Woodstock Early Birds might be forgiven for not always knowing what is on the agenda of various Village and Town meetings because, to date, there is no consistent requirement for reporting such public information on the Municipal website. Sometimes the information is available, sometimes it’s not. So, this afternoon, thanks to Village Trustee Bob Pear, we’ll list for you below the agenda items.
Plenty of topics of interest including various discussions about uses of the Village Green. We’ll take that one since we have been walking, enjoying and observing the Village Green now for about 20 years:
Woodstock Early Bird thinks there is getting to be more and more abuse of the Village Green combined with inadequate restoration and upkeep even as Trustees consider even more commercial activities on its grounds.
What we’re referring to is the actual physical state of the grass and grounds. Trustees virtually say “yes” to every activity presented for use with the result that at the end of this past summer and fall, for example, the Green was virtually devoid of grass and turning into a dirt and sand rutted desert. In addition, The Village Green is barely level or walkable beyond its paths because it still has not “recovered” from the careless deep plowing and backho’ing of several winters ago.
While so many “good” activities from a commercial and community standpoint take place on The Green, the Village is in danger of losing the jewel in its crown from overuse and abuse. And, yup, it’s the economy stupid. Has every Village Trustee (or Chamber of Commerce member) read even excerpts of Woodstock native George Perkins Marsh’s “Man and Nature”? If they have, they might get the connection from history (including Vermont history) that if one destroys the land, one may well end up destroying the economy.
To the present: We think anyone who uses the word “sustainability” in this town should step up to the plate and ask the Village Trustees to protect the Village Green each and every time they say “yes” to another event taking place there. If the Green is destroyed or ruined through over-use is there is a plan and fund for restoration?
Did you know Village Trustees are considering putting the Antique Car show back on the grass? Really? Let’s just drive all over the Green.
We think that those who spend time planting symbolic trees at the snow dump might better put their energies in re-seeding grass or planting trees in a park that already exists and where the trees have a chance at living. People interested in sustainability should ask for it weekly by attending every Trustee and Conservation Committee meeting and demanding for protection of what exists right now. Without it, we’re going to be enjoying a big brown mud pit or dust bowl depending on the time of year. Is that what we want? How is that going to look from The Woodstock Inn?
Here is what is on the agenda for the Village Trustees meeting tonight 7:00 at the Woodstock Town Hall:
1 Call to Order
2 Citizen Comments
3 Requests for Permits
Covered Bridges Half Marathon
Special Olympics – Use of the Green and Parade of Athletes
4 Village Police Chief Report
5 Village Managers Financial Report
6 Relocation of Snow Dump Report
7 Revision of Village Ordinance for Use of Green
8 River Street Retaining Wall
9 Name for Street in front of St. James
10 Schedule Audit Review
11 Meet with Investment Consultant
12 Planning Commission Request for Additional Outdoor Sales
13 Public Hearing for Zoning Change
14 Truck Lobby
15 Noise Committee Report
Julia Carlisle
Woodstock Early Bird 
Posted by Donna on December 11, 2012 at 17:41
I think seeing the green being used is great. Who cares if there is a little brown grass at the end of the summer. It makes the Village look like a community and it is great for drawing in tourists who want to stop and see what is happening. I don’t think the green needs to look like a picture on a postcard.
LikeLike
Posted by Andrea Sand on December 11, 2012 at 17:55
“A little brown grass”? By the end of the summer it had a whole “hard-packed dirt, wasteland” look going on.
LikeLike
Posted by Kimberly on December 11, 2012 at 18:51
I respectfully disagree with you on this point. I think the more activities, the better. The village green should be a frequent gathering place and used for as many community events as the community would like to put together. I agree that there needs to be a sustainable plan in place to reseed and care for the area, but I also believe quite strongly that we should not restrict its use. It would be a shame to pick and choose what community events are “worthy.”
LikeLike
Posted by Elaine on December 11, 2012 at 18:55
I quite agree with Donna’s comment. I think we need to ask ourselves what we value, and then have our actions reflect that. It is hard for me to say that a perfectly manicured green is more important than having a place for Special Olympians or local craftspeople selling their wares. While preserving green spaces is important, it is absurd to say that the sustainability of a small plot of grass is more important than the sustainability of the community.
LikeLike
Posted by s h on December 11, 2012 at 21:31
well Frank Teagle is gone, and rolling over in his grave, re the over use of the green. He protected it. we can always get artificial turf, so that it will stay green, instead of being brown. Someone needs to start raising some money for it.
