Saturday Evening Post, mid-morning edition

Well the chatter war has heated up again over the turbines.  Indeed I received a "good blog suggestion", i.e. to see if the Town is making more money or less money this year. Well good if that is what you want me to do.

No I didn't post the comment.  I was going to pretty much ignore it.  First, me doing the leg work to gather information for someone else isn't a blog suggestion.  Secondly, whether we as a town are making more money or less money this year isn't a primary concern in the relative scheme of the money issue.  

It is what it is. It will be what it will be.  As long as the figure is in the black column rather than the red the amount in the black is relevant only to the debate of whether it was truly worth doing doing in the first place.

I have said it a number of times previously on this blog if we could turn back time, knowing what I know, I wouldn't have supported the turbines.  Not for all the reasons opponents put forth mind you.

The simple fact is though we can't.  They are there, and presently the "net" remains in the black. If you want to know how much, you figure it out, at least if you want the information relative to the blog.   Reading some of the "chatter" we can soon expect to be provided with that information.

There seems to be this argument that because we aren't making as much from the turbines as we should, as we were led to believe, this somehow is a reason to get rid of them.  I wish I could use that argument for a whole lot of what happens in this town.  

Anyway, I don't get the basis for the argument.  Sorry I don't.  We can't simply pull the plug and walk away with no ramifications.  I do mean it when I say if we could do that, I probably would. We can't.  Everyone knows we can't without actually incurring a loss.  From the financial perspective, it is the classic bite your nose to spite your face.

does the argument involve more than finances. Certainly.  Should it? Absolutely. But you can't frame a debate around not making enough without involving the issue of how much to end it.  To do so implies a reality that simply does not exist.  And please stop the potential damages claim.  File the lawsuits and then we can talk about it.

As far as the arguments from the other side, i.e. the money the opposition is costing the town through legal fees, what is your point?  People have a right to challenge government decisions.  Personally, I would in many instance when looking at government action from the government perspective love to see that right restricted.  In the twenty years of having to deal with government issues from the government perspective, there is a whole lot of stuff that gets challenged and taken to court by a whole lot of people and groups that you just have to shake your head about.

But be very, very careful about arguing against people exercising their rights.  Especially when some of those making those arguments could very easily have the same arguments thrown back at them.  If what is best for the majority is the standard in this case, shouldn't it be the standard in all cases?

Am I happy with the lawsuits, no.  Would I have proceeded the same way? No.  Do I fault anyone from exercising their legal rights or seeking a determination of those rights? No.  Neither should you.  

You learn to never say never over the years dealing with this kind of stuff.  You learn never to make statements cast in concrete, firm predictions about events in the distant future (and in politics a few months is distant).  you also learn that arguments are very flexible depending on the position people take on certain issues.  Consistency in application is not apparently a standard some feel needs to be followed.

The benefit of hindsight is that it always can be viewed with 20/20 vision.  What I see, what you see and what some other individual may see with that 20/20 vision is always going to be skewed from one's position looking back though.  As far as the future well the same actually applies to that.

Looking back, bad decision.  Looking forward, it would be an even worse decision to pull the plug.  Again, repeatedly again, this is not simply about losing the revenue stream.  Pulling the plug has very foreseeable consequences financially far in excess of the revenue.

Yes all the potential lawsuits "could" cost millions and millions in damages, and may in fact do so, and as soon as someone files one of those types of lawsuits we can then actually debate the real potential consequences. Until some individual does that, until we are in court on one of those types of lawsuits, the argument is hypothetical.

Enough for today.

Be safe.