Residents Hear Details Of Westford's Last Step to Becoming "Green Community"

In a presentation at the J.V. Fletcher Library last week, residents were told about an upcoming warrant article that would allow the town to get grant money, but require more stringent zoning regulations regarding energy use.

Westford building commissioner Matt Hakala
Westford building commissioner Matt Hakala

At Town Meeting in October, Westford voters will decide on whether they want to take the last step in becoming a “Green Community.” On Thursday, they learned what exactly that step will entail.

Town officials and members of the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) were on hand to answer questions about the “Stretch Code” one of the five criteria required to be designated as a Green Community by the state, which would open up approximately $130,000 in base grants and possible additional grants from the state government for the town to pursue energy efficiency projects.

According to the presentation, approximately 110 communities across the have met the five criteria to become Green Communities under state law, with approximately 130 adopting the stretch code provision, which requires towns to enact building code regulations more environmentally stringent than baseline state requirements.

Nearby, all of Westford’s neighboring towns so far have adopted the current stretch code except for Groton, with Acton obtaining funding thanks to the Green Communities designation for cost saving retrofits in town buildings and an HVAC energy analysis at town hall.

While some towns have voted down adoption of the stretch code according to DOER spokesperson Joanne Bissetta , to her knowledge no town has voted to rescind the law once enacted.

With the stretch code becoming more stringent every three years due to evolving building codes, Bissetta told the audience that if passed, updated stretch codes would be automatically adopted by the town unless specifically prohibited by voters.

If passed by Town Meeting voters, a six month concurrency period would begin on January 1, with the stretch code becoming town bylaw on July 1, 2014.

Town building inspector Matt Hakala told those in attendance that the new bylaw would not add much to his workload, but also stressed to the crowd that if it was not passed at Town Meeting, the stretch code requirements might change before being approved by voters, and that the current stretch code could potentially become the future baseline code: mandating Westford follow the more stringent current stretch code guidelines without access to state grant money.

Presenters also indicated that the new building code requirements, which would only apply to new construction, renovations and new additions to homes and new construction and additions to commercial properties, would result in significant savings and incentives from companies like National Grid for most properties following initial additional investments.

Although there was not much discussion from members of the audience, resident George Murray was skeptical as to why a state law had to be made encouraging towns to set their building code policies to stretch code levels given claims of economic benefits

“The numbers are pretty convincing. If this is such a great idea, why does it take legislation to accomplish it?,” said Murray. “Why not just tell people they’d save so much money and have them do it on their own?”

To that question, presenters said that was that initial investment costs scared many homeowners from making the move to improvements like more energy efficient windows, with other presenters saying the pushback to stretch codes are nearly non-existent from commercial developers.

According to Assistant Town Manager John Mangiaratti, the town has already achieved or is in the process of the other four criteria for meeting the Green Communities designation.

More information on the stretch code proposal and law surrounding DOER’s Green Communities law is available on the town website.



