I was at the Auburndale Shaw's earlier this evening and I noticed that they had taken down the Shaw's sign and put up a temporary Star Market sign. Looks like it's turning back into Star...after I FINALLY got used to calling it Shaw's! D'oh!

Universal Hub has a few pictures from the Newton display. Anyone else get some? Let me know and we'll post them here.

I didn't bring my camera with me.

In 1866, a resident of Newton, collected $3,300 to purchase a library site in Newton Corner to start the Newton Free Library. Previously, the library had been supported by private funds and subscription. In 1868, the new library, home of Newton Free Library was built. In 1876, by deed the City of Newton acquired the library building and park lands, after $37,000 had been expended.

John Chaffin, son of a cobbler, lived across the street in the mansion now called the "Newton Corner Branch Library." He became very successful in Boston with a men's furnishings business.

At this time, the Newton Free Library wanted to make sure people in other parts of Newton had access to books and library services. Books were sent by "railroad" and "horse and wagon" to homes on request. Electric lighting was added in 1891.

The Newton Free Library worked hard to make books accessible to everyone. Store keepers even helped transfer books.

In 1905, branch "reading rooms" were built in Newtonville, Newton Highlands, Lower Falls and Nonantum.

Reading rooms were established by public subscription. By 1908, there were a total of "ten" branch library "book centers." In 1920, library circulation continued to increase in spite of the radio, automobile. In 1923, Lower Falls had its own first branch library in former fire department.

By 1925, Auburndale, West Newton and Newton Centre all had branch libraries. In 1926, circulation exceeded 1/2 million. The Boys and Girls library opened in 1934 as part of the Chaffin Estate.

Newton had one of the highest level of donors in the Commonwealth for focusing on branch libraries and access. In 1951, the extension of the Main Library in Newton Corner was completed in order to increase the size and efficiency of the library.

The "John Chaffin Educational Fund" was established from one third of principle from the estate in 1931. The Trustees of the Chaffin Estate now oversee $4 million fund used for Newton's high school students.

In 1991, the old library in Newton Corner was sold to a private business (Heritage,now Evans), and a new library was built in Newton Center. There were problems due to limited access to the new main library from all of the 13 villages. This was made worse when all of the branch libraries were removed except for four branch libraries in Auburndale, Waban, Newton Corner and Nonantum.

On June 6, 2008, all of the remaining branch libraries were closed. The City of Newton and all its 84,000 residents were now left with only one library, just like it was in 1866.

Our Branch Libraries, gone:

Newton Corner Branch Library, a young patron attempting to visit the library on June 26th, to find all doors locked.

Police Station Annex, formerly the West Newton branch of Newton Free Library.

Newton Senior Center,formerly the Newtonville Branch Library

Waban Branch Library

Nonantum Branch Library

Evans Park, site of former Newton Free Library in Newton Corner.

(History from Jackson Homestead, Branch Librarian, NFL,and present day events)

It occurs to me that Alderman Hess-Mahan gets a pass in my review of the shenanigans of the Four Charterteers. Part of it's possibly attributable to the fact that I am genuinely fond of Ted and agree with him on a lot of things (including leaf blowers). Mostly, though, he gets off lightly because there's no damning video. But, isn't that a problem?

If the threat of city shut-down is so important that it merits the use of the charter objection to constructively pass the budget, isn't it an important enough issue to raise in a speech to your colleagues? The charter objection seems like an odd weapon to use if you're silent in debate.

Since we have addressed banks in Newton a number of times on this blog, I invite/encourage folks to check out my post on Newton Streets & Sidewalks about drive-through ATMs in Newton Centre and Newton, generally. My bottom line: get rid of them!

Process note: I only cross-blog when it's pretty clear that there's an overlap between what's here and there. But, if there's a good enough excuse to drive new traffic ...

Tuesdays at Cold Spring Park
1200 Beacon St
from July 10 through October 25
1:30 pm - 6:00 pm

Fridays at American Legion Post 440
295 California St
from July 6 through October 28
1:30 am - 6:00 pm

Although not in Newton, there's a Saturday farmers market in Waltham, on Main and Moody Streets. It's from 9:30 until 2:30 until November 3.

More info on Massachusetts Farmers Markets here

Enjoy!

The "DEED" of the Newton Free Library and Newton Corner Branch Library in its entirety:

Below is copy of the Deed of the Real Estate March 14, 1876,: The Newton Free Library was owned by John Chaffin of the Chaffin Estate (library and grounds), Isaac Burr (Burr Park) and John Farlow (Farlow Park.) : The land was given to the Newton Free Library by John Chaffin in 1872: This property was given to the City of Newton for the purpose of and to be forever maintained as a library:


"Whereas, at a meeting of the corporation called the Newton Free Library, located at Newton, in the County of Middlesex, held at its Library building, in Ward Seven, of the city of Newton, on the third day of November, A.D. 1875, it was voted that the managers of its franchise and property to the City of Newton, and whereas by the concurrent votes of the City Counscil of Newton, bearing date December 20 and December 22, 1875, it was ordered that the gift so tendered by the corporation should be accepted by the city, and whereas by an act of the General Court of Massachusetts, untitled, "An act to authorize the transfer of the Newton Free Library to the City of Newton, approved February 28, 1876, the said corporation was authorized to convey its franchise and property to the said city," for the establishment of a public library therein, to be forever maintained by said city."

