I spent some time debating whether to publish the third comment yo yesterday's post. Take away the jab to the prior two commentators and it was perfectly fine, but that jab ... Be forewarned, town meeting protocol frowns on such jabs.
By the way, "we" are never tired of hearing from people. Comments within the rules for posting are always welcome, even those that stretch the rules can make it. A bit ironic that smart vs. reactive is addressed in the comment, when it is clearly intended to get a reaction.
Anyway, as to the point at the end:
Neither the incumbent nor the challenger should be voted for out of spite. Look at their ideas, responsiveness & skills. Please vote smartly and not reactively.
Lofty ideal.
Just what is the "smart vote" here though? Well that does in fact depend on your position doesn't it?
If we all believed votes were going to simply be cast "smartly", the volume of the propaganda and the tit for tat antics wouldn't be going on.
To vote smartly one has to look at facts, process those facts, and make a decision on facts. One has to weigh their own assessment of those facts and decide, in the truest sense of performance of civic duty, exactly what is in the best interest of the Town.
Are financial ramifications to be factored into a smart decision? Is it smart to vote based on compassion and empathy being the primary criteria?
I can anticipate the answers to those questions.
On their own, neither candidate would be able to muscle up the support and workers that are driving this campaign based on their ides, responsiveness and skills.
This election isn't being driven by people making a smart decision, unless the only criteria for smart is which candidate is going to support the supporters point of view.
This election is all about people reacting to what they hear, what they read and what they see. It is being driven by people who want the candidate to react to their point of view.
At this point in time, as long as this campaign has been dragging out, with everything that has transpired, I would love to base a vote simply on specific ideas, responsiveness and specific skills. Maybe I have missed something, but I don't see where the specifics for those have been put out.
But most of what has been thrown against the proverbial wall is again in the all too familiar realm of the twilight zone.
With less than a week to go, things seem to be heating up just a tad.
For a whole lot of folks in town this is what can be described as a ABC election. Anyone But the Candidates. The reality is there is no other real choice but the two candidates. With that in mind it seems many are going to the polls to vote an issue.
That choice is going to be made by most simply based on how people perceive the candidates will deal with the turbines. Can we all be honest enough to admit that is how most votes are going to be decided, or at least that will be the deciding factor?
That is in fact on how most votes in many elections get cast. For the most part, people simply vote for a candidate who supports their position and usually on one issue, not who is the most qualified, not who will do the best job overall.
Explain to me how people are not going to react to some of the stuff that has been printed lately?
If all the stuff being thrown out there is enough to get someone to react to it and out of his or her chair and go to the polls, well quite frankly I am all for it. People absolutely should be reacting to what's going on.
Voting is an intentional act. It involves a thought process to make the decision to go to the polls. It means someone had to actually think about it.
Whether they had enough smart thoughts in that process is a matter of personal opinion.
Enough for today.
Be safe.
It will be interesting to see the votes by precinct. It can be said that this election is about 'the issue,' but it's not that way for all. We know where the issue affects people, and it will be interesting to see how that area votes, v.s. the rest of town.
ReplyDeleteSigns are everywhere, but it's noteworthy that one candidate has multiple signs on a single property. Good for him on the visibility factor. I hope it doesn't come into play where people who want him don't vote, thinking he's got it in the bag. Or that people who want the other candidate don't vote either, thinking that their candidate doesn't have a chance.
Signs don't vote. Don't leave this up to 12% of the voters. And no matter how it turns out, deal with the results.
What I have been actively telling people is the following:
ReplyDeleteAs to the election, I see votes cast for Mr. DeTerra, by those wishing him to represent normality in local government. He is expected to conduct town business within the parameters of the law. He has expertise in most of the matters regularly before the Board of Health. I think his initiative in seeking an acoustic consultant, if town meeting or others will finance makes sense. That would help the parties’ adjust the operating software of blade pitch and cut in speed, customized for the BPW site, with a knowledgeable voice representing the town. A further look at selected properties for sound and flicker could be warranted as well, in time. The turbines would produce power and revenues, with oversight by the town.
I think a vote for Mr. Wethington represents a vision outside of normal government, in that most of his stated goals for the Board of Health are already being approached by entities that actually have those concerns in their job description (educate at schools, nursing homes and senior center). I fear his approach to matters in his jurisdiction, he has no prior government experience, would be extreme to the point that he would place our town in court against itself and others, with nothing to support his case except a misinterpreted interim DEP sound study and a misreading of a negotiated contract. He seems to attract those wishing a costly and lengthy legal argument, paid for by every taxpayer instead of funded by a private group, unsuccessful to date, opposing the wind turbines. A publicly financed legal fight instead of a private, baked-cake-sale funded fight. Any abutter with credible concerns could not be addressed for many years.
The turbines would still operate through all this, except with oversight by others who are insulated from local election, while the electric revenues are drained from operating budgets to fund the legal expense line. The arguing would continue.
The lines in the sand are pretty clear to me and with most people I talk to as well. We have absolutely no choice but to vote for Mr. DeTerra.
The newspaper today has an interesting letter "How many legitimate complaints about turbines?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know how to react to the letter. This may be what you mean about stuff that has been printed lately.
The letter asks four specific questions none of which over the past year have ever been answered.
The letter asks that we start to look into complaints several days before an election ? What is the point of the letter ?
Actually today's letter was not what I meant. At the time I was thinking of a few others.
ReplyDeleteAs to the point of today's letter, only the letter writer can answer that. As a reader of the letter though the points I took from it were: (1) the questions were essentially in the nature of being rhetorical; and, (2) the number of complaints filed do not equal the number of people with legitimate complaints.Just my take on it though, since you asked.
The September 9 B of H election has morphed into an election that has the two original candidates re-running again and the causes remain the same.
DeleteCities and towns in Massachusetts are cash strapped to make ends meet without raising local taxes. The idea of commercial wind turbines looked like a great way for a constant revenue stream. No one had a crystal ball in which they could have ever seen the cost electricity drop so low that wind energy or other sources of renewable energy became more expensive.
I see a turnout of around ten percent based on past elections. The winner will be decided by which candidate can generate the biggest turnout of his supporters.Face it how many people didn't bother to go out and vote in the April election ? A few votes make a big difference. The proof is in the facts.
To vote for the right candidate look at the facts over the past two years in town and decide who is the best fit for the job. The Board of Health represents all the residents of Fairhaven. It's about the health of everyone
The number of complaints is greater than the number of those individuals affected because those affected had to file complaints when they were affected. If I was affected on six different days, but only filed one complaint, then how would the (experts?) know all of the conditions that needed testing? Suppose the original day and time I was affected was not nearly as bad as the subsequent times? If I didn't continue to file complaints, then what would prompt the testers to continue to test?
ReplyDeleteAs a reminder- some who are affected have not filed a complaint. So even though 450 complaints represent 50 homes, there ARE others who have waited it out for a number of different reasons.
This election is a time to let their voice be heard. Even if the turbines can't come down, it can send a message about the system.
I still haven"t seen a document from a real doctor who can prove his patient is suffering from wind turbine syndromes if any.The revenue stream an the concept of keeping the electric rates at a reasonable level are working.Natural gas gluts come an go an new oil discoveries,gas fracking,an other sources of power will be a never ending industry. We need a combination of all of them to manage our power needs.The BOH election will add another voice maybe,but will never fix the turbine issues,its a never ending story.
ReplyDelete