LikeLike
Posted by Jenny S Lamb on December 12, 2012 at 06:21
I fully agree with Julia’s comments about putting a halt to abuse of the Village Green. In my view, the Village Green deserves to stay “green” and I am in favor of any reasonable restrictions on use of the Green (commercial or otherwise) in order to protect its grass and trees.
LikeLike
Posted by vermontliberty on December 12, 2012 at 07:15
There may be a grant available for paving the Green. That would solve the brown grass problem, and ensure that oil leakage from antique cars didn’t effect the Village groundwater. Grant money can fund all sorts of ideas that some people think are a great idea, like three-ton electric trolleys, affordable housing and state-of-the-art military equipment. The best part is nobody ever has to pay the bill!
LikeLike
Posted by Jon Estey on December 12, 2012 at 07:31
Jules, It’s all about expectations my dear!
Rename “The Green” something like “The Brown” and be done with it. And while we’re at it cut down all those pesky trees with their green leaves that fall off and inevitably cause villagers to use those horrific leaf-blowers.
Of course, another solution would be to use The Green as a public gathering place (as it was intended) and increase the budget to maintain the grass. I know it sounds insane, probably have to appoint a special committee. Something like a “Special Committee To Watch The Grass Grow.” Followed by several votes and special town meetings. Oh, hell, just rename it “The Brown!”
LikeLike
Posted by Joe H. on December 12, 2012 at 10:54
How about rotating areas in the park that are used. Much like some farms do with crop rotation to let the land rest and regrow for better crops in the future.
LikeLike
Posted by phil paradis on December 12, 2012 at 11:18
And the Ranger emerges
LikeLike
Posted by phil paradis on December 12, 2012 at 11:25
By the way, Its practiced every day at the parks, its called land management.
LikeLike
Posted by dsb on December 12, 2012 at 11:32
The more activity, the more community vitality! If the browning continues, establish “quiet times” or plant hardier strains of grass.
LikeLike
Posted by Diana Brown on December 12, 2012 at 13:59
My thought precisely! I agree with dsb entirely! This is a very logical idea, and one that would surely work.
The use of ‘greens’ everywhere by young and old, local and visitors, for all kinds of gatherings or just a quiet walk, is what these special plots are meant for. One exception for me with our beautiful Woodstock Green is the Antique Car Show. I think it is out of place, not good for the grass and the ground, and held on a weekend that is already too crowded with things going on downtown..
LikeLike
Posted by Corwin Sharp on December 12, 2012 at 13:26
Historically, village and/or town greens were used for real public purposes like market days, community gatherings, social events, and so forth. I think that the current expanded use of the Woodstock Village Green is perfectly in keeping with it’s historical intent – a few sheep and cows grazing would be nice but perhaps impractical. That being said, it is the responsibility of our Town and Village officials along with all local residents to care for this valuable resource. Most simply put, if we abuse it, we lose it.
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on December 12, 2012 at 14:04
So succinctly put…Do understand the historical use but advocate better decision-making management…abuse=lose. WEB
LikeLike
Posted by Ron Miller on December 12, 2012 at 15:06
As both a board member of Sustainable Woodstock and the new coordinator of Bookstock (which uses the Green rather vigorously once each year), I agree that you are raising an important question, Julia, though I think it deserves more thoughtful treatment. It is quite a cheap shot to insinuate that the East End reclamation project detracts in any way from a concern for the care and maintenance of the Green. Of course a sustainable community needs a thriving, beautiful center, and if the Green is indeed threatened, I am sure that Sustainable Woodstock will help to defend it. But is this threat real, or perceived? Is the Green’s beauty truly ruined by overuse, or are a few people upset because it is not as pristine as they would like? Maybe it’s useful that you have brought these questions out into the open. As we see in the various replies posted here so far, there are reasonable differences of opinion about how much use, or what kind, are appropriate for a public park like the Green. If we as a community want it to be a hub of public activity that brings us together, then we should, indeed, make sure that there is a maintenance and restoration plan in force, and all organizations using the Green should be required to leave it in as good a condition as they find it. If, on the other hand, we decide that the heart of the village should be a peaceful and pristine park every day of the year, then all public events, including Bookstock, should move elsewhere. Do we know what the community as a whole wants? Shouldn’t we start there, and then enact policies accordingly?
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on December 12, 2012 at 15:23
Thanks Ron for your thoughts and input. WEB will be posting photos of the Green from the end of the Fall on the Green post page and you can decide for yourself if the “issue” is “real or perceived.” We find it amusing that you live and work so close to the Village Green and haven’t noticed a difference. But, then, you haven’t been around for 20 years.
