Temptation

Another weekend, and supposedly a pretty good one from the weather reports.  Since it seems a fair amount of you take the weekend off from visiting this blog, which by the way I am glad to see that you do, I am going to save a piece I was intending to post today for Monday.

Instead, you might want to see the comments I received last night on two prior posts.  I did reply to both.  Links are below for you easier access.

Fairhaven, The South Coast and More: Some TM stuff

Fairhaven, The South Coast and More: Two Dimes and a Nickel Still Equal a Quarter

Normally I would just publish the comments and leave it at that.   But given the significance of the topics, and the fact I am going to need a piece for Monday anyway, I am bumping today's scheduled piece for reference to the comments and replies.

Trying to muddy the waters even further about the tourism department and what transpired on Monday doesn't change my opinion on anything.  Let me be absolutely clear about the fact, I personally do not care where the selectmen locate the tourism office, except to the extent that I care a great deal about continuing to pay rent when there are several rent free alternatives.

I have over the course of the years stated my position on what this town does for a number of non-town entities very clearly, including but not limited to those which have been specifically named by me and others.

It seems there is now the attempt to drag everyone down over the fact that one group doesn't want to share a town building.  Fine with me.  Someone wants to tear it all down be my guest.  I am tempted to join them.

There were multiple wrongs committed Monday, not the least of which was ignoring the recommendation of the town's Historical Commission.  You know the actual town organization that has the actual oversight of the building.  The one with the actual budget to run the building.  The one with the people appointed to represent the best interest of the town.  The one that has been asked on multiple occasions in the past to look into this issue.  The one that did so and came to a conclusion after years of study.

I can keep on going on this issue if that is what people want.  Despite what some of you may think, I have had a pet peeve about special treatment for people and groups for years. I can remember some issues and statements I made some 15+ years ago that people weren't happy about back then.  

As far as a moratorium, well Town Meeting is free to adopt the article.  No one has said it cannot.  The "official stance" for me is it is a yield to the petitioner article.  The personal stance is if it is adopted, it is a recommendation I certainly would not oppose, so long as everyone realizes it wouldn't stop one turbine from being sited in town.

I absolutely would support a binding moratorium.  There it is.  It is one the "record".  

Heck, I am more than half-tempted to vote the article as is.  What may keep me from doing so is as written, it could very well end up backfiring.  

Here is another one for the record, as written, the article has no teeth.  So if everyone is content with making a statement rather than imposing a moratorium, that is there choice.  Whether the other half-of me can be persuaded remains to be seen though.