Catharsis and a Catch

It seems the last 5 years of so I reach a point where the urge to just walk away from all the town stuff just starts to build.  It begins to weigh on me.  You know, moments of self-doubt, judging whether it is worth it.  The never ending battles, the constant behind the scenes maneuvering.  The sand bagging, etc.

It seems every year though something happens that to begin a strengthening of resolve.  This year there were several small things.  The clouds disappear, the sun shines, and I remember what it is all about.  Believe it or not, it is usually the result of a button pushing moment.

Well lots of buttons being pushed right now, and you know what, keep on pushing.

Moving on ...

One week and a couple of hours to Town Meeting Day.  Town Meeting Members should review the documents they have been provided, including the letter relative to the precinct meet for Wednesday, May 2, 2012.

Precinct meetings are important.  First off you elect your precinct chairs.  To do so you need a quorum present (1/3 the total membership.  Since each precinct differs ins issues by a few members, this figure is usually around 23 +/- one or two).

As a bit of history, roughly up 25 to thirty years ago (span is not exact), each precinct use to meet on a different night and officials would appear before each precinct to discuss the various articles and specific concerns in the precinct.  That was changed to combined meetings of several precincts to the point it was done on two nights.  Fairly recently the decision was made to consolidate the meetings all in one night.

I have heard the pros and cons for going back to several nights vs. one.

Honestly, and not as a natter of convenience for anyone, I think the one night scenario is best, specifically for the "dress rehearsal" for town meeting held afterward.  All the precincts gather, at which time there is a run through of the warrants for the annual and special.  People are given the opportunity to ask questions on the various articles.

The most compelling argument against one night is the time factor.  One cannot dismiss this as there certainly is limited time.  However, it is limited time, be it for one or two nights.  Having been involved in multiple "agenda" styles for holding these meetings, it has been my experience spearate meetings on different nights doesn't cure that problem.

On most issues, the same questions come up on the same articles.

The key factor in supporting the one night for me though is that there are always one or two matters that people on one night deems significant and on another do not.  It also was my experience that the same usually were not "precinct" driven issues.  The one night scenario does present an opportunity for everyone to listen to the questions everyone else has.

Quite frankly it is also easier to get official to attend the one night session, thereby making it possible for everyone to hear explanations from the proper official.

Costs come into play also.  Can't ignore that.  While minimal in the since that the same in way way approach the costs of holding the actual TM, there are always costs associated with any meeting.

For me though the strongest argument is in fact everyone being together to have the opportunity to hear the questions from everyone else.  

Taking a turn ...

Lots of discussion lately about community rights and the siting process for alternate energy facilities.

I have said in the past, and will state again, the changes in the law that allowed the process for such facilities to be put up bypassing certain local review are flawed.  Both solar and wind are government subsidized industry.  But for the tax credits and incentives, green energy credits and net metering laws in at least our Commonwealth, it would be my guess we would not have seen the two turbines in Fairhaven put up, or most of those anywhere else in this state; and, neither would we be seeing the solar farming "boom".

Look at what is potentially transpiring in our neighboring town Acushnet.  It proceeded with a plan, based upon what the law is, accepted those conditions, weighed its options, and now faces the possibility of a change to its detriment to benefit the developer.

there is something inherently wrong when those in power can even be considering such a thing.

Anyone ever think about the fact that there were those in our own community that may have originally supported the turbines as a good idea, but thinking that because of the process that was in existence at the time of the vote in 2007, the project would be properly vetted?  I will be honest with you, had the post original town meeting changes to state law had been in affect at the time of the original vote, I am not sure what I personally would have done.

The simple, and in many ways, unfortunate fact of the matter is there does not seem to be any legal violation of the law.  I realize the "described" land argument is out there and still needs to be decided.  It will be in court.  What we now face is how to deal with a problem without destroying our town, both in spirit and financially.

The turbines have for many become a variation of the classic "Catch 22" scenario.