Media partner

Site stats: December traffic (record) | Patch: Town updates | Cambridge Day: News >> 

Your View (site blog, not mine personally)

Your View is the place for opinion at It is the site's only blog. Please submit your opinions to be considered for publication on this site. The best opinions are those supported by facts. You cannot expect to be published if your views lack factual support or if you make personal attacks. For your views to be published, your full, real name is required.
29 minutes reading time (5885 words)

These residents oppose sanctuary resolution

The following letters to the Board of Selectmen or Town Manager Adam Chapdelaine express opposition to the proposal to make Arlington a sanctuary town or "Trust Act" community. They are included in documents in the board's Feb. 27 agenda and thus are public records. The body of each letter is published as written. These comments represent the first extensively documented public expression of opposition to this issue:

Lori Talanian, Feb. 1:

The topic of becoming a sanctuary city is a delicate one. I have personally experienced how giving the people of Arlington are and it makes perfect sense that we as a community would want to support becoming a Sanctuary City- Arlington cares.

However, given the current political landscape, I fear we are making this decision to swiftly because of politics. It feels like we are reacting to what many view as an irrational President. I did not vote for the current President, but I do feel strongly that a well thought out plan is always better than a swift decision. I for one would like to know what our plan is. These are some of my thoughts, concerns and questions I have:

• Arlington is not like Boston and Somerville, we do not have the commercial tax base to support any potential reduction in federal money like a large city might have.

• What services do you plan on cutting to offset the loss of the federal money? What will the impact be to our residence?

• Is the federal money that may be withheld from the government in anyway based on the amount of taxes we paid into the government last year and is that money legally owed back to us for 2016, as we were not a sanctuary city?
• What will our expense per illegal immigrant be for food, accommodations, schooling, medical and added resources such as police, fire and social workers?

• Haste crime rate gone up in cities that are safe havens for illegal immigrants? If the answer is yes, is Arlington prepared for this?

• Do we have the ability to set the number of immigrants we can take in and can we have a vetting process to omit illegal immigrants that have committed a crime?

• Are we taking it upon ourselves to decide which federal laws we will obey and enforce and will that encourage various divisions growing within our country with disrespect for authority?

This is a very unsettling time and I am not sure what the correct action to take is - but my gut says proceed with caution, make sure the decision you make is fiscally responsible, if we can't manage this without asking the citizens of Arlington to increase their taxes -we shouldn't do this- because many citizens of Arlington feel that becoming a sanctuary city is a direct action against our current law and forcing funding through taxes is not an option.\

Rita Supprise, Feb. 23:

I must admit I was amazed and disappointed to find that officials elected to serve the residents of Arlington would take a move to make Arlington a sanctuary town and ignore the law, and disrespect The Constitution of the United States.

Let me say out loud what is on my mind. The Boston Marathon bombing, not that long ago. The Pulse Club massacre, certainly an inclusive community. The San Bernardino office slaughter, by two enemies of the people treated inclusively, and yet bent on murder and mayhem on those who befriended them.

There was a beheading in Oklahoma of a woman at her desk in work. We have Nice, Paris, London, Brussels, the Cole, 2 African embassies, the first attack on the Twin Towers and then of course the murder of thousands on 9/11/2001. I can go on and on and on.

Remember Kathyrn Steinle of San Francisco, killed by an illegal alien, at age 32 while walking with her father on a pier.

Just recently, two people were killed in Denver by illegal aliens. One, a young woman, was struck and dragged to her death. Does that sound familiar? It happened here in Mass. to Mathew Denice, age 32.

Go President Trump with all you promised, and yes, Sweden is on fire.

Dana Hyland, Feb. 7:

I reject the need for Arlington to designate itself a Sanctuary Town. You are putting the town at risk for losing federal funding that the town may receive. Why would you want to test these waters and put our community at risk?

The executive order put out by our president indicates what the police are already doing in Arlington: if a criminal, illegal person is arrested, the police have the obligation to let federal officials of ICE know about it. If they are already doing this, why do you make it seem like we need this special designation that could put our community at risk?

