From there, I’ll touch on the need for deeper details on finances and zoning, and why electing key boards and advocating for fairer state funding are essential.

1: Annual State of the Town Report and Public Forum

2: Full Disclosure of Revolving Funds

3: Fiscal Impact Statements and Public Hearings for Zoning Articles

4: Mandatory Annual Independent Audit and Public Presentation

5: Home Rule Petition to Elect the Planning Board

6: Resolution Urging Increased State Aid to Municipalities

#1: Annual State of the Town Report and Public Forum

Like many cities, states, and even our nation, Belmont should have a dedicated moment each year where our leaders reflect and look ahead. Right now, we lack a consistent, comprehensive update that ties together our achievements, challenges, and vision.

My proposal: Require the Select Board and Town Administrator to publish a “State of the Town” report by February 15, followed by a public forum by March 1—moderated by the Town Moderator, live-streamed, and open for questions. The Select Board Chair would highlight not just policies and finances, but the stories of our residents, key accomplishments from the past year, and legislative priorities for upcoming Town Meeting. 

Why it matters to me—and to Belmont: This isn’t just about data; it’s about building connection and trust. It gives us a shared starting point for debates, helping residents understand where we’ve been and where we’re headed. At minimal cost, it’s a simple way to make our government feel more accessible and human.

#2: Full Disclosure of Revolving Funds

Revolving funds—from permits, programs, and fees—are increasingly important to Belmont’s operations, but their details often aren’t as visible as they should be. Without regular, clear reporting, it’s hard for residents to track how these dollars are used or spot potential issues.  

My proposal: Mandate an annual report by February 1 (with quarterly online updates) on each fund’s balances, revenues, expenditures, and projections, plus a public presentation to explain it all.

Why it matters to me—and to Belmont: With revolving funds playing a bigger role in our budget, transparency here builds confidence that fees are serving the community fairly. It’s a straightforward step to prevent imbalances and ensure accountability, especially as our town grows.

#3: Fiscal Impact Statements and Public Hearings for Zoning Articles

Zoning changes can reshape Belmont in profound ways, affecting schools, infrastructure, public safety, and taxes—yet we often discuss them without a full picture of the financial impacts

My proposal: For every zoning amendment, require the Town to generate a fiscal impact statement with short- and long-term revenue and cost projections, plus an additional public hearing focused solely on those implications.

Why it matters to me—and to Belmont: As we face calls for more housing and commercial development, this ensures decisions are informed and balanced. It protects taxpayers from unintended burdens while supporting thoughtful growth—critical for our future.

#4: Mandatory Annual Independent Audit and Public Presentation

We already conduct annual audits as required by state law, but without a mandated public rollout, key findings and recommendations can remain tucked away in reports that few residents dig into.

My proposal: Keep the CPA-led audit but add a televised or live-streamed public meeting within 60 days to present results, answer questions, and post the full report prominently online.

Why it matters to me—and to Belmont: In an era of tight budgets and rising costs, this public step reinforces trust and allows us to address issues early. It’s low-effort but high-impact, aligning with our town’s commitment to good governance.

#5: Home Rule Petition to Elect the Planning Board

Our Planning Board handles critical decisions on land use, development, and the Master Plan, but as an appointed body, it can feel one step removed from direct resident input. We often hear “walk before we run” on big changes, yet there’s growing demand from residents for more housing and commercial opportunities.

My proposal: A home rule petition to make the board elected—five members plus one associate, with staggered three-year terms—like they do in Lexington.

Why it matters to me—and to Belmont: Elections ensure accountability to voters, bringing diverse perspectives that reflect our community’s priorities. It’s about making sure the board is responsive to the people it serves, fostering better, more trusted planning for sustainable growth.

#6: Resolution Urging Increased State Aid to Municipalities

Massachusetts lags behind, providing just 15–18% of revenues as unrestricted local aid—far below the national average or what New Hampshire and Vermont offer (30–40%). Towns like Belmont rely heavily on property taxes, capped by Proposition 2½, while costs climb, leading to structural deficits and frequent overrides.

My proposal: A non-binding resolution urging the Governor and Legislature to increase aid toward 30% over time, via inflation-adjusted UGGA, sales tax sharing, and stable Chapter 70 education funding.