Alex Finnegan September 24, 2013 at 05:09 PM
I've worked on LEED Projects before quite extensively and they come with their good and their bad. The good: Money, free money from the Govt for being "green." The bad: You are told what you must do in order to get those funds...makes sense. But they keep upping the codes/restrictions/requirements so that if you no longer adopt or follow them, the money dries up for you. Now you are stuck with a waterless urinal that costs a lot to upkeep, doesn't save that much water in the end, and smells all the time. We would need to see what stipulations are within and how it affects zoning and building. It could be useful if there were a project in the immediate future that the town needed accomplished (this is what we did with the company I consulted with, we got in, got the funds, and got out. No more money, but they built a heck of a building for a couple million) But once they have you, they have you. If you want to keep the revenue flowing you'll do what they say...but as they learn who knows if what they say will be a bad idea or a good idea. From what I've seen the requirements are ill thought out, knee-jerk moves to try to save energy/carbon etc. The long term studies to back up the products used and methods don't go back far enough to be believable. It could be good, it could be bad. If it's the "last" step to becoming "green" than the town has already taken measures to get set up for funding anyway. My question is: Since things are so dire for the town anyway, I mean on the cusp of financial ruin, how can the town afford not to do this? It must be done...to afford layoffs....right? "We are broke" is all I keep hearing. How could we afford not to?
Wayne Bruce September 24, 2013 at 05:12 PM
Hey Dan, you make a great point: If people already see the value of doing something that's in their own interests, then why make it a requirement? That worked really well with immunizations, right? It worked great with smoke detectors, right? Uh, no. It didn't. And re: costs, maybe you should actually read the stretch codes before commenting? Maybe the FAQ, at the very least?
Alex Finnegan September 24, 2013 at 05:17 PM
Steven, Wayne has you on the permit/building cost funds. Incentives are to be energy efficient. The thought that those are somehow going to dramatically reverse doesn't make sense. If they have enough people doing it there just won't be an incentive anymore. It's what people do nowadays anyway. Dual flush toilets, high efficiency boilers etc. I understand your point about the state keeping watch over our purse, but at this point I trust the state more than the town....not kidding.
Steven Sadowski September 24, 2013 at 08:41 PM
Alex & Wayne: I just got a new tankless hot water tank and a new furnace vis a vis the Masssave program, 7 year interest free loan. I got them because the furnace that came w/the house was only 72% efficient and the water tank was about to go. I got it because it made sense for us and our budget NOT because the govt. told me to. People have to make their own decisions based upon what makes the best sense to their family not because the govt. forces them to put in efficient bulbs, trickling toilets and whatever they come with next to save the ice caps, which are actually doing just fine. This green agenda is just that: an agenda. Maybe you all can't see it but I guarantee it has very little to do with carbon footprints and everything to do with control and redistribution of money.
Wayne Bruce September 24, 2013 at 11:03 PM
Oh, come on, Steven. You complain about the town requiring new construction to use commonly accepted standards of efficiency as a state overreach, yet you have no problem accepting state-subsidized deals on your energy saving appliances. Do you not see the hypocrisy there? Wait, you obviously don't because you wouldn't have mentioned it so casually. This seems to be a particular blind spot among libertarians, who whine about big government every days...until they need help from it. Prime examples: Ayn Rand and her Husband, and Freidrich Hayek -- all of whom fought passionately against government safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare, then ended up getting free medical care from the government when they needed it.
Vincent DiRico September 25, 2013 at 07:49 AM
"FREE medical care" -> ya riiight, like the ACA cancer that is eating it's way thru the USA right now ;)
Steven Sadowski September 25, 2013 at 08:05 AM
Wayne: One has no choice to belong to many of the programs that exist(ed) like soc. sec. for example. Can you opt out? Can someone opt out of paying for public school? So, nice try, but you should go back to rhetoric class. 2nd, I didn't create the Mass Save program, nor did I advocate for any of these green subsidies, or any other tax loop hole for that matter. I didn't create the 2 for 1 at Chili's either, but I'll go to save a buck. You can be sure when I make out my taxes I apply for my income tax credit, and my mortgage deduction. But this is where you go off the rails; because I am actively working on trying to get rid of all corporate subsidies, tax loop holes, bailouts and any other mechanism by which the govt. creates a bubble in the economy. And if we get our way, all of those will be gone, but until that time, I need to belong to the paradigm that currently exists and just like the peace activist has to send his tax dollars to DC to fund wars, the Catholic to fund abortions, the atheist to give churches tax free status and a thousand permutations of what you would call, "hypocrisy," I too as Libertarian, play along with what statists have wrought until I can change the system, legally.
