The biggest complaint I have heard this week, from a great very many people is how long the week seems How it seems to have dragged on. Those darn Monday holidays. May be we should get rid of them?
Best news so far this week, on the sports front, the Red Sox managed to take two out of three from the Tigers in Detroit.
In the best and worst news category on the national front for the week, we have seen the prime time (now extended to apparently 24/7) dramatic comedy known as our national government extended for another three or so months.
Locally, the news is for the most part the stuff regulated to the side columns. Oh we certainly get excited about some of that stuff. If we don't pay attention to the bit pieces the items have a way of making the front page.
For the most part though we are in the slow season.
Although it seems the Town did warrant the upper 2/3 of the second page of The Standard Times. Turbines in the left column, murder investigation in the right, and a big picture sandwiched in between.
So ....
Some interesting news reports on the revived Historical Society this week in the papers. Let's see if this type of revival leads to a full recovery.
A little blurb in The S-T today on page A-9 about the rampant abuse of handicap parking in the City of Boston. With all that goes in in this world, such a story is notable to me only because it is an example of how the obvious only becomes obvious to officials after it is pointed out in a manner that can no longer be ignored; and, because it shows us just how no "good" intended law exists without people abusing it.
Don't have to go to Boston to discover that abuse.
I missed the second public forum for the town Government Study Committee. I have heard several comments, but third handed. Some apparent grumblings. Not only expected, but a good thing. Means issues are being discussed and talked about. This type of process has to deal with separating the wheat from the chaff.
Purist will insist on gently beating the plant against a rock, others will have what they consider more productive approaches, and a few aren't going to agree on any method. One way or another there will be a whole lot of dust in the air, and when it settles we will have enough wheat to making a satisfying loaf of bread.
We have all become experts on everything. We all know what is best, not only for ourselves but for everyone else. The true blessing of the 24/7 information age is not only can we find something out there to confirm we are right, we all have the ability to say so (just being a tad facetious here if you didn't get the drift).
Early reminder for what's coming up ... Selectmen's meeting on town counsel candidates. Monday night. Planning Board meeting on marijuana moratorium on Tuesday night. Both potentially drawing a crowd, and only only where there should be any public participation allowed. Other boards meeting next week. check the town calendar to stay in touch.
Well, that's about all for today.
Be safe.
The big news today is again the wind turbines. An extension has been filed for : "new information only recently discovered. "
ReplyDeleteThe wind turbine group has asked for an extension in the interest of being fair to the parties involved in the lawsuit. There appears to be more information or some kind of documentation available that had not been available awhile ago.
The request for an extension will surely be the topic in many legal journals
Are you too being facetious? You either know something more than has been reported that would actually indicate facts that would make such a motion "journal" worthy. Being one who knows nothing about the matter other than has been reported in the paper, don't see where those limited "statements" will have some legal scholar in a tizzy over the legal briefs for that one.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe ongoing court case over the Fairhaven wind turbines is still very young in comparison historically to most other lawsuits in Massachusetts. The courts in general always weigh the significance of recently discovered information and award an extension to the court proceedings in favor of all parties.
The original issue and lawsuit was because in May of 2007 Fairhaven Town Meeting allowed the Select Board to lease two lots of land for two commercial wind turbines. The lots were Lot 8 and Lot 8A. The north turbine was placed on Lot 9. Town Meeting never voted to allow Lot 9 to be leased to anyone.
There is information that documents that at the time of the writing of the lease and building permit there was concern that changing the Lot location of the turbine should have gone back to Town Meeting for approval. A decision was made not to go back to Town Meeting and go forward without an authorized specific vote.
Fairhaven has a Representative Town Meeting, The bottom line is the Fairhaven Representative Town Meeting was never asked or never authorized the leasing of Lot 9. Now the question is how did Lot 9 get leased and who gave permission for the lease.
The problem now is if the courts find in favor of the plaintiffs it would make the entire lease agreement null and void as it was never approved by Representative Town Meeting. Massachusetts has laws that regulate Representative Town Meetings.
I gave you another kick at the can to ... well, I am not quite sure why I gave you another kick at the can to be honest.
ReplyDeleteYour "new" found information is only new if everyone has short term memory loss. Then again, this may be another smoking gun that is being sought. In fact that point about knowing it to be on the wrong lot in relation to town Meeting is very old news and dealt with by the court in the summary judgment matter.
The article notes :
They say more time is needed to review the state's noise sampling of the machines, calling it "new information only recently discovered" in a September motion.
So, apparently it is about noise. But then again it seems that is all you are making by your comments. your standard applies to newly discovered relevant evidence. The judge seemed to have answered your point last December on what Town Meeting knew or didn't know.
Quite frankly, I still don't know what is being argued in the motion referenced in today's paper, and after reading your comment I am pretty sure I am not the only one.
However the points you are raising in your comment were unfortunately for you argued and decided in the judge's summary judgment decision. Ever read that one?
Lot 8,7,6, whatever it is town land an the turbines were built ,get over it. Find some new relevant info on the issue or just bury it once an for all.
ReplyDelete