Med 0319 Page 006

Page 6, THE MEDFIELD PRESS, March 19, 2009

www.wickedlocal.com/medfield

THE MEDFIELD PRESS

OPINION EDITORIAL

Erring on the side of sunlight

Trust in government - essential to a democracy - depends greatly on whether citizens believe the government’s dealings are conducted honestly and above board. In the United States, the means of verifying that is the Freedom of Information Act, a law laying the ground rules for access to federal records, passed in 1967 and strengthened twice since then. But a new Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University survey finds that Americans are deeply skeptical of how well government abides by the law, with 61 percent believing that federal agencies “only sometimes, rarely or never” obey the law. This is hardly surprising since the Bush administration, by nature secretive, became even more so after 9/11. In Oct., 2001, it overturned the standing policy that information should be withheld from the public only if its release would cause “foreseeable harm.” The Justice department instructed the agencies to err on the side of nondisclosure and said it would back them up in court. The following year the Bush White House told the agencies they should withhold information that was “sensitive” - an elastic term that invites abuse - but unclassified. The results were predictable. By one measure, the volume of declassified material fell 80 percent by 2006. Barack Obama promised to change that and on his first day in office issue a memo to the agencies telling them to adopt a “presumption of disclosure” and he went even further and told the agencies to act first to make information public and not to wait to be asked. There are faint signs that the new policy may be working. The survey found that after three years of dramatic declines the erosion of public confidence in the openness of their government has slowed and even reversed. Last year 44 percent of Americans felt their government was “highly secretive” compared to only 22 percent in 2006. This year the number is 40 percent. It’s a start. Openness is a process, not a declaration, but Obama’s declaration - “in the face of doubt, openness prevails”- is a good starting point. Besides, it’s not only the law, it’s good government.

YOUR VIEWS The Medfield Press welcomes letters to the editor. Letters must be signed and should be no longer than 400 words. We reserve the right to edit for libel, clarity and civility. Include your address and telephone number, so we may confirm the identity of the writer. Letters sent without an address or without a phone number will not be printed. The Press will publish letters to the editor regarding candidates and election issues. Letters should address legitimate issues while supporting or criticizing a candidate. Letters that merely indicate support for a candidate and do not address specific issues will be printed on a space-available basis. We do not publish letters from candidates unless they are responding directly to comments made on the opinion pages. No letters regarding candidates will be published in the edition immediately preceding any election. You may send your letters: By mail: 1091 Washington St., Norwood, MA 02062; By fax: 781-433-8375; By e-mail: [email protected].

MEDFIELD PRESS 1091 Washington Street, Norwood, MA 02062

Editor — Rob Borkowski 781-433-8353 Photo Editor — Erin Prawoko 781-433-8374 Chief Executive Officer — Richard J. Daniels Advertising Director — Anne Marie Magerman CNC West Editor-in-Chief — Richard K. Lodge, [email protected] Managing Editor, Daily — Matt Cook, 781-433-8335 Managing Editor, Weeklies — Jeff Adair, 508-626-3926 Advertising Sales — Jeff Motta, 508-634-7537

GENERAL TELEPHONE NUMBERS

Circulation Info – 1-888-MY-PAPER Sales Fax Number – 508-634-7511 Main Telephone – 781-433-8307 Editorial Fax – 781-433-8375 Classified Number –1-800 624-7355 Arts/Calendar Fax – 781-433-8375

So these two Romans walk into a bar … The problem with historians and archeologists is they’re always turning up things nobody really needs, like clay pots and pieces of old wallpaper, rather than items that could actually be useful, like all-powerful Arks of the Covenant. I’m speaking generally here. That’s why I was excited to read

AT LARGE PETER CHIANCA about the latest historical discovery out of Cambridge University: the world’s oldest joke book, featuring gags from the Roman Empire. Professor Mary Beard told the Guardian of London that the book would dispel the myth that Romans were “pompous, toga-wearing bridge builders,” although I never really thought of them that way … Seems to me a culture has to have a sense of humor if it can manage to go 500 years without pants. Here’s one of the jokes, which is apparently typical of the lot: “A man buys a slave, who dies soon after. When he complains, the slave seller replies, ‘Well, he didn’t die when I owned him.’” Ha ha! It’s funny, because it’s true! Still, the concept of the world’s oldest joke book piques my interest for several reasons, not the least of which is that my late grandfather was a standup comedian back in the days when comedians really told jokes — mostly other people’s jokes. In fact, he bequeathed to me his copy of “The Complete Comedian’s Encyclopedia” by Robert Orben, which I think may have been the world’s second oldest joke book. It features a lot of lines about “Dagmar” — not sure who she was, but from the gags I take it that her main claim to fame was that her “bust” entered the room about five minutes before she did. (Can I get a rim shot?) Also, my kids are apparently getting to the age when jokes are becoming popular around the cafete-

ria table. For instance, take this one told to me by my son Tim, age 7: “Why does time fly? You throw a clock out the window!” I swear I think it’s funnier that way. (It’s also a step higher on the sophistication scale than his other material, which entails answering any random question with the word “poop!”) I’ve actually been trying to teach them the following joke from my grandfather’s era, and they’re very close to nailing it: A traveling salesman asks a ranch owner if his property line ends at his fence. The rancher responds, “Mister, I could get in my car first thing in the morning and drive all day, and I still wouldn’t reach the end of my property.” The salesman responds, “Yeah, I had a car like that once.” Granted, it would be funnier if he responded, “Poop!” But still, I think those simple one-liners can be kind of soothing. It seems to me

that in these complicated times, there’s something to be said for gags with actual punch lines — it’s nice to laugh at a joke you don’t necessarily have to “relate” to. (Unless you happen to be the type of person who hangs out in bars with priests, rabbis and guys with ducks on their heads. You know who you are.) And it turns out we need look no further than the Romans, who had plenty of material, including jokes about “eggheads” (i.e. absentminded professors), eunuchs and people with hernias or bad breath, none of whom, interestingly enough, were in the movie “300.” I’m beginning to wonder if that film was entirely accurate. (What? The people in that movie were Greek? Well, that’s a relief.) “They’re also poking fun at certain types of foreigners,” noted Professor Beard. “People from