Steven Sadowski September 25, 2013 at 09:08 AM
Moreover, the money we "get back" is OUR money. All of these programs, incentives, tax deductions are the monies we gave the govt. in the 1st place! There is no magic money tree, the govt. produces nothing. They take our money, and then decide how to give it back like little children. So you bet I'm going to get my money back, but I'd rather just treat everyone like adults and let them keep their money to decide the best way to spend it.
Chris Daley September 25, 2013 at 09:10 AM
I think green is fine, if it doesn't put people out of work. Oil heat, coal, lots of glass, brick/ stone, biomass wood pellets all inclusive w natural gas for traditional fuels/ bldg. materials here. Maybe another light for Common would ease bottleneck? Social security is not a handout; it is earned. Big government gets bigger with bigger salaries and wasteful spending/ losses, mis-managed overdrawn checkbooks.(Boston power). I don't pay town excise tax online; I help keep US Postal Service going despite their debts, or drive to Town Hall pay in person. How about Farmer's Market in a bigger setting like 4H grounds where there's more parking, room to walk? Oops no sidewalk from Common to 110, that would be green! Peace through defense. Just comments on what I'm reading.
Wayne Bruce September 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Steven, that was a well-written and thoughtful justification for hypocritically participating in a purely voluntary program that you're advocating against. Yes, you can opt out of by not applying for the subsidies. It's not like public education, sir. Reading that was like watching a contortionist play Twister. The icing on the cake is that you're not seeing the forest for the trees. You're completely missing one of the major coals of stretch codes: by changing building codes to require new construction to be energy efficient, the state can gradually close the spigot on rebates for the previously voluntary actions.
Steven Sadowski September 25, 2013 at 11:36 AM
Wayne: I'm sorry you missed classical rhetoric when they taught it in school, but your P and C statements are not congruent. Basically your logic goes something like this: (P) Taxes, regulations, programs and govt. functions are all voluntary, therefore (C) anyone who complains these things AND also benefits from them is a hypocrite. Can you see how p --> (q ^ r) is false? Anyway, maybe discrete math, or Socratic method is not your thing? How about a simple analogy to try and bridge the gap we seem to have? Let's say that when you go shopping you have a list of items to buy, A-Z. Let's make these acronyms for foods (apples, bread, cheese...) When we leave the store there's a big truck with workers and boxes. Everyone who leaves the store is forced to go up to one of these boxes and place inside all of the items from A- H. The rest one can take home. This is your groceries after taxes. The people in the trucks take the food from everyone (A-H) and decides how it's going to support society. Then one hears about a program by which you can your eggs (E) back, but since they're high in cholesterol, they only give you egg whites. Now there's going to be 2 groups of people: one group, like you, who are going be like, "Hey, this is great. the govt. is trying to help us lower our LDL, and they're "giving" us these free egg whites to boot! Isn't the govt. just swell." And the second group of people who will be like, "Yeah, but I wanted whole eggs and it's my choice what i put in my own body and how I live my life." At which point group A will ask, "Oh yeah smarty pants, did you take the "free" egg whites?" At which point group B will say, "Well yeah, I need eggs for breakfast." At which point group A calls group B a" hypocrite, even though group B works to elect politicians who would never have the trucks outside the store in the first place."
Dan D. September 25, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Let's try to establish a policy of open, clear communications on these boards. I suggest we start with voluntarily eliminating the word "Free", and replacing it with the phrase "forcing people to pay for my/their (health care, food, contraception, education, whatever)". There is no "free" there is only shifting costs to someone/something else. Don't misunderstand me, it may be a good thing to force people to pay for stuff for others, but at least be honest about it.
Wayne Bruce September 25, 2013 at 01:34 PM
Steven, again, a deft tap-dance around your original hypocritical statement: you're arguing against energy saving proposals from one side of your mouth while the other side says an enthusiastic "Yes!" to rebates from similar proposals. You can stop now.
Alex Finnegan September 25, 2013 at 02:07 PM