This is a highly politicized move. Would you consider changing the language of the proposal? Could you call it something other than "Sanctuary Town?" That way, you could still express care for Arlington residents arid not tie it into the Sanctuary City political struggle right now.

President Trump won this election. He is our president. We need to work together. If you, as leaders of this town make this choice, you will risk the well-being of this community in a way. It is selfish, unnecessary, and foolish.

The politically-correct agenda has gone too far. "Progressive" politicians and their copious media outlets are pushing this agenda to the edge and promoting fear and divisiveness. Your efforts may do the same, in my opinion.

I DO have concerns about losing federal funding. It matters to me. This is a fight that you will start, and we don't need more fighting. We need togetherness as a nation. I'm willing to be a part of Arlington community-building, let people know that there is love and unity here.

Maybe the Selectmen could organize something around that? Not this measure. I work in Cambridge, and that city and all of us who live or work there are in for a rude awakening if the city doesn't comply with federal law. Please don't put Arlington in such a position.

Frances Saunders, Feb. 6:

I've been a lifelong resident of Arlington (74 year old veteran) and feel it is unsafe to have people here in town that have no legal status. I oppose the Board of Selectmen vote of sanctuary town because these people have no legal documentation. The citizens of the US pay taxes and illegal citizens put a burden on how tax revenue is spent. In Arlington this money should be spent on the public schools and elder care services. Again, I feel this is a very unsafe practice and understand Boston is a sanctuary city, where there are more recourses and feel they can handle this status better than the Town of Arlington.

Marian DeCamp, Feb. 2:

This issue should be voted on in a Special Election by the voters in Arlington. If Arlington police de facto are already not asking whether or not someone is here illegally, then why on earth do this, putting federal funds at risk. ALSO, Illegal Gangs bring in drugs, ruing our kids. Can we have a Special Election on this?

Marian DeCamp, Feb. 27:

Since Illegal gangs are bringing in deadly drugs into this country, and our kids in this Commonwealth as well as the country are dying every day, why must Arlington become a haven for these gangs? Where is the compassion for families whose kids have died from overdoses? Why isn't this question be on the ballot and voted on by Arlington voters? How do we make that happen?

Phil McLaine, Feb. 1:

It is with great concern I have learned that town management is considering becoming a so called "sanctuary" entity by declaring it official policy to not comply with the laws of our country. This disturbs me for the dangerous precedent it sets and the costs it will bring to our community. The basic idea of helping people in need is a noble one but not when it comes at the expense of destroying respect for laws that provide for good order in governance and the safety of the people.

We are coming quick upon 20 years of the new millennium and the times have been tumultuous. During this period the example set by government has been dismal. One unnecessary war, bailing out businesses that made bad decisions jeopardizing our economy, the use of government agencies for political purpose, infringing on the rights of the law abiding to account for the actions of criminals, government spying upon citizens and the free press, government lying to its citizens about the effects of policy and world events, and individual officials skirting public law to avoid transparency. It is unknown how many generations it will require to pay for the damage our leaders have wrought in this still young century.

The bad example of our leaders is filtering down to smaller communities such as ours and it is only reasonable to expect that individuals see this and come to the conclusion why should they live within the law when those seen in the news everyday face no repercussions for their unlawful actions. There is false security in that. The corrosive result of the "too big to fail" concept is that the electorate must hold leaders to account through the electoral process rather than the legal system. We remove leaders from office when their policies and actions displease us.
As members of small government or individuals we do not enjoy similar protections and law is applied not with concerns for good intentions but with regard to whether or not there is compliance. That is the way it should be for all and I think it important that Arlington as a community respect the law rather than unilaterally declare it will not comply.

