Past, Present and Future

Very interesting article in yesterday's Neighborhood News. Historical Commission gripes about sloppy Historical Society provides some insight into the feelings of the members of the Commission (the actual town entity charged with the maintenance of the building, but apparently not the oversight).

Quoting from the article

Almost in perfect unison, all four commission members spoke out, “Why can’t we all just share the same building?” followed by a chuckle.

Interesting question isn't it?

Just as interesting is today's article in the S-T.  Guess the money appropriated previously for insulation hasn't worked in the building, along with the other funds over recent years for improvements.

I for one am more than curious to take a look at the accounting for sweat equity vs. fair rental value over a twenty year period.  Read the article to see the comment "After all this work, now they are saying we have to pay?" [Barbara Acksen] said. "They didn't pay us to do that work."

After all what work?  Didn't get paid?

Want to calculate what you haven't paid in rent in 20 years, plus your share of the electricity, heat, light, insurance, telephone, alarm system, building maintenance, repair and improvements, and see who owes who what?

As far as the accessibility argument, what is more offensive:  A museum that people cannot access, or a town department where reasonable accommodations can be made? Probably better accommodations I might add than those for several town hall existing departments.

If you saw the selectmen's meeting several weeks ago, one speaker specifically referenced how the "Society" has skirted the accessibility issue.  Following the flimsy standing the Society uses to retain an iron grip on the building, the 1992 proclamation forming a "collaborative" effort with the town, how do our selectmen deal with the accessibility issue for a museum?

The issue of accessibility didn't even exist for one selectman under his original vote on the tourism budget.

No other town office need be forced to share cramped space unless you intend to put the demands of a private group ahead of those of the town.

It really is that simple.

Want overwhelming support?  Well I think it was a pretty clear vote on how many supported the concept of paying rent.

Want more overwhelming support on what should happen next?  Let's see exactly what happens next.

There are plots and sub-plots swirling behind the scenes here folks.

Some that go back years.  Some that do not even involve the location of the tourism department.  

Some dates are very important in this argument.  Some inaccurate dates to boot.

Motivations that involve personalities, perceived slights and perceptions of entitlement and all the things that get involved in political decisions.

Trust me, this issue is one that most definitely revolves around the "who you know" concept.

Make no mistake about it, what happens next with the tourism department and the continued use of the Academy Building has morphed into a political quagmire for those involved.

As is the case with most quagmires, when you jump in without an extraction policy, you very seldom manage to pull yourself out.

Enough history for the moment.

Let's talk about the future.

The potential for a Charter Commission.  First step, and the most essential is to obtain the necessary signatures to get the matter on the ballot next April.  As mentioned previously there is a meeting concerning the same tomorrow at the Town Hall at 9:00 A.M.    

If you can't attend, but are interested in helping out send an e-mail with your contact information to the fairhavenchartercommission@gmail.com.  

Some persistent chat going around that we will see yet another special town meeting for specific purposes.  Not the end of the world, however it is a move that should be considered very seriously.  If someone is going to take yet another attempt at an article or two, know exactly what you want.  Set your priorities, dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s.  Think seriously about what you put on the warrant.  

Is it a matter that needs the attention of a special town meeting? Is it something that should more properly be before an annual meeting?

Ultimately only those who seek and collect the signatures necessary for a special can make the decisions for themselves.  Just as ultimately, every decision and action carries ramifications that seem to have been ignored recently.  

I am not sure just how much of a swing anyone can count on from an article deemed unenforceable to one properly worded on the same topic.  There is not doubt that some voted solely on the unenforceable 

argument.  Just as there is not doubt that some voted for other reasons.

Unless I missed something, I did not see the shift in town meeting make up that some actively worked for.  What I saw was a body of elected representatives who took their position pretty seriously.  

Had an interesting chat with someone yesterday.  They commented on the lack of dialogue on the blog.  Not sure why more people do not comment, nor why there aren't more comments.  Have absolutely no control over that.

Well that is not completely true.  I suppose if I didn't moderate the blog, or at least took the pre-publishing moderation feature off that might generate more comments.  That and if I resisted the temptation to reply to the comments.

Who knows?

As an FYI, I am going to allow anyone to comment. No more registered user.  Just remember if the comment crosses the line it won't get published.  If you don't sign with an e-mail there will be no way to the why behind any comment that doesn't get published.  So it will be up to you.

Let's see what that does.  The primary point in asking for some kind of i.d. was to distinguish between the multiple anonymous comments.  Let's see how it goes.