Monday's strands of thought (or is it stands)

Monday mornings are usually tough days to come up with something that will grab your attention, not to mention something that grabs my attention.  Usually when the paper hits the doorstep, I wonder whether the paper has in fact been delivered or another paper towel has blown across my yard.

A few bits and pieces come to mind, some from surfing the nearly still but chilly waters this A.M. on the e-paper and some dangling in the cobwebs of my mind.

Let's start out with the Farmer's Market in Fairhaven.  Nice piece about it in in Monday's edition of the S-T.  The market comes to us from the efforts of the the Fairhaven Sustainability Committee.  Over the brief life of the "market" I have had several people make observations relative to the same.  Most favorable.  The few that were not, are not worth the effort of addressing.

There were some doubts initially about the enterprise, but at least to this point in time, it seems to be a plus.  The committee running it seems committed to its name and the concept of making it a sustainable endeavour.  

Based on this morning's temperature, not sure its opening does in fact mean summer has begun, but it certainly gives us hope.

Shifting gears a bit ... well a whole lot ...

I want to point out something that at least I found somewhat interesting.  It concerns land acquisition and how we should deal with the related "purchasing" power of my favorite advisory committee.  It is related in the aspect that some have argued that requiring Town Meeting approval to acquire land, may somehow be viewed as a bad thing and an impediment to preserving land.

One of the communities involved in the water valley advisory committee is Marion.  On Marion's recent town meeting warrant as an article, Article 35.  The intent, well here it is from the warrant:

Said commission shall have the powers of a conservation commission

with respect to the acquisition of interests in land and the expenditure of funds

under the provisions of section 8C of chapter 40 of the General Laws;

provided, however, that any acquisition of interests in land by said

commission shall require authorization by a majority vote of the Marion

Town Meeting.

In a S-T article date June 14

In other action, selectmen endorsed sending to the Legislature a home-rule petition eliminating the Marion Open Space Action Committee's ability to acquire land without Town Meeting approval. Residents voted in favor of this petition at the May Town Meeting.

Now I bring this up because arguments have been made about the other communities and what they would think of us in Fairhaven about insisting that our Town Meeting approve "borrowing" to buy land.  

Based on the Marion vote, I would guess that they would think we were as smart as them.

I am not against preserving land for the purpose of protecting the water supply.  In fact, the one clear thing that has come from the past two Fairhaven votes on the increase in the fee to be assessed is a majority willingness to actually pay more for this purpose.

But that majority dwindled just a bit in the last vote.  More to do with the realization of what happened and what we are giving up rather than the preservation issue.  

I do not care which side you are on the wind turbines debate, the simple fact of the matter is they ended up being erected because of changes in the law, made after the initial vote by town meeting. Changes that made a financially marginal project financially viable, changes that eliminated certain local controls.  Changes made under the rationalization that the project was a good thing.

Protecting the water supply is a good thing.  Increasing the fee you pay so you can buy more land may in fact be a good thing.  Had the change in that particular law stopped right there, the new fee would be in place.  It didn't, it expanded the powers of an advisory committee where there was no need to do so.  

Remember one thing that seems to get forgotten.  

The money which has been collected since 1998 has somehow managed to get spent over the years without the expansion of powers, hasn't it.  

If the issue truly is about more money, why throw in more powers?

I care not about immediate present intent of any committee as it applies to the future.  The simple fact is no committee makeup, nor philosophy, remains the same forever. 

We will be seeing this matter again, rest assured.