Sustainable Woodstock does many, many thoughtful things for the community, but far too often we ignore what is directly in front of our faces. That is WEB’s frustration: On the issue of The East End..Yes, it deserves a lovely park and we fully support that eventuality because green spaces are important. However, we think that energy spent randomly planting trees –on Village land without Trustee approval that we can determine — which even arborists commented were only “symbolic” in planting IS to be questioned when right in front of all of us is a plot of ground, a green centerpiece whose sustainable management is being ignored. It is being ignored because no one except your representative Sally Miller ever consistently attends every meeting where decisions quietly take place. Since Ms. Miller, although a resident, is also on other Village/Town Boards, she is not truly able to bear witness or stand up to Trustee decisions as an independent resident might.
WEB isn’t advocating the end of community or commercial gatherings — nowhere in our post do we say that and that simply is not the point. We just want the “template” for those events to continue to EXIST. If you have an event on the Village Green every single weekend and every single week-day and now, plans are for more winter activities as well, is that going to keep the Green a sustainable plot of land. We’re “on the cliff” as far as that is concerned. Sustainable Woodstock would do well to pay attention.
Some have commented there is no reason for the Green to look like a postcard. That’s funny, we get the sense that the Woodstock Inn, the Chamber of Commerce, every Innkeeper and person concerned with tourism here would sure like Woodstock, Vermont to look as “picture-perfect” and “pristine” as possible in order it to live up to reputation described in magazines and websites everywhere.
We have nothing against Bookstock or Market on the Green or Community Dinners…We attend and participate in them all. But look down, people, there’s dirt and mud on your feet.
LikeLike
Posted by Lance Webster on December 12, 2012 at 20:03
now here comes WC de Plume every year in England there is a tennis tournament called Wimbledon. played on grass , at the beginning beautiful green grass at the end big brown patches . the crowds still come the cameras still roll now are these brown patches at the All England Club ugly or reminisces of a good time cowboy up Woodstock
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on December 13, 2012 at 10:00
Sooo…we enjoyed this allusion and concur …evidence of one good rodeo. However the All England Club does not entertain “play” on its hallowed grasses 52 weeks of the year. Surely, there is time set aside for proper grooming of said turfs so they may once again sprout lovely for Wimbledon “play”
Please try again WC…(you do KNOW that is the French term for TOILET?) -WEB
LikeLike
Posted by Lance Webster on December 13, 2012 at 11:01
Julia have you ever been in a home with a formal living room looks nice you just can’t use it and i’m sure plenty of tennis goes on at the All England Club while were not watching also if you think the Woodstock Green is green 52 weeks a year your last post belongs in what the french call the WC
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on December 13, 2012 at 11:10
Much better WC…altho point is not to keep Green Green 52 weeks of year but HEALTHY…As many have pointed out…it’s called land management, rotating crops, whatever you wish to do. WEB is just warning that little by little, quietly when no one is looking, the Green’s uses may be reaching maximum capacity for good health.
BTW, we like a neat sitting room, Mr. WC de Plume…
LikeLike
Posted by Lance Webster on December 13, 2012 at 12:53
problem solved affordable housing on the green with the stipulation that home owners keep their yards nice otherwise people who live around the green would be apposed to it Doobleuh-vay C de Plume
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on December 13, 2012 at 13:27
At an average worker pay rate in Woodstock of $10 to $12 an hour…and health insurance only if one pays $500 a month…let’s figure out what an “affordable” mortgage really is? We suspect those “affordable” homes on The Green and elsewhere in the community will go for $300K…OK,make them $200K if the owners keep the grass nice…You figure it out….That average worker will NEVER be able to live in the community in which they work. That’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax figuring out what “affordable” actually is…WEB
LikeLike
Posted by Lance Webster on December 13, 2012 at 19:26
Julia the price of petty is knowing that we have a fiscal cliff a potential civil war in Michigan devastation in NY and NJ and oh yah brown grass in Woodstock if you gave $10-$12 workers a home in a place like Woodstock they would stuggle to pay just the taxes it aint the payments it’s the up keep baby that toyota hybrid with the Obama sticker slaped on the back won’t get you into heaven any more WC dePlume
Woodstock Early Bird agrees -WEB
LikeLike
Posted by Bob Pear on December 14, 2012 at 10:16
It is the Trustees responsibility to not only issue permits,
[Ordinance §9201. Permit required for organized activities
No person shall use the Village Green for organized activities without first obtaining a permit from the Board therefor as provided in this chapter.]
but to make sure that post-event, the Green has not been damaged,
[Ordinance §9206. Standards
(l) Any damage to the Village Green occurring in connection with an activity (including setup and cleanup) permitted hereunder shall be repaired at the expense of the permittee. At the option of the Board, any repair so required shall be arranged by the Board or by the permittee.