I question the justice of the town administration to disregard law in my name. By making a blanket resolution, as a resident, I become associated and considered approving of the action when I am not in agreement. My tax remittances will be used to cover the penalties and costs of a policy I strongly oppose. A peaceful transfer of power at the national level occurred just over a week ago and it is shameful that part of the population is opposing the process with disruption, destruction and obstructionism. I understand the pain felt by those on the other side. I've experienced the feelings of having my vote not result in a successful candidate but J carried on and worked toward getting my candidate elected at the next opportunity. I didn't block public ways, disrupt transportation and inconvenience people during their work or commute, I didn't burn valuable property or destroy business or private property. The scenes we see today are disturbing and they seed directly from actions such as Arlington wishing to declare its unwillingness to follow the law. Our children see this and it portends that the future will be more trying than the awful 17 years of this new millennium.

I have read some discussion promoting the reasons for adopting a "sanctuary" resolution. I noted the dark observations one person made regarding the town in which he envisions "nail shops" that traffic in the sex trade or indentured servitude. He insinuates that other town businesses are run in such manner as to take advantage of the disadvantaged whose concerns for their safety are used as levers of abuse. I read this and then contrasted it with my 40 plus years of Arlington residence. I enjoy the presence of the local shop keepers and my neighbors.
I see their philanthropy and their fair treatment of their customers and employees. I wonder where this dark underbelly of Arlington exists that is hidden from my view. I also question that if these horrors exist why have we let our government and police fail us? If these unlawful things are so prevalent it is being proposed that we break more law to make it right? Why are we not holding our government accountable? These shop keepers being slandered are not only local businesspeople providing necessary goods, services and tax revenues, they are often our neighbors we invite over for a BBQ or cold adult beverage on a hot summer evening. Arlington, and this entire country, is comprised of compassionate people. I reject the idea that by complying with laws that ensure the good order and safety of the public it will result in abuses of those people that for whatever reason are unable to comply with those same laws.

At the root Arlington must determine why it is embarking on this road. The laws that the town wishes to ignore have been on the books since the Truman administration. They are the same laws that were in place when my Pierce School classmate, Omeed, was sent back to his homeland Iran by President Carter. They are the same laws that President Obama enforced during his first term in office. It is similar policy to that President Obama implemented when he closed the door upon Cuban refugees throughout the Caribbean and Central America a mere two weeks ago. What has changed that Arlington now decides to take this action but was okay with the status quo previously?
Do we as a free people really want to have biased political ideology replace the fair application of blind justice. If you don't see the danger in following politics over law and common courtesy just ask former Senator Harry Reid how much he wishes he had not invoked the "nuclear option" in disregard for established rules and regulations in Congress now that those rule changes will be used against his former colleagues.

The disregard of law is not the work of those in public office who have been tasked by the citizens with ensuring good order. If people have such strong compassion that they desire to skirt public policy than let them do it individually. The individual should be able to decide their own level of support in this matter and they should be willing to bear the costs of housing, board and security. My immigrant parents were required to have such assistance under the sponsorship requirement when they legally entered the United States. I'm sure 99% of the Good Samaritan sponsors will be rewarded with the experience of meeting great hard working people and the general population will not have to fund or suffer the fiscal and societal costs, that will come with adopting "sanctuary" status.

For the fraction of a percent of the sponsors that might suffer the experience of harboring a person that intends to commit crimes and harm to the public than they will bear the responsibility for their actions and they can assume the consequences. That risk should not be forced upon all the residents of the town in order to give a false sense that no one is responsible should there be a bad outcome. Though the risk is remote, either as an individual safe harbor sponsor or as a collective "sanctuary", someone is going to responsible for not following the law.

Has it been considered at what point and what causes a segment of society can consider itself "sanctuary" from law because of a political difference? What would be absurd about a Precinct claiming itself to be outside the scope of a tax over ride because they disagree with the expenditure? Would the same people proposing that Arlington declare "sanctuary" status respect the will of a Precinct to refuse a tax burden? This is the current nature of our hyper politicized community that picks and chooses law it decides to follow. Arlington is not the first to consider cherry picking law, the bad example has been set by our National leaders. We should strive to do better.

