CABOT – Article 12 of the Cabot Town Meeting Day Warning is an Australian ballot vote asking if voters will approve a grant of up to $10,000 “for the removal and proper disposal of an estimated 1,000 to 1,500 used tires that have been dumped into and along a stream and wetland in Lower Cabot.” Those funds would come from the Cabot Community Investment Fund balance for town meeting grants in 2026 with the grant made to the Cabot Conservation Commission (CCC).
photo courtesy Google Maps
The issue has created considerable and sometimes heated discussion on the Facebook group Cabot Connects Town Bulletin Board.
Discussion began with a post by Bryeanne Russillo·suggesting greater transparency was needed in creating the ballot request and suggesting town funds should not be used to benefit a private property owner who knew of the long-standing issue when they purchased the property.
Commenters both agreed and disagreed, with one even suggesting the town create a tire amnesty day where anyone in town could bring tires to be disposed of with the funds.
It appears the grant request is primarily for trucking the tires to a disposal site in Maine, while work would be done locally by volunteers in a project coordinated by the CCC.
A post by Louann Walker said she and her husband Chase “are the property owners for the location of the proposed ‘Tire Removal Project.’”
“. . . We purchased the property as-is. We knew it needed work. What we did not do was create the tire issue. The tires, and the broader neglect, had been there for many many years. Leonard Spencer is to blame for that . . . concerns were raised about the property long before we purchased it.”
Further, she said, “When we chose to buy the land, we understood we were taking on a long-standing problem. We did so intentionally. We saw the opportunity to restore something that had been overlooked for years. We also took and continue to take full responsibility for any and all work necessary to restore years of neglect.
“Since purchasing it, we have already spent thousands removing tires, beginning cleanup efforts and restoring derelict structures on the property that were unsafe and a hazard of their own, and we will continue to do so. The tires are not staying. The old rusted, but fully-dry, paint cans in the barn are not staying. It will all be addressed but it takes time.”
She said, “we were not lobbying for funds and never have. A neighbor had been raising concerns and seeking support through various avenues, well before CCIF was ever brought into the discussion and well before we took ownership. We did not draft the article.”
“At the same time, the environmental concern in the wetland does exist now. The wetlands and stream are impacted now. Part of the CCIF discussion around potential community support was simply about whether there was a responsible way to come together and accelerate cleanup in sensitive areas that affect more than just one property . . . Clean wetlands and clean water affect all of us.”
While Louann Walker said they did not initiate the CCIF grant request, “If the community decides that CCIF funds are not appropriate, we respect that and we understand it. We work hard. We care about where our tax dollars go and we all have a right to vote for a reason. Our commitment to restoring the property does not hinge on your vote. It may take us a little longer to get the job done but . . . it will get done.
“If you do choose to vote yes, we absolutely agree that any work must be done correctly, with appropriate timing for wetlands and care for wildlife. Contact has already been made with Vermont Natural Resources and the Wetlands Engineer regardless of if this was done personally or with community help. No machinery is proposed to be in direct contact with any of the wetlands. Responsible environmental stewardship and community is the entire point here. It’s not about the money.”
In conclusion she said, “This isn’t about outsiders versus locals. We will be in town often and will be the first to help a neighbor that needs a hand. I believe this proposal all started with a good neighbor’s goal of addressing a long-standing environmental problem responsibly, as a community, and in good faith. Let’s all be kind to one another.”
Later Russillo·wrote, “. . . after speaking with the property owner, it appears that Gary Katz went and spearheaded this because he it seems he wants this project done immediately, which lead to misinformation and entire details being left out.
“I am disappointed that an article was able to even be drafted to go to vote for funds to go to a private property when the owner didn’t even ask for it and wasn’t spoken to by board members.
“Gary Gulka [with CCIF] said he only first talked to the owner a week ago, after the vote was pushed. False information has been going to our community before the town vote. The owner has been working on the property. They’ve been spending their own money on it. They’ve been in touch with the proper wetland authorities. They have every intention of finishing the project. They never lobbied for the funds that the town is now set to vote on. Shame on the select board and committee chairs for letting any of this go so far without the property owners involvement.”
She added, “while I don’t support the Cabot funds going to this project when there is trash and debris in the water behind the rec field, farmers who also have tires to dispose of, etc., I do support the project and would be open to volunteering on the labor side.”