Why it matters to me—and to Belmont: The numbers don’t lie—our state isn’t investing enough in education, public safety, and local needs. Belmont can and should lead on this, showing other communities how to advocate for equity. This resolution is a critical first step to ease pressure on residents without maxing out local taxes.

These petitions aren’t isolated ideas; they’re interconnected threads that weave a stronger fabric for Belmont—promoting transparency through reports and disclosures, accountability via elections and public forums, and fiscal resilience by demanding better details and fairer funding. As someone who’s seen the dedication of our residents up close, I know these changes will empower Town Meeting to fulfill its legislative role, making our town more inclusive and prepared.

For full warrant texts, FAQs, legal references, and supporting documents, visit my Google Drive folder. 

Fellow Town Meeting Members and Belmont neighbors: These are our tools to build a better Belmont. Reach out to your precinct reps, discuss at community events, or amplify on social media. Together, we can pass them in May 2026 and create a government that’s truly by and for the people.

Let’s make it happen.

(*) Editor’s note: an earlier version of this post incorrectly identified the Town Meeting precinct that Paul represents. He is a Town Meeting member for Precinct 7. PFR 2/13/2026

The post Six Citizen Proposals to Strengthen Belmont’s Democracy appeared first on Blogging Belmont.

There is no business center nor anything approximating to such, in the whole proposed town… There is nothing which makes a town except people and houses, and these for the most part are scattered over four square miles of territory. — Ivers J. Austin

The author, Ivers J. Austin, serving as counsel to Watertown opponents, argued that the corn grown in what is now Belmont’s Winn Brook neighborhood still had to be ground in Watertown, since the proposed town of Belmont had “no water power… nor ever can have.” Moreover, “till Belmont gets a village,” he contended, the proposed citizens of Belmont would still have to go to Watertown, West Cambridge, or Boston for supplies and meals out, for there was “no house of public entertainment.” 

Belmont ultimately built its own village, but – more than a century and a half later – our town still stands to benefit from expanding its local commerce. If, in the 1850s, Belmontonians had “no house of public entertainment,” today we might drive to another town to find family- or teen-friendly activities, like Brighton Bowl or Versus Arcade. And, as a community, we still need to attract customers from Belmont and surrounding communities if we hope to help sustain Belmont businesses.This means creating commercial areas that draw people in and serve the public’s needs, generating more foot traffic.

Zoning for buildings with commercial space on the lower floors and housing above them will not only bring more foot traffic to existing stores and eateries. It will also provide Belmont residents with what we have long asked for: a way to age in place safely. A recent survey conducted by Belmont’s Council on Aging found that nearly half of respondents reported that their home needed modifications or repairs for safety’s sake. Many would like to live in an apartment, condominium, or townhome in Belmont if they were to move in the next five years. However, such accommodations are in very short supply here and come at a very high cost. We can change this by approving the proposed Belmont Center Overlay district. Doing so will create incentives for private developers to build mixed-use accessible buildings in the town center, allowing seniors to age in place and in proximity to town amenities.

Take the old Bank of America building. This building and its roped-off lot have sat unused for over three and a half years – relinquishing potential revenue that redevelopment could bring. Imagine instead a new, more attractive, multi-story building with a family-friendly restaurant on the ground floor, an exercise studio on the second floor, and two floors of accessible apartments overhead. To do this under current zoning laws would require a string of exceptions to existing zoning – adding time, expense, uncertainty, and red tape that drive developers away. 

Adopting the Belmont Center zoning overlay would clear away those obstacles, simplifying “by right” zoning and thereby encouraging the development of old and unused or underused parcels in Belmont Center. The zoning overlay will also tightly regulate the appearance of proposed buildings. This ensures that any new development will fit the town’s aesthetic character – an improvement over our current zoning, which does not provide for this. 

The Overlay Zoning Project was discussed and modified throughout 2025. Town employees and volunteer Planning Board members spent countless hours gathering information, conferring with residents and abutters, presenting ideas, and modifying plans in response to public input. The result is an excellent plan that responds to what Belmont residents and businesses need. 