§9301. General prohibitions
(e) No person shall damage, cut, carve, plant, transplant, or remove any tree or plant or injure the bark or pick the flowers or seeds of any tree or plant, dig up grass or other areas, or in any other way injure the natural beauty or usefulness of any area on the Village Green.]
which essentially means that post-event oversight and review, and possibly assessing damages is required by the Board or the Village Manager, (“shall be repaired”). The only option the Board has is the arrangement of the repairs. Sometimes damage to the grass is difficult to determine immediately after an event, and oftentimes it is cumulative damage over the course of many events, so it is difficult to determine who is at fault.
So I think a better way to address the problem would be to take a more proactive approach. Instead of searching for the guilty and assessing damages, why not have all permitted activities contribute to the ongoing maintenance of the Green?
Since I think almost everyone agrees on the maintenance and sustainable use issue, maybe we could set up a designated “The Green Maintenance Fund”. The 2 ways I would see to fund this is to:
1) actually collect the permit fees that have been customarily waived by the Village for years,
[§9203. Applications for permit
A processing fee of $25.00 shall accompany all applications, however this fee may be waived by the Board].
2) charge the permittee a nominal fee per event, (maybe an additional $25).
This wouldn’t “break the bank” for any particular event and it would prevent the entire burden from being shifted to the taxpayer. I would estimate this could add about $2000. annually to this designated fund, which should be adequate to carry on an annual maintenance program to keep the Green healthy and, yes, green.
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on December 14, 2012 at 10:37
For the record, Woodstock Early Bird would like to note that Trustee Bob Pear is the only one who *consistently* asks at each approval of another Village Green activity if the trees will be protected. In our opinion, we need this kind of vigilance from the public about the grounds in general. This is not to say the Village and Town crews don’t do their best to keep things nice, but there needs to be extra effort — as posited by Bob above — to maintain the Village Green considering the increased and more constant activity (even in winter) planned for it. We’d also note that asking lawn maintenance staff to “mow the lawn” when there is no grass to cut (as happened on more than one occasion this summer and fall) and to ask to do so on rainy days is not sound decision-making. This centerpiece is clearly sensitive to all the traffic and should be treated as such in order to maintain its role as a pleasant gathering place. WEB
LikeLike
Posted by fromhere/comehere on December 14, 2012 at 12:12
any healthy viable village has to appear to be lived in by it’s residents.Anybody ever visit the “National Mall ” in Washington,DC. It is heavily used by all those who own it – the nations’ citizens. Who owns the Woodstock Green anyway ?? Such restrictive thinking will eventually diminish the interest in the village
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on December 14, 2012 at 12:38
Restrictive to ask that a public park be managed properly so it will last long into the future so it may serve as beautiful public gathering place long after we’re gone?
BTW, WEB has posted the above and several other comments in this thread without proper identification which is unfair to those who stand behind their opinions with their first and last name.
We posted this comment because it is someone who has posted respectfully before.
While your email address doesn’t need to have your first and last name, WEB has a policy of not posting comments unless the commentor is identified to this editor.
This editor writes her opinions and name front and center and expects -out of a desire for civil discourse – that the opinions of others to not remain anonymous.
WEB
LikeLike
Posted by Bob Pear on December 15, 2012 at 10:29
I think it is a safe bet that “the Nation”, (taxpayers), spends a bundle to maintain the National Mall, not just on the routine things such as lawn mowing and daily clean-up. Turf needs to be maintained because it just is not a natural ground-cover. The heavier the usage and foot-traffic, the more maintenance is required. If I had weekly events in the summer with hundreds of people walking around in my back yard, I would have to do quite a bit more to maintain it than the mulch-mowing I do now.
Historically speaking, The Green has always been a well used parcel of land. I also heard that somewhere along the way, our elders decided to install that rail fence we have now around the Green to prevent traffic and cattle from taking the direct route through from one end to the other and turning it into a mud-hole.
No-one on this blog has said that we shouldn’t use The Green, they just want it kept and usable for the next person, just like our elders of long ago did. Of course we should, it is a public park! What I am saying and many are in agreement is that with increased usage for events, we need to do better on the annual maintenance to continue to attract the public and keep The Green as the heart of our Village. There are simple solutions to this problem, the public just needs to have the will to pursue them, and ignoring the issue is not an option. If we can’t or won’t, maybe the Trustees will then have to be more selective when issuing permits for events because people are attracted to a park that looks inviting, (didn’t say pristine). A mud-hole will attract nothing more than pigs and monster trucks, maybe an occasional tractor pull.
LikeLike