Now, in order to effect the object set forth in the votes aforesaid, of the corporation and of the City Council, and to carry out the provisions of the aforementioned act of the Legislature of the Commonwealth:

'Know all men by these Presents, That the Newton Free Library, a corporation duly established under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in consideration of the premises and for the purpose of the establishment of a public library, in Newton, and its perpetual maintenance therein, and in further consideration of one dollar to it paid by the city of Newton, the receipt whereof is hereby achnowledged, doth hearby give, grant and convey unto the said City of Newton, a certain tract of land situate therin upon Centre Street, in Ward Seven, and being that parcel of real estate upon which is thus bounded, to int: beginning on the Easterly side of Centre Street, in Ward Seven, at the Southwest corner of the lot hereby conveyed; thence running Easterly on the line dividing the Library lot from the lots marked " J.W. Wellman" and " Dr. L.R. Stone" on (nate) A of Hopkins, and Companys Atlas of the City of Newton, two hundred and six feet to land marked, as aforesaid, " Josiah Stickney", then running Northerly on the line dividing the library lot from land marked, as aforesaid, " Josiah Stickney one hundred feet to the Southeast corner of land marked, as aforesaid, " Mrs Rowse: thence Westerly on the line dividing the library lot from land so marked, "Mrs Brown: two hundred four feet and nine inches to Centre Street, one hundred feet, more or less, and being the same real estate conveyed to the said Newton Free Library by the deed of George H.Jones, John C. Chaffin and Isaac Burr, dated May 18, 1872, and recorded in Middlesex South District Registry, Libro 1214, folio 188, to which reference may be had; as also to the said Atlas of Hopkins and Company; and said estate is hereby conveyed in that it may forever dedicated and consecrated to the uses of the public institution so to be the establishment and perpetuated:

To Have and To Hold the granted premises with all the privileges and appointments there to belonging, to the said City of Newton, its successors and assigns, to their own use and behoof forever.

And said Newton Free Library hereby convenants with the said grantee and its successors and assignes, that the granted premises are free from all incombrances by it made or suffered, and that it will warrant and defend the same to the said grantee and its successors and assigned forever against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming by, through , or under it.

In Witness whereof, the said Newton Free Library, has caused its corporate seal to be hereto affixed, and these presents to be signed, achknowledged, and delivered, i its behalf, and its name by Francis M. Johnson, C. Rowditch Coffin, Edmund W. Converse, Warrent P. Tyler, James F. Edmonds, Frederick Jason, J. Wiley Edmonds, John, S. Farlow, and Williams W. Keith, and its managers and agents hereto duly authorized, thisfurteenth dayof March, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Six."

Newton Free Library
By its Managers and agents...
20,237 d.49 Newton Free Library to the City of Newton 237 Mar. 14,1876, Deed of the Real Estate

(Copied by Friends of NCBL,Chaffin Park and Save our Branch Libraries)

I read with interest — then puzzlement — the TAB op-ed written by the group I've tagged the Four Charterteers, Paul Coletti and the three alderman — Sydra Schnipper, Susan Albright, and Ted Hess-Mahan — who joined his invocation of the charter objection* on June 17, 2008, to block rejection of the proposed city budget. (A charter objection by four alderman postpones a vote on a measure until the next regularly scheduled meeting. By the time of the next meeting, the 45-day time limit for passing the budget would have expired. A budget that is not approved or rejected by board vote within the time limit is automatically adopted.)

Interest because I wanted to see how they were going to put lipstick on this pig. Puzzlement as I read an account that didn't seem to jibe with my recollection of the meeting.

In the op-ed, the Four Charterteers succinctly stated their justification for thwarting the will of a majority of their colleagues:

Rather than put the city at such risk, the four of us took the difficult but necessary step of postponing a final vote to assure fiscal continuity in the city.

In other words, they didn't want to face a shutdown of city services. There are all sorts of problems with that explanation, but it's at least coherent. Unfortunately, it's not consistent with their reasoning at the time.

Fortunately, there's a record.

Only Alderman Coletti gave an explanation in the context of the charter objection. (He made the objection, Board President Lisle Baker made a controversial non-ruling, and debate stopped.) His explanation for invoking the charter objection is muddled, he somehow wanted to protect the financial reputation of the city and send a statement about the need to do more work on the budget. One thing is certain: he did not invoke the threat of a city paralyzed without an approved budget. Don't take my word for it, listen to his ...