Back in the 1800s, Belmont did “get a village” when it built Belmont Center. But despite this, our more populous neighbor to our south still grinds a lot of our proverbial corn. I’ll continue to drive to Watertown for my gym, but I would much rather walk to one here in Belmont. We can make this wonderful town we inhabit more vibrant commercially: providing residents with easy access to the businesses, services and housing options they need, while promoting infrastructure to help the wonderful businesses we already have. Doing so will improve our commercial sector, our quality of life, and our town’s finances. It takes a village to improve a village, and the Overlay Zoning Project does just that. I urge you to join me in supporting it and encouraging your Town Meeting representative to vote in favor of the Town Center overlay zoning at the upcoming Town Meeting.

— Mary Lewis, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 1

The post “Till Belmont Gets a Village” – The Case For Overlay Zoning  appeared first on Blogging Belmont.

Lately it’s been a long, long journey to get some articles heard at Annual Town Meeting. Why is that? A big reason is our town leadership’s narrowing of the submission window. This affects Town Meeting members and residents who want to submit articles for consideration. I am proposing an amendment to change that.

The Town Meeting process starts with the warrant. By state law, Town Meetings “shall be called in pursuance of a warrant,” which is issued by the Select Board and sets out the time, place, and “the subjects to be acted upon” at the meeting, known as articles. Everything to be addressed by Town Meeting must first be included on the warrant.

A tradition of timely discussions

In Belmont, the General Bylaws allow the Select Board to set dates when the Town Meeting warrant opens and closes without any limitations. After the warrant “closes,” the Select Board may choose to reopen and add other articles. However, they may decline to add articles as untimely. This decision keeps committee/board requests and citizen petitions from reaching Town Meeting. (By state law, any ten registered voters can submit an article for Annual Town Meeting – basically the opportunity for citizens, including town meeting members, to submit their own bills.)

From at least 2015 through 2024, the Select Board closed the warrant in March or late February for Annual Town Meeting, which occurs at the end of April or beginning of May. This schedule provided six weeks or more from the close of the warrant to the Annual Town Meeting. However, for the 2025 and 2026 Annual Town Meetings, the Select Board drastically changed the schedule. They closed the warrant in early January. This is about four months before the Annual Town Meeting begins.

Hindering Town Meeting’s responsiveness

Cutting off submission of warrant articles in early January for a late April or early May Annual Town Meeting causes problems:

• Less opportunity for timely discussions – The early January closing date means that articles must be prepared four months in advance of the Town Meeting. Often, issues just aren’t fully developed in December or early January. Practically, that means the process of preparing for Town Meeting and the activity going on throughout the early part of the year are cut out of consideration, unless the Select Board permits it.
• Hard work during the holidays? The early January deadline means that articles must be prepared over the holiday period. That’s not just an inconvenience; it also means that town staff may not be available for questions and input. Moreover, the deadline doesn’t just apply to individuals attempting to gather petition signatures at holiday parties, it can also apply to town committees attempting to schedule and hold public meetings.
• Uncertainty. Because the Select Board controls whether articles submitted after the Board’s deadline are, or are not, included in the Town Meeting warrant, there is uncertainty as to what will make the cut and why.
• Reduced responsiveness of Town Meeting. Finally, Town Meeting is an independent legislative body of the Town and should be able to consider those issues that its members, the public, and all town boards, committees, and officials believe are important. Town Meeting appropriately spends a lot of time considering Select Board priorities, but Town Meeting has other business as well, and there should be reasonable opportunities to address those issues.

Clarifying rules around Warrant articles and citizen petitions

The good news is that this problem can be fixed.

I am asking Town Meeting to adopt a General Bylaw amendment at this year’s Annual Town Meeting (in May). The purpose is to establish that the Annual Town Meeting warrant will open the first Monday in January. It will remain open through the second Monday in March. You can review my proposed amendment here.

This provides an early open date to encourage article submissions earlier in the process, while returning our Town to a later closing date on proposed articles. The amendment provides clarity by specifying that the dates cover citizens petitions and town board/official submissions. It maintains flexibility by permitting the Select Board to add articles after the closing date when they could not reasonably have been presented earlier.