I remember a time when I didn't wake up and wonder what directive or outrage was coming along that would effect my life and the future of my children. Instead of government being something that runs unseen and without thought behind the scenes, providing services and security, it is becoming a daily burden in life that effects people mentally, fiscally and physically. Instead of being a creation of the people to better their lives it is becoming the Leviathan that divides us and dampens our spirit. Instead of ignoring law that we may disagree with, it is right for us as master of government to change law through existing lawful process. Instead of fighting with each other over differences in our beliefs it would be better to come together over those things we agree upon and enact laws that provide for the common good taking into account the concerns of the entire community. Ignoring the view point of one side or the other is the road we have been on for too long now and as it continues the rhetoric is turning to action, often times unproductive, disruptive or violent. Action is going to further entrench both sides until a time will come where mutual respect will be lost. In order to prevent that it is important that at this time Arlington takes the lead in demonstrating respect for the law rather than be the bad example that legitimizes the dangerous idea that law breaking is the way to get what you want in society.

Janine DiTore, Jan. 31:

I would like to add my voice to those who believe designating Arlington as a sanctuary city is a bad idea. While I agree with the sentiment behind the proposal, I feel our town is not in the financial position to jeopardize over $5M in federal aid.
I have lived in Arlington for over 25 years, first as a single person in a condo and now as a widow in a 1300 square foot cape I share with my two daughters. Since my husband and I purchased this house 6 years ago my taxes have increased over $1500 per year and are now $6000 annually. Should Arlington become a sanctuary city, and President Trump withhold the federal money we have come to rely on, my taxes would surely be raised again. Quite frankly I don't have it. And there is another debt exclusion looming in a year or two for much needed repairs to the high school. I believe asking for more money now could jeopardize the success of getting that debt exclusion passed.
The Sanctuary City is a nice idea but it is purely symbolic. Police chief Ryan has stated his department will not change its policing policies as it already polices as if were a sanctuary city.
I urge you to reject this proposal as a potential waste of taxpayer dollars.

Rich Lee, Jan. 31:

Thank you for all that you have done for Arlington.
I wish to let you know that I oppose making Arlington a Sanctuary Town. I do not like many of our President's policies and I did not vote for him. However, I do not feel that it is the duty of our local government to demonstrate our opposition to his policies regarding illegal immigrants.

Lisa Kelley, Jan. 31:

I am a lifelong resident of Arlington, MA. I am a law abiding, tax paying citizen, mother of three, part business owner, community and religious volunteer in our Town.
I am writing to address the recent media attention regarding Arlington, MA becoming a Sanctuary Town. (herein referred to as a Sanctuary City).

My first question is, just as Trump is cutting funding for Sanctuary Cities, the Town of Arlington, MA is simultaneously requesting to become one? It is confusing to me why anyone at the Town level would put forth a concept that would put our overtaxed, financially stressed town in further peril by losing federal funding?

It does appear that the timing of this idea is more 'in spite' of President's Trump cutting of these funds; a knee jerk, retributive response that rides the Anti-Trump wave of protest one way, shape or form. With that said, I do also realize and appreciate that the idea seems to stem from a sense of moral obligation; goodness and decency. (something I live by and preach each day)
But the first moral obligation of any elected official is to its law abiding, tax paying citizens.

And again, given our Town's current tax burden and state of affairs the idea lacks both reason and common sense. As we all know, Sanctuary Cities do exist to accommodate the needs of illegal immigrants. Ideally, these safe havens should be spread logistically throughout geographic regions and counties in our State to maximize their benefit.

With Somerville and Boston mere miles away, there should be no need for another Sanctuary City in such close range and proximity - including Arlington, MA.
Lastly, my hope is that Towns like Arlington and its community members and volunteers become more engaged and involved in the process of finding ways to help immigrants work through the legal process of gaining full U. S. Citizenship; in effort to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Thank you for your time. My contact information is below. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter at any time.

Elizabeth Cammarata, Jan. 31:

Please reconsider your decision to support making Arlington a sanctuary town or "Trust Act" community. This is an unnecessary decision by the Board that unnecessarily harms our Town's financial and legal situation for the following reasons.

