Signs and Cups: too many or too few?

Taking a look at all the news fit to print on a Monday morning, I am a bit stymied at what to "print" here.  There is of course enough stuff to eke a piece out of, but nothing jumps up with any pizazz. 

I suppose I should jump on the selectmen's agenda for tonight.  

Seems our town hall auditorium is becoming quite popular with theater productions.  A group has a request to rent it, along with a request to waive the rental fee for rehearsal dates.  

Sorry, but if this is granted, it shouldn't be.  Same reasons that the historical society shouldn't be getting a rent free deal at the Academy Building apply here, plus some.  

All costs incurred by the town are suppose to be recouped.  It isn't a rule with exceptions (well there actually are exceptions, but none that I can think of that would apply here).  The law requires the town to charge, unless there is a direct service/benefit to the town that can justify the freebie; and, that has to be more than the indirect benefit of making us a cultural hot spot or showing of a period room to a couple of hundred people a year.

There is a legal saying that goes "good facts make bad law". Well good causes can make for extremely bad policy.  

While the Wedding Singer may be an entertaining musical, what is not entertaining, nor any longer slightly amusing, is the seemingly never ending requests for freebies.  It is time for the town to file for a divorce from the union of freebies for not for profits.  Might be best as there are so many partners in this you it might constitute polygamy.

Let's see what happens on this one.

On another matter on the agenda, get ready for a slide down the slippery slope for another request, the permission to post signs along the cycle routes in town from the Buzzards Bay Coalition.  You want  to see a free speech Pandora's box open up, let this one go through.  At a minimum, every nonprofit organization is going to now have the same opportunity to do so if they choose.  

You do it for one, you got to do it for everyone.  

This one isn't even hard to see the heard of elephants that will end up stampeding for the same right.   You can impose limits, and you can impose sign restrictions, but once you grant permission to one group, you are going to have to grant permission to every group.  

Heck why not add in the permission for the theater group to do the same.  Might boost ticket sales enough to the point we wouldn't have to waive the rental fee for rehearsal dates.

Not holding my breath that this one will be denied.  It would be a pleasant surprise if it were.  Isn't it amazing how doing the right thing has become an something not expected rather than assumed. 

Maybe it is just me, being an optimistic pessimist (or is it a pessimistic optimist).

Speaking of empty cups filled half way ...

Actually it seems the cups are filled pretty much to the top.  Nice tidbit in the paper about the amounts raised locally for the Senate race.  Not to surprising.  Senator Brown gets pretty good marks from those I know in the fishing industry.  Got to be a fair amount of the money going to him coming from that segment.

Money does not vote dollar for dollar, and in fact we are still to far removed from election day to get any clear readings on the prediction radar.  But you have to start to look at numbers.  In the most recent quarter reported, Warren raised 60% of her "larger" donations outside of Massachusetts compared to 40% for Brown (sorry no attribution for the info, which has been out there, in multiple sources for too long all ready).

It is the kind of stuff that gets the computer chips humming and the gut churning though.

Don't know how bothered you are by the Citizens United decision and debate, and philosophically and personally I am in sympathy with those seeking to limit corporate input, what bothers me more is the amount of money pouring in from outside of Massachusetts for this race.  An issue with both candidates.

What disturbs me more than the Citizens Untied decision, is the reality that someone in California or New York or Florida or Texas or Anywhere but here, USA has the ability to throw money at a Massachusetts race, be it $5 or $2,500.00 dollars, and influence it.  

Is it anymore disturbing that outside PACS can influence an election than outside citizens?

Imagine this novel concept.  Limiting campaign contributions for any local, state or congressional election to the geographical district for the election.

What would be wrong with that?

Might leave the cups half full, but that should still be plenty to quench our thirsts.

Just a thought.