In addition to restoring Belmont’s previous, democratic practice of a later closing date, the amendment is consistent with bylaws in many other towns. Indeed, the Massachusetts Municipal Association’s Select Board Handbook states: “How long the Town Meeting warrant must be open, and how long before Town Meeting it must be opened, are usually addressed in a town’s bylaws.” There is considerable variation in the dates selected by different towns, but many towns have established warrant closing dates around 30 to 60 days before the Annual Town Meeting, similar to this amendment.

I hope you’ll support this initiative at Annual Town Meeting or by contacting your precinct’s Town Meeting members or other town officials.

If you’d like to learn more, I have put a FAQ (frequently asked questions) document together, which you can view here.

The post I’m Just A (Belmont) Bill! A Simple Change To Make Town Meeting Work Better. appeared first on Blogging Belmont.

It is unusual for a Town Moderator to sponsor a Citizen’s Petition. I do not take that lightly. But Town Meeting works best when it reflects the full community it serves. When participation in Town Meeting is limited by work schedules, caregiving responsibilities, health concerns or mobility challenges, our local democracy is diminished.

Hybrid Town Meeting has shown us a better way.

During the pandemic, Belmont—like many Massachusetts communities—was authorized to hold Town Meetings that allowed residents to participate either in person or remotely. The results were striking. At our most recent Special Town Meeting, roughly half of participants joined remotely, taking part in debate via Zoom and voting through a secure mobile application, while others attended in person.

That kind of participation is not theoretical. It is measurable, practical and meaningful.

The problem is that our ability to conduct Town Meetings this way is temporary. The latest state authorization that allows hybrid and remote Town Meetings expires in March 2027 -the latest in a series of votes by the State Legislature to extend the COVID-era policy. Should the legislature fail to extend the hybrid meeting policy again, Belmont could be forced to abandon a system that has demonstrably expanded access and strengthened civic engagement.

The petition I filed—which was certified last week—asks Town Meeting to authorize the Select Board to seek special state legislation that would allow Belmont to hold hybrid and remote Town Meetings on a permanent basis. While the petition applies only to Belmont, its purpose is broader: to help move this issue forward at the State House, either through (another) town-specific measure or – even better- legislation to enshrine hybrid meetings state-wide.

To be clear: this petition is about safeguarding the future of Town Meeting, not replacing in-person participation, but preserving choice. Residents who want to attend in person should always be able to do so. But those who cannot should not be excluded from the decisions that shape their community.

More than 60 municipalities across Massachusetts have already petitioned the Legislature for permanent authorization to hold hybrid or remote Town Meetings. Communities such as Concord and Wayland have gone further, requesting town-specific legislation when broader reform stalled.

Belmont should not wait passively while this temporary framework ticks toward expiration.

I have discussed this issue with State Sen. Will Brownsberger and State Rep. Dave Rogers, both of whom support a permanent solution. The challenge is not local opposition. Rather, it is the glacial pace of legislative action on Beacon Hill.

Hybrid Town Meeting has proven that it works. It has broadened participation, strengthened debate and reinforced the legitimacy of our decisions. Allowing that progress to lapse would be a step backward.

The Citizen’s Petition will be considered at Belmont’s Annual Town Meeting in May 2026. I hope Town Meeting members will see it for what it is: a practical, forward-looking effort to ensure that our most important democratic institution remains open to all.

—
Michael Crowley is Belmont Town Moderator.

The post Make Hybrid Town Meetings Permanent in Belmont appeared first on Blogging Belmont.

That’s no small feat, especially in a community as financially constrained as Belmont, where spending on parks and recreation typically falls to the bottom of the list of budget items.

But its no accident either: just about all of those improvements we’ve seen are the direct result of town voters passing the Community Preservation Act (CPA) back in 2010, with funding for the program beginning in Fiscal Year 2012. (Read Blogging Belmont’s coverage of that vote here.)

The CPA allows towns that adopt the measure to create a local fund for housing, historic preservation, open space, and recreation by adding a small surcharge of up to 3% on property taxes, which is then matched by state funds from a statewide. (Note: the state matching funds are capped and, therefore, are a fraction of any individual town’s allotment.) Passing the CPA immediately created a reliable source of funding for parks, open space and affordable housing. And it created the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) to recommend projects, which manages proposals for CPA funding, keeps the program aligned with state requirements.