• Arlington will lose federal funding.

o Arlington received over $6 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2016. Almost all of this funding went to the school system and low to moderate income residents in town.

o How will the Town recover financially from this federal funding?
o Will the school budget be cut or will Town services be cut?

o Or will our taxes be raised?

• Resulting budget would cause higher taxes/fees and/or service cuts.
• Town's credit rating can be negatively impacted. This would affect Arlington's funding of future activities.
• Police Chief Ryan said this status is not necessary.

Why declare sanctuary status and lose federal money if it will not change how the police already do their job? Is this a political statement that overlooks the best interests of the Town?
Please reconsider your support of making Arlington a Sanctuary Town. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response.

Eileen and Joe Cahill, Jan. 31:

Please reconsider your decision to support making Arlington a sanctuary town or "Trust Act" community.
This is an unnecessary decision by the Board that unnecessarily harms our Town's financial and legal situation for the following reasons.

-- Arlington will lose federal funding.

o Arlington received over $6 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2016. Almost all of this funding went to the school system and low to moderate income residents in town.
o How will the Town recover financially from this federal funding?
o Will the school budget be cut or will Town services be cut?
o Or will our taxes be raised?

-- Resulting budget would cause higher taxes/fees and/or service cuts.
-- Town's credit rating can be negatively impacted. This would affect Arlington's funding of future activities.
-- Police Chief Ryan said this status is not necessary.

Why declare sanctuary status and lose federal money if it will not change how the police already do their job? Is this a political statement that overlooks the best interests of the Town?
Please reconsider your support of making Arlington a Sanctuary Town. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response.

Christine Kerble, Jan. 30:

Dear Mr. Dunn,

I read your response to my husband's email about sanctuary status. I can honestly say I wish I hadn't. I am deeply disturbed and angered by your response.

While I understand your desire to turn a simple legal issue into a moral one, as you did when declaring that the legal designation of Arlington as a sanctuary city is one of "what is right or wrong", really what skills and experience do you have to make these decisions for all of us?

I look to religious leaders for deciding what is right or wrong. Arlington's Selectmen are elected to carry out ("execute") the laws and bylaws of the town, Massachusetts and the Federal government in reverse order, not to decide what is the moral obligations of residents.

Deciding on a legal designation as a sanctuary city is not a moral question but defiance of a federal authority. So I ask you again, in all honesty. What experience and skills do you bring to a moral discussion of what is right and what is wrong? You do not know with 100% accuracy what the actual loss of federal funds will be so please do not provide numbers you are estimating to the tax payers. Even if the loss, is as you predict, that is still a significant amount. 3% of our income is not money we can afford to lose. Taxpayers in this town are already paying to much and getting to little, they can not afford to pay more. We are all concerned with the people you have described in your letter. I am however, also concerned with my child going to a safe school that will not fall down around him. Or school so overcrowded he is missing out on a fair education.

Your reference to not losing school funding may be accurate but funds will have to be reallocated to cover the money we lost. You are not at all concerned with the tax paying citizens and taking their opinions into account. You clearly have decided your only Concern is for one group, you made that perfectly clear by your response. Thank you also for allowing us to share your response. The response has helped me educate many of the tax paying residents that you don't feel losing millions of dollars is that significant.

DC & Sharon Seward, Feb. 1:

The town meeting member, Mr. Joe Kerble, forwarded us the response letter Selectman Dan Dunn wrote in response to Joe's concerns about Arlington becoming a sanctuary town. As residents, we would like to offer our thoughts as well. We don't agree with the opinion that Arlington should become a sanctuary town.

First of all, the town of Arlington is and always has been an inclusive community, to all its LEGAL residents. Sharon is a Chinese native, and we have been living in this town for the past 17 years. We can say with first-hand experience and full confidence that Arlington is a friendly, racial-blind, sex-blind, all­ inclusive town. People who live in Arlington are the most sincere, hard-working, and genuine people. I admire and respect them. We want the best for these people, because they truly deserve it. Not being a sanctuary town doesn't make Arlington any less inclusive and diverse. However, being a sanctuary town will potentially hinder the safety and wellbeing of these wonderful people. We think you would agree with our strong sentiment towards the Arlington residents. Thank you for serving this town, for having the best interests of these people at heart!

