A periodical, of sorts.

Three weeks to the midterm elections. 

I know, here is solid blue Massachusetts it is not an event to get to excited about, at least for the federal offices.  The governor's race might be getting some excited.  I know more than a few who are queasy about that one.

The statewide ballot questions may have some people excited.  I was personally surprised at what turned into a very heated conversation over the bottle bill.  Believe it or not, I wasn't the one who became overheated.

That will be an interesting one. Will people vote for the extension of the deposit on bottled water and other presently exempted soft beverages?

Truth be told, I am not opposed to it.  A bit shocking to some of my friends on the right. 

As I have said in the past I am not a die hard tree hugger.  I am also not a tree hater either.  While a more appropriate example of the environmental benefits to this bill would be the use of the living creatures that more directly suffer the effects of the wanton and reckless littering, it seems the only way to get people to do what they should do naturally is put a price on the act.

Yes, it may cost you more money upfront. Yes, it may be a pain in the posterior to get your money back. But you only lose money if you don't seek a return of your deposit.  We all benefit from not seeing the plastic bottles rolling, floating, and overflowing all over the place.  If you don't care about your nickle, someone else will.  

Truth be told, there is no one to blame for this one except the consumer themselves. 

As to the gas tax and repealing the inflation escalator, I am all for the repeal to it.  Must something be done relative to the roads/transportation infrastructure? Absolutely. This isn't the solution.  Like most tax increases sold for a specific purposes, our fearless leaders will find a way to divert the extra money to other things. 

Elected officials shouldn't be let off the hook for tax increases on such things.  Take the hard votes. If it is really needed it should be a hard vote.

The the gambling question, where a yes vote will mean no gambling.  The state has decide to become a part of the gambling scene very late in the game.  I get the reasoning behind the attempt to stop it. Indeed the process we have seen for awarding casinos in and of itself should be cause for any reasonable person to question the law.

My point though is while I am not a big casino supporter, neither am I an opponent.  I will be voting no and saying yes to casino gambling.

Let us not forget the earned sick time question.  This is one that could actually affect the town. Directly. Not to mention will affect every business in the Commonwealth. I kind of get the can't be fired part of it.  Not totally in sync with the way the paid provision applies.  

Anyway ...

As you can tell from above, it is a slow local news day blogging moment.  Not to worry though events will be picking up.  December 9th is coming quicker than you think.  I am sure we will see a detailed plan as to why it makes sense to spend $1.465 million dollars more or less to buy 31 acres of land more or less to meet a need that won't be met for more or ... well not less anyway ... for five years.

I for one wait with bated breath as to the reasoning behind the proposal to use the town stabilization fund. The only reasoning I can come up with at this point is that it is there, and it is the quickest way to get the money.

Anyway ... it seems a complete shift in policy.  Add good opportunity to the approved reasoning for use now.  Might all most nibble on the bait on the hook if we had say a reserve of about $4 million, if the "plan" presented was sound.  

After 20 years of hearing you don't tap into that reserve at its present level for anything but emergencies or planned expenditures, i.e. ones you have been putting money into it for a specific purpose, well maybe I am just to set in my ways.

One of the few things I know for certain is that the regrets I have over the two decades of service don't grow from things not done, but from supporting less than ideal conceptual plans.  I find it rather interesting that some have had a shift in philosophy on the overall concept.  

I find it even more interesting that there is a better crystal ball out there than the one I have access to. This is the only site available. A dual facility is the only option available.  There is an absolute certainty that the land will be rezoned, the access to the property will be dealt with and that there will be no issues. 

I need a newer crystal ball I guess.  Not worth the expenses though for another 6 months, more or less.

The irony in the whole process.  We have the option to buy because of a law put in place to encourage keeping land in a certain "state" for specific uses.  One would assume the intent behind that law was to give a community the option to purchase land to maintain it in that certain "passive" state, and not to become the substitute developer.  Just another example of the rule when you assume.

Anyway ... Enough for today.

Be safe.