Steven, I didn't even try to battle my way through your last response, but we are on the same page. I was just explaining how it works. Why did you take advantage of the Masssave program though if it's idealogically bad? You said because it suits you. That's all this is. It's just if you want to keep getting money (e.g. Interest free 7 year loans, or any kind of incentive) you will have to keep up with their changes. In other words Masssave in the future might still exist but may have more stringent requirements. I took advantage of Masssave myself. For the same reasons you did. I don't agree that the "green" movement is genuinely driven. It's a new market in which companies will use the fundamentals of capitalism to manipulate markets, moods, and fact flow to make money. That is what you stand for, isn't it? That's what capitalism is. I don't care either way, IMO capitalism has it's place. But how you arrive at redistribution of wealth on this is beyond me. The whole country functions of redistribution of wealth, and has for a very long time. Redistribution of wealth is not necessarily a bad thing. It helps you out everyday, and I doubt you refuse it on principle, maybe I'm wrong, I don't know you from Adam. But from your taxes to your health insurance to your schools, fire, police, retirement, food stamps, disability, all types of insurance, it's all redistribution of wealth. Your property taxes are what they are because someone richer than you is paying a lot more, but using less. The reverse is also true. I don't understand why new adaptations of RDOW are somehow more sinister than the adaptations we already use to keep society going, why RDOW is considered "bad," nor do I even see how this program is secretly performing that objective. You can participate if you want and get the benefits, or don't participate and don't get the benefits, I don't see a problem. Fwiw I will never use those cfl bulbs. I will import them if I have to. But having incentives for people to use them, that's capitalism my friend. Passing a law against any other type of bulb? Also capitalism.
Steven Sadowski September 25, 2013 at 07:13 PM
Wayne: OK. I'll stop trying to help you keep up. Tutoring session is over. You can go back to the simplicity of your black and white world.
Steven Sadowski September 25, 2013 at 07:23 PM
Alex: Despite the 1990 ruling, I believe that sobriety checkpoints are unconstitutional. However, if I'm driving into one, if I refuse, I can be arrested. So what dies one do? Does one, stick to one's ideology and get arrested, or do you fight to have it overturned? I guess that's where we split from the Occupy crowd. I don't like subsidies. I wish the IRS were abolished at best and a flat tax implemented at worst. But in the meantime, the govt. has my tax money, and they have setup all kinds of hoops that we have to jump through to get it back. So I'm getting my money back. I don't like doing it this way, I'd rather just keep it and spend it how I like, but survival is survival, I guess. This new green incentive is just another layer of redistribution to me. So while you don't see it as being intrusive, or even "new,' I see it as one degree more removed from our freedom to choose how we spend our money and live our lives.
Andrew Sylvia (Editor) September 25, 2013 at 10:17 PM
One error on my part, the stretch code is a building code issue, not a zoning issue, the zoning bylaws are a separate set of bylaws from the general bylaws.
Alex Finnegan September 25, 2013 at 10:37 PM
So why did you take advantage of it? I noticed your chilis reference above. But you don't have to go to chilis, you didn't have to use Masssave. You could be self employed and pay all of your social security (like I do). If it was that important to you be you work at a small enough company they will let you reimburse their 6.2% towards your SS. Pretty sure any company you asked for a 6.2% of your gross wage decrease the company would be happy to apply. Are you going to do that? It's redistribution of wealth. That 6.2% of YOUR SS deposits isn't your money's it's your employers. That's RDOW. Look at your SS contributions (and Medicare while your at it.) (FICA and Medicare) and ask that be deducted from your wages each paycheck. It's a very a simple thing for your employer to do. But are you really going to do that? Do believe that strongly that RDOW is wrong. As for keeping your money and spending how you want, in the above example, you owe your employer 7.65% of your gross wages, so it's not your money, it's your employers. You owe them. You didn't really explain HOW this green things is RDOW which you reiterated again nor why you participated in it when it was not necessary. MassAve is not mandated, if it's RDOW, SS aside, MassAve would have been easy to avoid, but you didn't? Maybe that is what you mean that you didn't setup the system, you just use it as life necessitates. Ok. Just wondering, no more questions. But there are instances where if you really wanted to take stand you could, but I think your argument is that the system is setup so fubar already that you have to to make ends meet. I think all of us, on whatever end of the political spectrum are doing the same things, just about different issues.
Steven Sadowski September 26, 2013 at 08:09 AM