Second, we do feel strong sympathy towards those who are or have endured hardship, may it be persecution because of gender, religion, race, or political views. Having lived under the communist regime in China, Sharon has personally experienced (fa place where the government was their enemy, and the police was threat in their life". We understand why people want to escape that situation. The U.S. has laws and legal processes in place that help and protect these people. They can apply for political asylum and become LEGAL immigrants. Sharon has worked in the federal immigration court for years as an interpreter to help these people. There are also numerous charitable organizations that provide services to these people. We are more than happy to help these legal immigrants.

Having said all that, we believe there is an important distinction here: LEGAL vs. ILLEGAL. Only because people are experiencing hard times, it doesn't mean their illegal acts can be justified. If the laws of the United States consider these people to be illegal immigrants, then these people do NOT have the legal rights to stay in this country. If the laws of the United States prevent some people from working in this country, then these people should not work in this country. We are talking about ILLEGAL immigrants. They do NOT have the same rights as the citizens of this country. They do not have the right to taxpayer's dollars, they do not have the right to share the scarce resources our schools have to educate our children, they certainly do not have the right to demand equal or even preferential treatment.

ONLY the citizens and legal residents of this country have these rights. This is a country of law and order. Without this foundation, this country will fall into chaos, anarchy or even worse, dictatorship and tyranny. We cannot ignore the law simply because it is inconvenient, "doesn't feel right" or against the popular view at the moment. We need to uphold the law under all circumstances, not pick and choose which to enforce and which to ignore. If certain law is unfair or out-of-date, these are proper procedures to amend or eradicate it. It is not up to the individual citizens or towns to make that decision.

The definition of "sanctuary town" is a town where local authorities don't try to enforce federal immigration laws or hold undocumented immigrants in jail at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). From our experience working with federal law enforcement agencies, including ICE, we can tell you that if these agencies want to hold someone in jail, they certainly have a good reason. They don't just detain people for the sake of detaining them. These people are a potential danger to our community, and you want to let them free. We have seen federal agents letting go of "women who work in indentured servitude at the nail salon, or in the sex trade" and instead go after the human traffickers who take advantage of their unfortunate circumstances. As a matter of fact, there are victim specialists at the federal agencies who offer these women federal resources, especially set up to help them. To obtain a detaining order, these agencies have to clear a very high bar at the federal court. Their requests are justified.
The town police needs to take their requests seriously and follow the same federal laws. Ignoring the requests and letting these people loose on the streets could potentially lead to serious crimes being committed. Just look at the case of Kate Steinle in San Francisco. Federal and local law enforcement are on the same side, to protect our citizens, people who reside in Arlington LEGALLY. s town selectmen, the safety and well-being of these people should be your first priority.

You are right, "this is a question of right and wrong". It is a question of priority and loyalty. It is a question of law and order. You noticed, we haven't even mentioned the possibility of losing federal funding. We agree with you, it is worth the money to do the right thing. But making Arlington a sanctuary town is NOT the right thing to do.

Finally, we question the timing of this proposal. As Police Chief Ryan stated, "The way we conduct our duties and the policies and the mission of the Arlington Police Department essentially are one in the same of a sanctuary city." So, why bring up this proposal now? We can't imagine any other motive than a cheap political stunt. At a time when the country is so deeply divided, Arlington should be working towards unity, not further dividing our residents by bringing up a controversial proposal such as this. We should be looking for common grounds, working together to strengthen our community.

Bill French Jr., Jan. 31:

I am writing this email based on my growing concern with your decision to try and make Arlington a "Sanctuary City". I am a 40 year old father of two who has lived in Arlington for 36 years. My wife Christine has lived here her entire 40 years. As a business man, I find Mr. Dunn's response to Joe Kerble's email completely short sighted. First and foremost, our focus as a town (and as a country) should be on securing a proper system for our law abiding and hard working immigrants that's specifically designed for them to receive citizenship in a reasonable time frame. Giving these folks a few cities to reside in puts them in legal limbo as a group. Is it compassionate to tell these people that they are only wanted in few cities per state?

