[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6075615,"mediaKeyId","2979289-c4017fd7666ad730a58e4f145101a060","parentId",2979289,"title","Council continues Verizon/Eversource pole-relocation hearing after resident raises driveway, safety concerns","audioSeconds",330,"startMs",3231000,"endMs",3561000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2979289-c4017fd7666ad730a58e4f145101a060&start=3231&end=3561","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2979289-c4017fd7666ad730a58e4f145101a060/thumbnail_3231000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6075615/Pittsfield-City/Berkshire-County/Massachusetts/Council-continues-VerizonEversource-pole-relocation-hearing-after-resident-raises-driveway-safety-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6075615-2784fe8bc9a34dad2722e243290057cd/orig.mp4?Expires=1775498764&Signature=QLakRqU1Hg7ACX64qoA7FYmXAIYCiGXzCdPk5nah20Je3jqqD~HKVlVd3KD0mGMda0hQLuso3ppqPvTvhQMZ-H8LMt1uFzY4KBRGA2rwA2R6nlBXFgpbap4ayM8M0-kcdsVWDo-nTKZKj4H7B8HC9jkBf19Muym-xcLHlCui0NgpLERONoZzyAhgp6Xd~zQaIL1bkCNJx2ZswIuIAJNyvfOzlvsB8V199Aqsvspx8KYF7oosH5NsuVNbuTKexZaaCKE~iu0Ksdae5VBIy9LGx2u~kp6g0Bnmw1-7o3S3fafwFeeV8o1KqSAaDypDYPIiDWP9X-nlDvVou1caez2P5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Pittsfield City, MA","date","2025-04-08T00:00:00Z","article","The Pittsfield City Council on March 20 opened a public hearing on a petition from Verizon New England and Eversource seeking permission to relocate one jointly owned pole and install another on East New Lenox Road, and continued the hearing to its next meeting after residents described access and safety problems.

Don Bonner, representing Verizon, told councilors the poles were already in place as part of work associated with the Sackett Brook bridge project and that Verizon was seeking formal approval because the utility installation process had not completed the municipal approvals before field work. “Upon visiting the site, it looks exactly like you see it here,” Bonner said.

Two abutters, Wendy and Matthew Greiner of 276 East New Lenox Road, told the council the pole (identified as pole 28 in petition paperwork) had been installed at an angle over their driveway, leaving insufficient clearance for their camper and creating repeated interference with overhead wires. Matthew Greiner said the pole had been described to residents as temporary but now obstructed vehicle movements; they asked that Verizon and Eversource either reattach lines to a different pole farther north or consider burying the line if necessary.

Councillor Conant moved to continue the public hearing to the council’s next meeting so city staff, Verizon and Eversource could inspect the site and discuss options with the residents. The petitioner agreed to meet the homeowners and coordinate with Eversource’s right-of-way staff. Councilors also asked the city solicitor to clarify the legal consequence if a pole were already installed but later not approved; the solicitor said she would examine the question and report back.