Alex: C'mon man. This is not hard to follow. The govt. takes our money at a variety of places: sales tax, property tax, ss (and 'yes' the employer holds that but pays payroll tax) and all the other taxes, fees, and tolls. In return for this money, the govt. gives us services, but they are doing it with our money. If you went to a store and they charge you $10, you better walk out with $10 of stuff, but at least the store was a voluntary action. You have no choice but to pay the above taxes/fees/tolls---well you do but you'll end up in jail. The Masssave program is my money, your money, even Wayne's money. You have a right to your money. Now maybe you don't need a heater/boiler, just like I don't need food stamps, or a tax break on RnD, but that still doesn't change the fact that all of this is happening with my/yours/our money. And this is why I fight to eliminate the aforementioned plus, because the money taken is not being doled out for a common good in most cases. In most cases, it is being doled out to selective groups, for specific needs and therefore is redistribution. Again, I don't see the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be me saying, "All these welfare bums need to go out and get a job and earn their living," all the while being on unemployment, or food stamps. Or wanting the rich to "pay their fair share" while my yacht is docked in RI to avoid the excise taxes. Or environmentalists wanting green energy just as long as the wind farm isn;'t blocking my view off of Nantucket. But believing abortion is a sin and paying your taxes even though you know a portion goes to Planned Parenthood, or being a pacifist and paying your taxes even though a portion of it goes to defense is NOT hypocrisy. And being a Libertarian and believing that the govt. should not be in the energy business and saving $2,000 on a $13,000 job through a program created with my own money is not hypocrisy.
Wayne Bruce September 26, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Steven, so a government program to promote a common good -- energy efficiency -- is a statist over-reach and redistribution right up until the time when YOU need it, when it then is magically transformed into a reasonable use of your own money. Got it.
Steven Sadowski September 26, 2013 at 12:10 PM
Wayen: I thought you were done? I guess not. I still see you still can't comprehend complex issues however. How good for you everything is in its nice neat little box. I'll give it one more try. If you can't get it after this, there's no hope for you. You can go on thinking whatever it is you think. Right now, Obamacare is about to go fully online. There are many people (not all right wingers BTW) who hate Obamacare. Now, if one of these opponents to Obamacare loses their insurance at their job and can't afford health insurance out of pocket (probably due to Obamacare), and they sign up for one of the exchanges, does this make them a hypocrite? In other words, when a Dem is prez. is every Repub. a hypocrite, and when a Repub is prez. is every Dem a hypocrite since they both respectively still use the system? According to you, that seems to be the case. I didn't invent the tax code, OK? I don't like having to give my money to the govt., have them waste it, spend it on things I don't like, and then I have to get an accountant to get every cent back as much as I can. I don't like it this way, but this is the statist system given to me by the Republocrats over the decades. I have no choice in paying taxes, I must belong/comply to the tax code else I end up in jail. Now Alex says that I should set money aside myself and do this tax over here and set aside that tax over there, and if everyone did that respective their objections to the govt.'s actions we'd have thousands of cases in court. But the Founding Fathers thought of a better way, which is to vote, which is what I do as well as volunteer on committee here in town. I am trying to change the statist system, but I am one man in a 3rd party. Lastly, what you seem to be mistaking is that I don't think conservation or energy efficiency is bad. I want vehicles that get better gas mileage, I want to have an energy efficient house, I like clean water and clean air. So I can understand your point if I was on here saying, "Energy efficiency is a bunch of bunk, who would ever do that to their home?" Then "YES" that would hypocritical. But I'm disagreeing with HOW efficiency is being delivered, not with the WHAT of it. That is the point of the article right? I know we got off track a little, but I think I've been consistent in calling out the means by which this will be bad for the town, and freedom. But I like efficiency. If the govt. was efficient that would be good right?
Wayne Bruce September 26, 2013 at 01:00 PM
Steve: Each long-winded attempt at justification is more inventive than the last, but none explain away the salient point: You are against "statist redistribution schemes" until they benefit you, then you see no problem in reaping the benefits of policies you claim to be against. It's the same convoluted reasoning that Ayn Rand used to rail against Medicare and Social Security -- until she needed it, and then claimed a moral right to it. The issue isn't energy efficiency because no one compelled you to accept state benefits. You were under no duress to fill out paperwork and get rebates from a "statist redistribution scheme." There was no penalty for refusing to participate in a purely voluntary program that, still, you complain about. Yet, here you are. Your convictions are apparently as weak as your arguments, Steven.
Vincent DiRico September 26, 2013 at 01:06 PM
"purely voluntary program" paid with confiscated $s, I am SURE you do not see that. POW BAM SPLAT
Wayne Bruce September 26, 2013 at 01:19 PM
Vinnie, the grownups are talking in this room. Please play nicely downstairs.
Sam September 26, 2013 at 01:21 PM
How is recovering your money the government confiscated reaping a benefit?
Steven Sadowski September 26, 2013 at 04:12 PM
Wayne: Sorry for all the words. Hope they didn't confuse you. I will refute your post now: Taxes are not voluntary so my participation in the tax code is also not voluntary. Your entire argument is broken. Pithy enough for you? Good night.