Mr. Dunn speaks of what is right and what is wrong in his email reply, yet its you. our elected officials - who believe breaking federal law is a reasonable thing to do!? What lesson is this teaching our children? If you disagree with a law, you can just break it based on opinion? That's ridiculous!

The town of Arlington's elected officials have been chosen by the people to make sound judgments about the town and its LEGAL citizens. You were not elected to restore the "health and happiness" of people who are here illegally. Mr. Dunn makes it abundantly clear that fiscal matters are really not a concern of his/yours by stating that this decision will cost maybe "a few thousand dollars" and in worst case scenario 3% of the towns revenues. These statements have zero merit. To properly manage a town, city, or business, we must first understand our costs.

By becoming a Sanctuary City we are openly inviting illegal immigrants from all over the world to come to our town. How are we to establish a proper budget for the costs associated with an influx of people if the people are undocumented? Mr. Dunn dismisses the fiscal responsibility that you all have to our town and its people by saying "we may lose a couple of grants for public safety". Who do you people think you are? You are welcoming undocumented people into our town and putting our children at risk! We will need MORE funding for public safety if this comes to fruition, not less!'

It is clear to me, and others within the town, that this decision is based solely on peoples opinions, not what is best for our town. It is obvious to me that Arlington's finances have not been properly taken into consideration here. Other communities in our area that have become Sanctuary Cities are actual "cities" not towns. These cities enjoy the massaive tax revenues of major corporations and institutions and yet our tax basis is built mostly on personal real estate tax. I am glad that our elected officials think spending everyone's hard earned money without proper fiscal responsibility is not a big deal. Words cannot convey how shocked I am at the audacity of our elected officials concerning this matter.

See expressions of support here >>

This viewpoint was published Monday, Feb. 27, 2017.

DO YOU AGREE, DISAGREE? Comment below. You must include your full name as well as your connection to Arlington, Mass.

ADUs part 3: A Family Story


No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Sunday, 23 January 2022
If you'd like to register, please fill in the username, password and name fields.

Captcha Image

By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to

Your Businesses

Latest Comments

Don Seltzer For town housing, move beyond critique to solutions
22 January 2022
Mr. Berczuk accuses me of not getting the facts straight when I wrote that the draft Plan does not meet the State requirement "At a minimum, the Plan must examine...The capacity of the infrastructure ...
Bob Sprague Letters: Emailing Advocate? Copy it here
17 January 2022
Let the public know with a letter to the editor. For details, see Sprague

Housing Authority

Your People

Rachel N. Albert

Food Link's new exec outlines goals, offers personal insights

Rachel N. Albert, Food Link executive director For Rachel N. Albert, the roots of social consciousness run deep. When she was about 5, she accompanied her mom who has distributing pamphlets about the environmental impact of nuclear energy. "My parents were early advocates of organic farming and…
Sue and Jeff Thompson

A diagnosis of ALS leaves couple in need

Sue and Jeff Thompson, formerly of Firefly Moon, keep the faith. UPDATED Dec. 18: Every evening, Sue Thompson and her husband, Jeff, drink a toast. Whether or not they have a glass of wine, it’s to give thanks that they have been given another day despite challenges that have left them in…
Evvie Jagoda.

Town resident voted out among castaways on new 'Survivor'

Evvie Jagoda seeks ties that bind. UPDATED Nov. 24: The Covid-delayed season of CBS-TV's "Survivor" launched Sept. 22 with 18 new castaways, including Arlington resident Evvie Jagoda. She hung in with spunk until episode 8 broadcast Nov. 17. Read one summary >> And another >> And last: Evvie…

FACEBOOK BOX: To see all images, click the PHOTOS link just below


Support YourArlington

RSM, 2021-22
Paid support

Your Arts



Your Police, Fire