In discussion of a substitution motion that preceded the Four Charterteer's objection, many of the aldermen gave impassioned statements on the need to pass or reject the budget. (The substitution motion was a narrow procedural motion that, nonetheless, ended up serving as the opportunity for aldermen to speak about the budget on the merits.) This would, it seems to me, be the time when an alderman concerned about the threat of a shutdown might cite that as a reason to vote to approve. Aldermen Schnipper, Albright, and Coletti all took time to speak, but they focused on other issues.

Alderman Schnipper was the first out of the gates, scolding to her colleagues that the city risked "looking foolish in the eyes of the bonding authorities, in the eyes of the Commonwealth, in the eyes of our ... other communities." She urged the board to "think very carefully of the damage you are doing to the reputation of the city." Nothing about not being able to pay city workers. Roll the video ...

It pains me that Alderman Albright is included among the Four Charterteers. She made a very articulate, thoughtful floor speech. She recognized that the rejection vote hinged on the four police positions and the branch library closings. She noted that everybody was feeling the pain of cuts mandated by the override failure: "there's teachers, there's special ed programs, there's parks and rec, there's building, there's public works, there's a six-man crew in public works; every one of these deserves not to be cut." She argued that the police positions and library branches were not so special to deserve making a stand. I don't agree with her. But, it's tough not to respect her logic and her sincere frustration that she had to make any cuts.

Only, she didn't make any mention of a pending crisis, either.

Last among the Four Charterteers, Alderman Coletti argued against rejection. (Alderman Hess-Mahan did not speak on the substitution motion, though, ironically enough, he made the motion.) Alderman Coletti was vague, general, and not entirely consistent. His summary plea to his colleagues: "I would ask those of you that are on the fence to consider your position on this with the understanding that the mayor's office has agreed to continue to cooperate ... I need to impress upon you the fact that this budget needs to be adopted." But, at no time did he state clearly that the budget needed to be adopted to ensure continued city operation. As the Charterteers made clear in their op-ed, this is not a complicated argument to make clearly: pass the budget or we turn off the lights. Alderman Coletti didn't make the argument ...

In their op-ed, the Four Charterteers stated:

There are some who will surely read more into this. But this is all it was, a way to assure Newton that its government could keep operating after July 1, with the chance to continue to find solutions without risking citywide disruption.
That’s why we stood up — for Newton.

If they were united in such a clear and simple purpose, why didn't a single one of them make the argument before the vote on the motion to substitute and the clearly planned charter objection?

My mother had a term for the kind of argument in the Four Charterteers' op-ed: post-action rationalization.

One other point. The Four Charterteers lauded the wisdom of their "forebears" [sic] for creating the charter objection and giving them the ability to force constructive adoption of a budget despite the majority will of the board to reject it. The charter is not explicit that a charter objection can be used to give constructive passage of any measure. To be fair, it is not explicit that the objection not be used for constructive passage, either.

But, if we're going to cite the wisdom of decades ago, it is only fair to note that the ordinances are quite clear on one point: the Board of Alderman is explicitly authorized to reject a proposed budget. Apparently, our "forebears" were not quite as worried about budget gridlock as the Four Charterteers.

*I know it's inside-baseball practice to use "charter" as a verb, as though the entire charter grants some mystical power on one or four alderman to delay a vote. The relevant section is 2-9, and it is entited "Charter Objection." The verb used is "object" as in "if a single member objects to the taking of a vote." Technically, an alderman objects to the vote with a special consequence of the objection granted by the charter. If the aldermen and the TAB referred to an alderman or group of aldermen "objecting to" or invoking a "charter objection to" a pending vote, it might be a lot clearer to lay folk.

Theresa stops by Taste and throws aside her Starbucks craving, not to mention Dunkin Donuts. If you see her at one of the tables out front with a dog at her feet enjoying an Americano, say Hi!

But Theresa, don't dismiss Peets in your effort to get rid of corporate coffee. They still make amazing drinks.

Side note: last night I offered to take my son on a bike ride. His response: "can we go to Taste?"

She also lavishes praise on Bread and Chocolate, Great Harvest Bread and Lincoln Street Coffee.

Throw in BonBon (which is opening soon), Newtonville Pet, Newtonville Books, Newtonville Camera, Natural Sense, the Boston Ballet (and the stores it inspires nearby), as well as Lam's and Rice Valley and it seems that Newtonville is one of the city's most interesting villages.

(Above picture of Waban Branch Library)

Does this sound right, anyone? This was on the library budget as 'estimate' Oil for two months.

Auburndale Library: oil $6,450/ ($3,225 a month)

Newton Corner: gas $4,687 / ($2,343 a month)

Nonantum: oil $4,550 / ($2,275 month)

Waban Library: Gas: $5,650/ ($2,825 month).

Newton Corner and Nonantum are closed most of the week, and only open 15 hours. No one lives there. The upstairs is closed off in NC and downstairs closed in Nonantum. Do these figures make sense?

Also on Library budget is claim that if they close one morning 9am to 1pm, personnel savings $31,900 year based on "ten" staff to cover public service desks in circulation, reference and children's departments. Do they need 10 staff?