On a motion to continue the hearing to the April meeting, the council voted unanimously to carry the petition forward. The continuance gives Verizon and Eversource time to consult with the Greiners, confirm whether the pole is temporary, and provide alternative placement or an engineering plan to protect driveway access.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Pittsfield City Council Meeting - April 8, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The City Council on March 20 continued a hearing on a Verizon/Eversource petition for a pole relocation on East New Lenox Road after nearby residents said a pole placed at an angle blocks their driveway and complicates use of a camper.","taxTitle","Pittsfield City, Berkshire County , Massachusetts","taxId",56310,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6075620,"Pittsfield City Council files proposed median-safety ordinance after extensive public opposition",4906,325000,5231000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2979289-c4017fd7666ad730a58e4f145101a060&start=325&end=5231","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2979289-c4017fd7666ad730a58e4f145101a060/thumbnail_325000.jpg","/articles/6075620/Pittsfield-City/Berkshire-County/Massachusetts/Pittsfield-City-Council-files-proposed-median-safety-ordinance-after-extensive-public-opposition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6075620-3609fc9fd89789a23817a8a550cdc17e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775498764&Signature=Re0bKYlM~f4PZpDVLsDpvbA3FB41mpQK7OmXpK64LToLiJMd1Uufx3HQzcj8nQ0WaaN5fzxEnSfFoEwcurieO97k-AgESK2pisWeU1h653HskNj3TnwYgWFR6WsiP9KbL99vrLYRj~g90S31QdUQ4K3LJU6hs5BJvrJ0VA3rz~c8zWXv3reJm7cwmhQomwPeT0AjC6thu~2fUfo0EcfT5eHsH4N4tUVtHHFMj1osjDGsEk2rbUF1KQhUVN5Vb0yCFuFE-aHwP66IikM~qkm1qz30jeeLnQrXERgZV1qWKoOEHnO5MmtQnG~oP2G~s0z4vZOLxR-~elabwkIwr0kz1A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Pittsfield City Council on March 20 accepted a report from its Ordinance & Rules Committee and placed on file a proposed ordinance titled “Median safety and pedestrian regulations” (chapter 14, §14-12), after lengthy public comment and council debate.

Supporters of keeping the proposal off the agenda said the ordinance would criminalize poverty and risk First Amendment challenges, while proponents cited pedestrian safety concerns at several high-traffic intersections. “This ordinance is about kicking poor people out of downtown so that we don't see them,” said Kamar Taliaferro, a Pittsfield resident. “It's cruel.”

Dozens of residents — including pastors, food pantry volunteers and leaders of local advocacy groups — urged councilors to drop the ordinance and instead expand housing, food and outreach services. “Panhandling and medians is not a risky behavior as much as it is a symptom of lives already full of risk,” said Mike Denton, pastor of United Church of Christ, Pittsfield. Several speakers described the ordinance as a permission to push people “out of view” rather than address homelessness.

Members of Berkshire Interfaith Organizing and other local groups repeatedly urged the council to file the measure. Ephraim Alexander Schwartz, representing Berkshire Interfaith Organizing, summarized concerns raised at the Ordinance & Rules meeting and cited the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission report, saying crashes “attributed to panhandling and distraction” ranked lower than other causes of crashes. He also noted that similar ordinances in other cities have resulted in litigation.

In committee, the Ordinance & Rules panel recommended filing the ordinance by a 4–1 vote. At the City Council meeting, Councillor Warren moved to accept the committee report and place it on file; the motion passed unanimously. Councilors who spoke during the debate emphasized the need for more data and community engagement before taking legislative action. Councillor Cavy asked officials to produce data tying pedestrian behavior on medians to collision causation; the police lieutenant cited by a council member told the council that the department had no data directly linking panhandlers in medians to multi-vehicle crashes.

Several councilors also raised the legal and financial risk of passing an ordinance without a clear evidentiary record. Speakers cited cases in other Massachusetts cities where similar laws led to lawsuits and settlements. Council members repeatedly encouraged pursuing upstream services — shelter expansion, supportive housing and outreach — while refining any safety-focused proposals.

The council’s acceptance of the committee report means the proposed ordinance will not proceed to a final vote this session. Councilors and community members repeatedly called for further study, better data, and direct outreach to people who spend time downtown before drafting new regulations.

In closing remarks before the vote, Councillor Warren said he had been involved in local outreach and referenced visits to shelters and food pantries as part of his judgment to file the ordinance for further work. The vote to accept the report and place it on file was unanimous.