A citizen survey on open space and recreation

So – good job, Belmont! We’ve really up-leveled our parks and open spaces. AND, there’s more work to be done. The question is: What are our priorities as a community when it comes to parks and open spaces? That’s a question that the Town would like an answer to, as it prepares its next 10 year Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSRP). The OSRP is necessary tfor Belmont to qualify for grants from the Division of Conservation Services and guides the town as it looks to protect and enhance open- and recreational spaces: parks, playgrounds, trails, and so on.

This is the start of a six-month-long planning process to update its Open Space and Recreation Plan with the survey key to the planning and scope as the Town looks to understand community priorities and identify areas for improvement.

The survey takes about 10 minutes and asks you about your use of the town’s parks and open spaces and your preferences for new public spaces.

Some examples to consider: a skate park for our town, more small, neighborhood “pocket parks” to make better use of town own land. (*cough* Golden Bowl! *cough*)

The survey runs through January 31st, 2026, so go ahead and click and fill it out now before the window closes!

The post Want a Skate Park For Belmont? Take This Survey! appeared first on Blogging Belmont.

83% of Our Revenue…With A Tight Cap

That gap has been a feature of Belmont’s finances for decades: growing even in times of prosperity. The root cause: our town’s heavy, heavy reliance on residential property taxes to fund operations. In 2025, for example, property taxes accounted for 83% of Belmont’s $158 million in General Fund revenue.

And that revenue stream is tightly capped by Massachusetts’ Proposition 2 1/2. This four-decade-old law limits the net growth in collected property taxes to 2.5% annually (absent new construction). This rate is well below historic rates of inflation. And then there are economic traumas like the Great Recession; COVID pandemic; Trump administration tariffs, and so on.

You don’t need a degree in economics to see that when revenues are capped below inflation while costs rise, a budget gap is the result. Recently, our town’s budget gap reached over $8.4 million. This was before voters, facing potential cuts to schools and services, passed our last override in April 2024, three years after rejecting a $6.4 million override in April 2021, which resulted in significant cuts to public schools, town services, and increased fees.

8 Belmont Overrides: 5 Yes, 3 No

The April, 2024 vote was the fifth successful Proposition 2 1/2 operational override passed by Belmont voters, totaling more than $20 million in added revenue. (Note: this does not include debt exclusion votes to fund capital projects like Belmont High School and the Library.) Another three Proposition 2 1/2 proposals, totaling close to $10 million have failed at the polls.

This isn’t a problem that’s unique to our town, either. Towns across the Bay State face the same paradox as they struggle to make ends meet. Even communities with large commercial tax bases, like Boston are struggling, as the COVID pandemic upended a decades-old office culture: leaving office buildings mostly empty and the revenues (and taxes) they generate in decline. That’s why you’re hearing Boston Mayor Michelle Wu joining a chorus of people calling for the repeal (or reform) of Proposition 2 1/2.

Repeal Prop 2 1/2…or Re-Think It?

My feeling is that the Massachusetts legislature repealing Proposition 2 1/2 is very unlikely to happen any time soon.

And, even if it were to happen, I’m not convinced that would solve any of the chronic problems we face. What it might do is create new problems for Massachusetts property owners, renters and communities, namely: exploding property tax rates in a state that already has one of the highest costs of living in the country. And that would widen gaps between affluent and economically challenged communities.

A better approach is for towns like ours to get smarter and more creative about how and when they pursue Prop 2 1/2 overrides.

Eyes on Melrose

An example of this can be seen in Melrose, where voters in November approved a $13.5 million Proposition 2½ override: the largest ever passed in the city by a large margin. The override followed an ballot measure in June, 2024, when a $7.7 million override failed at the polls.

According to CommonWealth Beacon, the override that passed provides stable funding for schools, police, fire departments, and public works, helping the city fill in budget deficits and avoid layoffs affecting the schools, Town and public safety.

An Override For How Much? Take Your Pick!

In Melrose – like Belmont – local advocacy was key to the measure’s success. Residents organized neighborhood forums, community meetings, and social media campaigns to educate voters about what was at stake. Also of interest: the structure of the ballot question itself.

Melrose’s ballot presented a distinctive three-tiered override, exercising a rarely-used component of Proposition 2 1/2 that allows towns to offer voters multiple override choices on a ballot, with the highest value tier to win a majority of YES votes the one that gets adopted — even if that is not the option that received the most YES votes.