Abdera, a city in Thrace, were very, very stupid.” To paraphrase Jackie Mason, “People say the Abderans are dumb, they’re stupid, they don’t know what they’re talking about, but I say … it’s none of our business!” So in honor of the Romans and my grandfather, and to help weather our current storm of economic grumpiness, everybody go out and tell a joke today. (You can find some suggestions on my blog at chianca-at-large.blogspot.com.) I promise it will make you feel better. And if you want it to be really funny, take your pants off first. Peter Chianca is a managing editor for GateHouse Media New England. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/pchianca. To receive At Large by e-mail, write to [email protected], with the subject line “SUBSCRIBE.”

AT I S S U E : S E L E C T M A N ‘ P E T E ’ P E T E R S O N O N H O U S I N G D E N S I T Y

Brook,Green Street residents worry that developments will overcrowd area Q. P.

Why it matters

Neighborhood housing lot sizes and population density are basic, seminal concerns, properly of interest to all residents. These issues control our physical environments, and we are all rightly concerned when our homes are impacted. Towns address these issues by means of the compact that we all enter into with each other through the zoning bylaws that we adopt for ourselves at town meeting. Medfield first adopted zoning in 1938, and has continually refined it ever since. Zoning has been the main tool to control development and to attempt to maintain the town’s “rural feel,” that we often cite as one of Medfield’s major attractions. In broad general terms, our zoning permits greater housing density in the downtown area, where we allow as of right one additional unit on each additional 6,000 sq. ft. of land (about 7 units per acre). I am told that at one time additional units were allowed on each 3,000 sq. ft. The developments on Brook Street and North Street have raised anew the issue of what sort of density, we as a town, are comfortable allowing, as we see our fellow residents uncomfortably grappling with the change that will be wrought in their neighborhood by the large increased density permitted by the rules that we together have enacted for ourselves. I do not know the proper density for these or other projects, knowing only that as the density goes up, so does my level of concern. However, I also know that I actually like the fairly dense housing that I see at Prentice Place and Olde Village Square. Likewise, I

think that the relatively high density at the Medfield State Hospital project the selectmen have agreed upon can still make for both a handsome and beneficial development. Regardless, housing densities are an issue that Medfield residents should discuss and decide. How should we tackle the problem? The proper way to address whether our allowed densities are fair, correct, and desirable is for us to revisit on a regular basis what we have created in our zoning. Ironically, the Planning Board did just this for us at the 2001 town meeting, presenting to us a zoning revision that increased the floor area ratios (FAR) (i.e. the building floor area compared to the lot area) in the downtown, as a way to limit housing densities. The 2001 recommendation was to go from a 0.35 FAR to 0.25 FAR in the R-S zone and or 0.25 and/or 0.30 in the R-U zones, changes that would have reduced densities. Zoning changes are often a difficult to pass because they require a 2/3 town meeting vote, but the 2001 proposed change did not even win a majority vote, with 109 in favor and 122 against. Much of our laws are created in response to actual happenings, and perhaps these current developments will be a catalyst for what should be one of Medfield’s periodic reviews of its zoning..

Q. P.

Q. P.

Who would benefit?

All Medfield residents would benefit by a periodic examination of whether the zoning we have in place is what we really want, since our zoning bylaws are the structure by which we define

how we want Medfield to look and what we want it to become. Medfield will be defined by the zoning choices we make, the uses we permit and the densities we allow. One can be sure that if the town does not periodically re-examine its zoning by-laws to verify their desirability and appropriateness, that developers are scouring those very same by-laws to see just how many new housing units they can put on each existing Medfield lot. Medfield is bound to see demands for increasing density on its existing lots as time goes forward, however, with planning we can make sure that any STAFF PHOTO BY ERIN PRAWOKO such new units fit in with our colSelectman Chairman Osler “Pete” lective judgment on just how Peterson. dense we want our town to become. It was partially to elimi- has mostly been used, we can exnate the risk of dense 40B hous- pect to see increasingly greater ing, that currently can be sited density of use of our existing lots, anywhere in town regardless of our just as has occurred in our more zoning (such as the 119 units pro- urban neighboring towns, with posed for West Street), that the se- single family homes becoming 2lectmen agreed to a 440 unit de- families or more. In response, velopment at the Medfield State Medfield needs to plan, and as a Hospital site. town, jointly make the decisions about just how dense we want our Why is this the best ap- housing to become. proach? Medfield should be proacWhat should the next step tively examining and decidbe? ing whether it has in place what it The Planning Board is the needs and wants in order to have appropriate town board to the type of community that we start an examination of our zonfeel it should be. Most zoning has ing. However, for such an effort been a dynamic response to the to succeed, it requires all of us to changing historic realities and seriously educate ourselves as to economics of our town. In 1938 what is best for our neighbors and when Medfield adopted zoning, our town. We cannot merely there was no likelihood that the vote down future proposed zonsort of developments we are now ing protections, as we did in 2001, seeing would have been construct- sacrificing reasonable protections ed. There was no demand for against density for our neighbors such densities, when Medfield had in favor of our separate, individual so much undeveloped land. Now right to construct McMansion as the developable Medfield land sized additions.

Q. P.

Q. P.