March 3, 2013
By Mickey Friedman
I’ve been meaning to tell you how much I like The Old Mill in Egremont ever since I read that cruel review in the Berkshire Beagle last summer. Reviewers are odd ducks. I’ve occasionally been one and always have to remind myself of the extraordinary ripple effect of reviews. There is something inherently unfair about sitting, watching, judging what you’re seeing, hearing, eating in just a series of moments, influenced, of course, by your moods, your biases, most of which you’re not terribly conscious of and haven’t shared with your readers.
I seem to recall he was especially put off by the ambience and the age of the diners. But I was surprised that his experience so contradicted mine. The Old Mill is the place I go whenever I have enough money to treat myself, or where others take me for a treat. I can honestly say that over the decades I have loved and appreciated every meal I’ve had there. When you don’t have a lot of money and you don’t eat out a lot, it’s especially important that when you do, you have a wonderful meal. And Terry and Ginny and his staff go out of their way to make dining not only exceedingly comfortable but very special. And if much of the clientele is older it’s because they, too, came to know and appreciate a wonderful thing. And so they naturally want more.
I should have written to The Beagle when the review appeared, but I spaced out. In any event, if you’re not a vegetarian, try the lamb chops and then have the profiteroles. If you don’t eat meat I’d have two orders of the profiteroles.
Anyway, moving toward the bad, the other day I was standing on the corner in front of Town Hall with my “It’s Time To Come Home” sign. There was a fine but chilling drizzle falling. An elderly couple pulled up in their car to tell me my sign should actually say: “It’s Past Time To Come Home.” I know the sign is falling apart but I can’t bear to think I might still be out there long enough to justify making the investment in a new sign.
Minutes later someone came to talk trees with me and Congressman Shein. Mostly because I’ve spoken out about The Best Small Town in America’s odd decision to tear itself up and remake its downtown.
He’s a local guy who knows about planning and trees. And while he doesn’t want to criticize his neighbors, he is seriously upset about what we’re about to do with our trees.
I, too, am incredibly fond of, and appreciate everything Tom Ingersoll does for the community: as a tree man, a baseball player, and for the music series he helps organize at Dewey Hall in Sheffield. I knew and liked his dad. Tom and others have been working hard on the tree issue. So remembering what I said about reviewers, know I write this merely to raise questions.
And because I was specifically asked by this gentleman to consider his concerns about the decision to go with a large variety of trees of different species, different looks, different sizes – many of which won’t provide significant shade. He emphasized how important it is that trees complement the townspace. The most striking boulevards feature a single species of similarly sized trees because they help unify the landscape. Engineers, he told us, are predisposed against taller trees, and he’s concerned smaller trees might worsen our problem with drivers who just don’t see pedestrians as they step out into the street. And while there was a legitmate concern years ago about the vulnerability of a single species to disease, there are now many disease-resistant species, including larger elms and pears, that would work well for Great Barrington.
Now let’s leave the trees and talk money. Somehow $367,000 has turned into a million. Luckily, my fiscally conservative Fuel-buddy Anthony is away eating Italian food. Otherwise we’d be hearing him complain each morning about government waste. But since he’s far away I can readily admit he might have a point. Remember when we were told it would only cost us $367,000 to plan our downtown revitalization? Somehow that’s blossomed to a million bucks.
We were promised a cheap new downtown courtesy of the Commonwealth. Turns out we’ve been shifting highway money we could be spending on other parts of town to make up for the increasing costs of planning. Who has taken responsibility for this major miscalculation? Considering how much it’s costing, wouldn’t it have made more sense to do and pay for this project over many years? Without losing summer seasons?
The sound arguments Chip Elitzer offered for a gradual redevelopment were dismissed with the promise of free money and a great opportunity that other towns might grab. So now what’s good and what’s bad and what’s …?