We saw that in action in Melrose, where the least impactful question to taxpayers, 1C, passed by the largest margin: 58 percent to 41 percent. Question 1B, which sought $11.9 million more a year from taxpayers going forward, passed by a slightly smaller margin: 56 percent to 43 percent margin. And yet, Melrose got to adopt Question 1A, the tier that sought $13.5 million after it passed by a smaller 54 to 45 percent margin.

The benefit of a tiered override? As you can see from the sample ballot above, the different tiers lay out varying amounts of money and what can be funded with the added property tax revenue – from three school positions and road and sidewalk repair at the low end ($9.3 million) to 17 school hires, 9 public works and 2 police officers at the high end ($13.5 million).

Belmont’s leaders should take note, especially given the high likelihood of another Prop 2 1/2 override in the coming years. Our past overrides all followed the “all or nothing” approach: one ballot question and a single override amount put before voters. Essentially: agree to this amount, or get ready for the cuts.

“Belmont needs overrides just to keep the Town running, and asking the voters to invest in Belmont’s future has sometimes felt like a risky proposition that could lead to a failed override and catastrophic service cuts,” Select Board member Taylor Yates told Blogging Belmont.

Yates agrees: Belmont should consider Melrose’s approach in the future: offering different override amounts for voters to choose from, with each correlating with specific spending objectives: school and public safety hires, varying levels of commitment to sidewalk and road repair, reduced (or eliminated) activity fees for students – you name it.

“The multiple override strategy is worth observing and considering. Multiple override questions on the same ballot could be a way to give the voters a choice and let the power of democracy decide our future,” Yates said.

It’s Not Just The “What,” It’s The “When.”

The other big change in Melrose between 2024 and 2025? Turnout. Around 52% of Melrose’s registered voters participated in the November vote. That was a 17% jump over turnout in the 2024 special election, which took place in June. That’s a huge difference.

A driver of that increased turnout may be the Town’s decision to hold the override vote in November – a month when many residents are accustomed to going to the polls, and amid heightened national news coverage of elections in other states.

Whether November or another month, data from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue shows that the outcome an override vote correlates strongly with its timing – and that November is more hospitable to a YES vote than June, when Melrose held its failed 2024 override vote.

A look at Prop 2 1/2 override votes (note: not including debt exclusion votes) by month over the past three decades makes clear that when an override vote happens can have a big impact on the outcome – and that shunting a vote off to a special election in June is a recipe for defeat at the polls.

If At First You Don’t Succeed…

One final lesson in Melrose’s November override is the city’s rapid response to a failed override in June 2024. A little over a year later, the Town’s leadership had another ballot measure before voters – nearly twice the size, with voters OK’ing three separate override options – all asking for more money than the 2024 measure.

That stands in contrast to Belmont, where it took our town leaders three years from the failed April 2021 override to get another $8.4 million override on the ballot (and passed). That’s in part because of a long-standing conservative line of thinking here in Belmont that a “no” vote is a sign that voters believe town government is wasteful and has to ‘prove its worth’ by making cuts to win voters’ approval.

No. A failed override vote means only one thing: the campaign to pass it was unsuccessful, either for internal or external reasons (poor messaging, insufficient funding, public anger (as with COVID era school closings). In other words, if at first you don’t succeed: try, try again!

My advice for Belmont?

Obviously, Melrose and Belmont are different communities with different histories and realities. AND we have a lot in common. We’re two Boston suburbs of about 30,000 residents, 8-9 miles from downtown. Both have expensive housing and similar fiscal challenges. Property taxes make up 73% of Melrose’s budget, versus Belmont’s 83%. Melrose has put 7 operational overrides on the ballot since 1988, with three passing, compared to 8 and 5 in Belmont

That’s why Melrose’s November override is something we should pay attention to. Successful campaigning and dire consequences aside, the structure and timing of the ballot measure could greatly increase our chances of passing more frequent overrides to keep our town’s finances in order.

“The good news is that other Towns are running the experiment for us and we have 2-3 years to watch how the elections and their results pan out,” said Select Board member Yates.

The post A Tiered Override Won In Melrose. What About Belmont? appeared first on Blogging Belmont.