Sorry, I am late. I was busy with something else.

Well October seems to be rolling a long.  People are starting to fill up their bags with leaves.  Not sure you can get a permit to burn in the fall.  Just keep that in mind, because it is a civil infraction to light your leaves without on.

Sorry about that, I couldn't resist.

Speaking of permits ... seems according to the DPH spokesperson quoted in The Standard Times 

"The selection committee will take a moratorium into consideration but, even with a moratorium, it's up to the applicant to demonstrate local support,"

The selection committee being the arm from DPH picking the applicants who will get the permits for an RMD.  So no per se death blow to the application, just a strike against it.  Little consolation if someone is competing for a spot.

I agree with the planning board chair as also quoted in the article that it would help to have a town meeting in place.  Personally, I have on occasion over the years pondered the usefulness of two "annual" meeting dates.

One in May to set the budgets, take care of year end business for the current year.  Deal with matters actually ready to be dealt with. another say the second week of November.  If for no other reason to have a set venue to deal with the never ending attempts at wringing the coffers dry in May simply because well, we are the first town to hold and annual, we don't know where we will be in the fall.

There are better purposes for it though.  The first is the constant flurry of articles for the special within the annual held in May.  I myself am always amazed at the number of good things that pop up between the deadline for submission of articles for the annual town meeting and the deadline for that particular special, indeed the light bulbs that go off just before the second deadline must put a strain on the national grid.

For the two a year concept to work though, would involve some budgetary policies to be put in place. but suffice it to say it would help eliminate the need for "specials" being called out of "necessity".  It would put potential petitioners on notice that this is the "when", and might actually eliminate a few of the gripes behind stacking a "special".  

But I digress ...

The Fairhaven Neighborhood News this week has a few interesting pieces.  There is coverage on the recent murder in town.  The 10/21/2013 BPW meeting is highlighted.  The public hearing on the moratorium is also covered. 

As to that one, having been a member of the public in attendance I will note that i did not see or hear the Fairhaven Finance Committee Chairperson say anything. I can state a town resident who happens to serve in that capacity did however.  I believe the fact that the statement was from a residents perspective was made clear.  

Admittedly the story mentions the reference to attendance as a resident.  As such the distinction may simply a mater of how you like to say "tomato". I however like to feel distinctions are important.  I still find people who read such things tend to look at speakers identified by "honorifics" as speaking officially.  

Is a person's position in town when speaking as an individual relevant.  I would say at times.  Especially at those times when the distinction isn't made clear by the speaker that it is the individual speaking and not the "position". Perhaps some find it worth reading that resident "A" who happens to be sitting as committee member "B" has a opinion on some matters.  

I just feel a need to go to lengths to explain that when such events occur, it is important to remember it is just another individual speaking.

Again may just be how you like them tomatoes. 

So back to the beginning, or close to it ...

The recommendation for a moratorium is not in fact an act resulting in an official death penalty. Just one of many factors determining whether to impose the death penalty.

Been doing a bit of confirmatory research to make sure the rust in my head hasn't replaced the metal entirely and is the cause for my failure to "get it".  Needed to brush off a few spots, apply some primer and touch up to a few areas.  Having done a bit of a refurbishment, I still don't get it.

Here is what I do get though.

1.  Some people voted to support the law, believing its application would be another communities problem. 

2.  Some people voted to support the law without having an understanding of the real implications.

3.  Some people don't believe in the law.

4.  Some people feel we can magically make it better by local action

Sound familiar.  If it doesn't, it should. That aside ...

No. 5 is the simple fact is the law and regulations do not require any community to do anything.  Local action is voluntary, and is also limited in scope.  

I also get the stated reason behind seeking the moratorium are the creation of "novel and complex legal, planning and public safety issues".

The novelty factor:  pot.  That simple. 

The law and regulations did not create a new special and unique thingy. It made something legal. you can debate whether something now legal doesn't fall under a permissible use somewhere in the zoning regs.  To me it is a pointless debate. It is now a legal product. Nothing novel or complex about that fact.

As a FYI, I am not on the pot bandwagon.  I am not however a reefer madness adherent either. I can in fact come up with just as many reasons why not as to why.  Not just for pot however.  Just as I could for say a munitions plant.  The same would be personal reasons however, not legal ones.

The novel and complex legal issues revolve solely around how to deal with the fact medicinal pot is legal in Massachusetts, subject to state laws and regulations and are illegal under the federal law.  Those legal issues are quite frankly well beyond the scope of the authority of any local board, and more bluntly the expertise of any local board. Until someone in a black robe says otherwise, those issue are not only best left in the determination of the legislature and the A.G., but legally required to be.

While there seemed to be some brief banter the other day on the federal issue, as noted I fail to see where this is a matter of any concern.  Zoning and planning are allowed under state law.  The oft cited c. 40A of the General Laws.  The Town of Fairhaven and the other 350 communities in Commonwealth have been advised by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that these facilities cannot be banned. It may be some community will win an appeal that winds its way up to the SJC, but until then you simply will not see a ban approved by the A.G. 

Neither are you going to see the Town of Fairhaven feel the weight of the power of the Federal government reach out and crush the town for any zoning action voluntarily taken under a state law. Until the feds at some point come out and tell you that you cannot enact a zoning regulation which state law allows, and then you still proceed, there is no place at this level for constitutional law debate.

As to what happens in California, Oregon or any other state under those states laws, the same is irrelevant to actions under Massachusetts law.  The issue on a local level isn't what you can and cannot do in another state.   

No complex novel and legal issues here. None needing any studying about legality.  Might have been six months ago.  Not today.  

Same exact principles and legal standards relative to adopting the adult entertainment by-laws.  You can create zones for them. You can regulate them based on reasonable standards not in conflict with the state laws and regs. You cannot not ban them under present law. Don't see any novelty or complexity here.  

Public Safety?  Well if you have concerns about traffic patterns, sure.  What is novel or complex about a new business in town though that will generate traffic that requires a moratorium?  

Don't even argue about someone running out of the place lighting up a joint. Sorry, I consider that one such a red herring. 

We pass requests for special legislation for liquor licenses with absolutely no thought given to how many more people will be on the road after a few drinks (and on that one at some point we may have a discussion because I personally think those laws limiting where are we can and cannot have a drink with your meal are foolish).

If potential abuse were the primary standard upon which regulations could or should be imposed, we would be living under marital law.

The law doesn't not give patients the right to drive high.  No different than impaired operation resulting from any other prescribed medication, or doing anything else that is currently prohibited using any other legal drug Having a prescription doesn't give you the right to ignore or violate other laws.

But other than traffic concerns, I will submit that public safety matters for this particular matter that would give rise to a reason for a moratorium should in fact be in the purview of law enforcement, which has weighed in on the issue.

That leaves planning concerns as to siting.  Kind of been dealing with that concept all ready.  

So where are we today?  A split vote by a board on recommending a moratorium that in my opinion will not pass, and that may in fact require another round advertising and another public hearing if a town meeting is not held within a certain time period. Law Enforcement,  Health Board  and two and most likely all three selectmen not supporting a moratorium.  Never mind that though, because what business do they have dealing with novel and complex issues under a law dealing with novel and complex legal and public safety matters. What input should those entities have and what value should their opinion be given on a zoning matter?

Location is indeed the remaining purpose, because outside of a few feel good tweaks in a by-law and siting the places in what are the least offensive area, you can't do anything else with the by-law.   Take all the time you need, that you want, to be absolutely certain you want to keep the places out of residential districts, the small industrial zones and even the "business" districts. 

One way or another, life goes on.  

Be safe.