Another Why Day

The greater good.  Just what does that entail? If you have that answer and can get the majority of people to agree with the answer, let me know.  Let us all know.

There will be several Town Meeting articles where the "greater good" will be either actually argued or be hiding just under the surface. I am not talking about about town budget or government change articles today, although the argument will be present in some for the same.

Today, I address one of those articles.  

In the "third time's the charm" argument, T.M. will once again be asked to approve an additional fee to be charged for water drawn by the town from its well fields. Mattapoisett River Valley Water Protection Committee article is once again up for consideration.

Two years running this article has been presented.  It has required in the past, and will require a 2/3 vote.  

This year it appears as Article 32 in the ATM warrant.  I did a piece on last years article.  For most of the rant and rave see "One Special Act At A Time".  The extra page and links referenced thereon have been deleted.  I will try and get those up again.  If you go back that far, there were several other "tirades".

Anyway, let us look at it this way:  There are 4 communities that make up this regional district (one of two regional "water" districts Fairhaven is a member of, the second of which could have and should have been structured to make this particular one disappear).

All 4 communities have a vote.  Only three pay the fee.  The excuse as to why number four does not is just that, an excuse.

Fairhaven pays the lions share of the money which goes to this committee.  Not arguing about that, just noting it.  We draw the most water, so I get it.  However on most regional committee, where that is the case, you usually see a weighted board.

While the Town overwhelming supported the Voc Tech school addition, is anyone really happy about the process we had to go through to deal with it? 

This "water" committee could do the same.  The counter-points: There is no intent to borrow.  No intent now.  The amounts generate from the fee make borrowing impractical.  At current levels maybe. With the increased amounts, a bit more likely; and, let us face it, does anyone really believe this will be the last penny that will be asked for?

Two years running, it has been strongly suggested the legislation should be changed to require the committee to seek permission to borrow, rather than require the town to have to take action to prevent it.  At one point it was argued it would take to long to do it that way.  Well if you have no intent to borrow, what's the difference?  Secondly, that time argument is bunk.  If there were any significant purchase requiring borrowing of such importance it couldn't wait, why wouldn't we as a Town meet to determine the issue?  

The only new excuse I have heard this year is that Mattapoisett and Marion don't want to change.  If that be the case, so what.  If Mattapoisett and Marion don't want the change, Mattapoisett and Marion can actually pass an article that allow Mattapoisett and Marion to pay the extra penny if those communities want to.  

Nothing prevents those communities from imposing the higher fee. Absolutely nothing.

By the way, it is an interesting concept when a community files special legislation to specifically require a town board to first obtain town meeting approval before it can acquire any interest in land.      It is interesting what Marion did with its conservation commission.  Take a look at that special legislation.  Me, all I want is the same thing for this committee.

You have got to love the logic behind funding this advisory committee which now has more teeth than a piranha.  

You have no problem with an agency that operates essentially totally under the radar.  A regional entity that is not required to submit any type of budget for review like the other water district, or even the regional schools which at least have to submit dollar amounts.

There seems to be no problem at all giving this little committee complete carte blanche.

If you win a vote by a majority, but lose the vote for failing to get the 2/3 vote; if you are really sincere about the fact you have no intentions of borrowing; if you know that another piece of special legislation can get you the money, and that won't interfere with your true intentions, why won't you do it?

You know, I don't have a problem with the fact that not one penny of the money is likely to get spent in the Town of Fairhaven.  The intended purpose is in fact to protect the water supply for the Town.  

I do have a problem when people have a problem with those who pay the money having some oversight over it.

You have to wonder why that is?