Odds and Ends, Bits and Pieces, All at a Premium!

First things first.  Glad to see most of you didn't bother taking a look at the blog yesterday. I will hope it is from the fact you enjoyed the holiday rather than as a result of my lackadaisical blogging habits as of late. Whatever the reason, may it have been a wonderful day for yoy all.

Thanks to a shareview posted elsewhere, I was able to take a look at the memorandum of decision issued in the Falmouth court case.  The link should get you to the decision so long as whoever posted it keeps it there.  

Here is what I took from it:

First, point, and always an important one, Town Counsel and single members of Boards who do not have authority and/or are not certain that a "settlement" they agree to in court will be accepted by the majority of the board simply have to get out of the habit of agreeing to settlements, either in principle or under apparent authority.

You report to the court, any court, anywhere, that you "agree", be it on a preliminary matter or otherwise, don't expect a judge to look kindly upon your actions when the party you represent fails to honor the agreement. I have seen this happen way to many times, involving private parties and "government".  

That being said, the actual decision ramifications to Fairhaven involving the Town of Falmouth case seem to be a topic of debate.  From my read though the ramifications are still essentially none legally, although politically, well go back a few blogs to the "traction" piece. 

Whether that changes going forward depends on what may happen in the remainder of the case, but the case itself is inescapably grounded on a Falmouth Board of Appeals determination involving Falmouth ordinances. 

This decision is being touted by some as a precedent of sorts that will have state wide and worldwide application.  Sorry, don't see it.  Not at this point. Certainly not any legal precedent. It could be argue as a persuasive cite, but it is in no way binding.  

Politically, well who knows. Events may change, certainly if and when the case goes to trial and if there are some claims also being litigated that aren't readily apparent than in the decision. However the precedent value of a Superior Court decision concerning enforcement of a local board of appeals decision is minimal at best. 

More significantly, based on the decision, absent some rabbit coming out of a hat, it seems pretty clear the Falmouth turbines are not going to be shut down permanently.  Indeed the judge seems to clearly indicate that a total shutdown is not looming out there.  See pages 4 and 5 of the decisions.  In fact please read the whole decision.  A 7 to 7 shutdown as a permanent thing is not even a guaranty for the "winners".

That is the problem when people start discussing decisions.  They all start writing legal briefs based on bits and pieces.  I bet you have not read anywhere (unless you have read the decision) the finding by the judge that that the irreparable harm to the Town if the funding agreements permanently fail outweighs the injury/harm to the plaintiffs in balancing the harms as far as a total shutdown, i.e. the reasoning why there was only a partial shutdown.

Even if that changes going forward, such an action would be a near certainty to trigger appellate court involvement, and for the reasons stated by this judge as to why there isn't going to be a total shutdown presently, I would opinion the appeals court would not uphold a 24/7 shutdown..

Quite frankly, this seems to be one of the cases where if one understands the public nuisance concept in general, the legal version of it not your personal version of it, the rights, remedies and a few other odds and ends, the real question for Falmouth is how much do you want to pay to be right?  Litigation and appeals have costs. 

While the same for Fairhaven is also true, there is a significant difference between the two communities. I have said it before. Falmouth owns its turbines.  Fairhaven does not.  Falmouth has the luxury, for lack of a better word, to decide to unilaterally curtail or even shutoff its turbines.  Fairhaven does not.  Fairhaven simply does not avoid further/future litigation by imposing a shutdown.  So the argument some make, do it or we will sue, is not a significant enticement for action.

Now with all that being said, let us really get down to the underlying problem. A problem that isn't going to change unless and until people start thinking.  You don't enact laws that you know or should know are going to spawn an industry without putting some thought out there to the planning and ramifications.  You don't hide behind the excuse that siting is a local matter and yet create procedures that allow local oversight boards to be circumvented.

Moving on ...

Yesterday being Thanksgiving, and having read the "Premium Edition" of The Standard Times, the recent letter received from the newspaper concerning my subscription came to mind. It is gratifying to know I am only being surcharged an additional $2.00 to help defray the cost of the content.

I am absolutely ecstatic that rather than being assessed an extra charge for this Premium Edition, and apparently up to 15 more each year, I will only see an acceleration on the length of the term for my subscription. 

You can imagine how giddy I am to know that the $21 and change I presently pay every 4 weeks will remain $21 and change. the only difference now is instead of thirteen payments per year it will be what, 14 per year?

Listen, I get it. Costs are up, profit margin is down, and the paper needs to make money to stay afloat.  One of the reasons I continue to subscribe to the on-line and print version is the belief that a local daily serves a necessary and vital function to the local community.

What I don't get is the concept of sending me a letter telling me what you are doing by creating "premium" editions. Could be I am just too picky about what I consider to be a "premium" anything, but the actual newspaper seemed to be your standard Thursday edition.  Sure some extra fluff thrown in, but not much.

Now could be the paper counts the 41 inserts delivered as part of the premium service.  Not sure where the value to me comes in to me by giving me 41 paid advertisements and charging me more.  

I guess sugar coating bad news makes it easier to swallow, or sell.

I will also take a guess that accelerating the expiration of my subscription is in fact assessing me an extra charge. Might be wrong there, but it seems like it is right, right?

Anyway, it is what it is.  The paper feels the need to charge more.  I have options.  We all do.  For now I will accept the 41 inserts and eat the extra dollar for getting them.

Enough for today.  If you have a long weekend, enjoy it.  If you don't my sincere condolences.

Either way ... Be Safe!