Vincent DiRico September 26, 2013 at 05:12 PM
hey Steve, after that very hurtful put down I took a step back, thought and thought and thought, now I know what his main point is: energy efficiency is a right! pow bam splat ;)
Steven Sadowski September 26, 2013 at 05:24 PM
Vincent: I like energy efficiency. I think energy efficient windows and new furnaces are great. Saves money right? The problem is when 1.) the govt. takes your money and then says if you want it back, you have to buy THIS window, or THIS furnace. So if we want our money back, we have to jump through their hoops. That's not freedom, choice or even Constitutional in my opinion. And 2. Extrapolate this to an entire town and hence the problem with this agenda. I can just see what's in store for the town around the corner.
Alex Finnegan September 26, 2013 at 06:35 PM
Steven, on your earlier rant towards me...agreed. I never called you a hypocrite, but it was basically implied so lets run with it. What I don't get you is that you are pro-capitalist yet some of the very most very basic components of it you seem to have a problem with. You are free to buy any furnace you want. Incentives are offered for a purpose. Thats all part of capitalism, an integral part. Supply and demand is understood by most but what is not understood by many (because it isn't really taught unless you are in finance) is in the middle, there is a little manipulation button to alter demand. Incentives, lower interest rates, price cuts, rebates etc. Mechanically, those are just demand modifyers. That's capitalism. So is it that you just don't like capitalism when it's the Govt/taxes? Funny thing about "Capitalism" is that it's driving force is currency accumulation...making dollars. Money in many ways is like drugs. Often people will do underhanded things to get more of it, flat out steal it, lie to get it, borrow money and not pay it back (AKA The whole meltdown from a couple years ago) Money is one of the most powerful things in the world, and coporations, companies, and people will do a lot of things to make sure they get it. Large corporations lobby for huge tax loopholes, the loophole Mitt Romney uses for taxes on equity, legal, but definitely not moral or ethical. The uber rich paying some of the lowest tax rates ever. And EVERY uber rich person I know, says they would be glad to pay higher taxes on those upper millions if they knew it would go to a good cause. I digress, but these are all mechanisms created by capitalism itself, the desire to make more money. So how can you think capitalism is infallible (maybe a strong word but you know what I mean) when all these other injustices are going on because of it, but "green energy" being bogus aside, the Govt. provides an incentive to use less energy and it's unethical? What about the Cash for Clunkers program, or the FHA loans that put people in houses who normally could not afford to buy one. That's all capitalism. I just don't see where it is "supreme" in your eyes and where it divorces into immorality. Where is that point for you?
Steven Sadowski September 26, 2013 at 09:46 PM
Alex: I'll try to answer this...if I understand your questions correctly... The difference for me between the private market giving an incentive, like a BOGO, and the govt. waiving property taxes to lure a corporation into a town for example--or more germane, rebates for new furnaces for environmental reasons, is that when corporations do it, the money they eat is coming from a marketing and sales budget that comes from the gross total of revenue they earn. If the incentive fails, or if it's improperly weighted to the detriment of the company, or many other unfortunate factors, the shareholders and employees shoulder the burden. The economy as whole does not suffer, and in a sense, economic Darwinism is allowed to purge the gene pool (this presupposes the corporation is not getting tax write offs, or loopholes, but later on that.). When the govt. does it, not only is it doing it with money it derives from the people---so in a sense they are just giving it back to a select group with select parameters--it distorts the market, which creates a bubble that will eventually burst causing far more pain then the incentive ever staved. Take my new tankless hot water tank---the Rennai. Now Rennai makes a damned good tank, but because it's one of the few that meets the maximum rebate (>98.9%) Rennai has to keep up demand for all the people taking advantage of the incentive. Now Rennai starts to hire extra workers, their stock (if any) rises, maybe it's a union shop, and a whole host of interconnected variables enter the market place. Now when the govt. ends the program, all of a sudden Rennai isn't selling C(x) units anymore, the unions won't concede, stock falls, and they move to Mexico and everyone wonders why we don't build things here anymore. Anyway, long way about, but i think you get my vital difference. Now as for Mittens and Swiss bank accounts and Kerry's yacht, etc. these tax loop holes are replete throughout the code, because the code is so advantageous, lobbyists are flooding DC, it corrupts our system, gives major corporations welfare, gives billionaires different tax rates, and on and on. This is crony capitalism, not true capitalism. We don't have true capitalism here. Ever since Wilson created the Fed, the IRS and got us into WWI we haven't had capitalism. Nixon getting us off gold was the final nail in the coffin.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something