The debate over the proposed median-safety ordinance combined public-safety language with questions of civil liberties and homelessness policy; councilors instructed staff and colleagues to continue community engagement and to refine any future draft with more precise data and legal review.","After more than an hour of public comments opposing a proposed “median safety and pedestrian regulations” ordinance, the City Council accepted an Ordinance & Rules Committee report recommending the measure be filed and placed on record. Councilors and dozens of residents debated safety data, free-speech risks and possible legal exposure.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6075610,"Council accepts report on DCF background-check ordinance; members urge further review",134,6329000,6463000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2979289-c4017fd7666ad730a58e4f145101a060&start=6329&end=6463","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2979289-c4017fd7666ad730a58e4f145101a060/thumbnail_6329000.jpg","/articles/6075610/Pittsfield-City/Berkshire-County/Massachusetts/Council-accepts-report-on-DCF-background-check-ordinance-members-urge-further-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6075610-83d42b2c093eb44b69c82cf2856c6e08/orig.mp4?Expires=1775498764&Signature=h80I87k4tZdqCGtN5kGkwunXwZYtt~7EVkgUyOsjUTtj7KewFIWreZ0l1sXVfEEm95dmC0lCUoJ~HmcXacDxe3SVA7~N4NFhwqD1k4sArSpQdBpAFmFCPOHH6YV4QYb7HtibZ-qrlj8fdO-xtDTvF~ETe2Ff1uVJSHkE2wfdzawSzHL68P0yP~Sq9yIW-GCPyHZPzKrdu~0PsCYkxJf1fZYE7J-qbza-Y1H4XSca1ylj3OVYVGHvItDKZ2Floe5nZReGe4NMxEP0HF-rN4SzhnzeUVghLcIEt~0cKLMObvh6O5CObJFCjMtNWbr1EkaBlL2vK5T889IsZ8k5Um3rMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Pittsfield City Council on March 20 accepted a committee report on a proposed ordinance requiring Department of Children and Families (DCF) background checks for city hires who will have contact with minors, but several councilors urged additional study of implementation and equity effects.

Councilor Warren presented the committee report and moved to ordain the measure; the council first accepted the committee report unanimously. Debate followed, with Councilor Noto saying the ordinance as drafted could constitute an “extreme overreach of privacy” and might have a disparate impact on low-income applicants, survivors of domestic violence and communities of color. Noto cited a statistic from Greater Boston Legal Services that roughly half of DCF findings are overturned at fair hearings and warned that the draft did not distinguish closed and open cases.

“I strongly oppose this,” Noto said, adding that the council should avoid subjecting otherwise qualified applicants to a “deep dive” into decades-old family history. Councilor Navarro similarly described concrete examples where DCF findings had serious collateral consequences for families, including cases where domestic-violence survivors or their children were listed in reports for reasons unrelated to job fitness.

City Solicitor (attorney) Grisham clarified that the DCF central-registry check shows “supported reports” of child abuse/neglect in Massachusetts and does not include unsupported reports or cases where the named individual was a reported victim. Councilors said this clarification helped but did not resolve broader due-process and fairness concerns.

Several councilors — including Musso and Wren — said the ordinance’s intent is understandable but that significant drafting, legal and policy work remains. Councilor Musso and others recommended referring the draft back to Ordinance & Rules (or tabling it) to address implementation details, data-sharing limits, appeal rights, and whether the requirement should apply only to city employees (the solicitor confirmed the proposed ordinance would apply only to city employees, not school department staff).

Councilor Warren said he supported further review and was prepared to table the ordinance to resolve open questions. The council did not record a final vote to adopt the ordinance at the meeting; the committee report was accepted and further study and drafting were requested by multiple council members.

The exchange underscored a tension between the council’s stated goal — protecting minors who come into city programs — and concerns raised about privacy, due process and the potential unintended exclusion of qualified applicants.","The City Council accepted an Ordinance & Rules Committee report on a proposed ordinance requiring Department of Children and Families (DCF) central-registry checks for new city hires who have contact with minors, but councilors raised privacy, due-process and disparate-impact concerns and called for more work before adoption.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council continues Verizon/Eversource pole-relocation hearing after resident raises driveway, safety concerns

Pittsfield City Council files proposed median-safety ordinance after extensive public opposition

Council accepts report on DCF background-check ordinance; members urge further review