Table Craps

Ever play or see a game of craps in person.  Well you are seeing several going on at once real time, just not in the casino.

The local developer for a proposed casino for New Bedford just got a winning role from the Federal Appeals Court.  He didn't win as much as he might have hoped for, but he still has the dice in his hands.  The sad part about this particular game is it is going to go on for years.  What the ultimate cash out will be for this area is undetermined, but when you roll them dice, remember why they call the game craps.

I want to provide some more perspective for yesterday's piece.  I am going to provide you several links to look at.  

The first one is to an article which would seem to support Elizabeth Warren's infrastructure premise. It is from the Homeland Security News Wire (not a government sponsored page by the way).

The second link is from the Washington Post site. It provides a counter point to the arguments as to why just looking at simple % figures is, let us say, a bit simplistic.

The third link, from reason.com, is a piece that can actually be found on numerous sites.  This one is more in the hard retort vein.  

When you argue we are lagging behind communist China, or any dictatorship, you have just rolled snake eyes.  To try and than shift gears and say well the point is we aren't doing a good job, does not fly with me.  Warren blew it.  

Not her PR people, not her advisers.  She did.  She approved the ad.  She is stuck with it.  

Enough on that for now.  The whole thing is just a bit too "taxing" at the moment.

Speaking of taxing, let's take another look at the wetlands issue in Town, and the tax dollars to be spent.

The Selectmen coverage in this week's Fairhaven Neighborhood News provides some overview on the town counsel issue.  Now one of the issues raised was whether the money for town counsel would be better spent on signs posting notice to the public.

I have previously noted that, if in fact it can be established that this area has long been used as an access point, one might want to consider exactly what specific steps to take in pursuing a violation.  But that part of the matter is really entirely separate from why town counsel is being sought.

The Con Com wants an opinion on clarifying the enforcement aspect of the by-law.  Services are not being sought to enforce the by-law.  If and when the same is asked for, is the time to debate the fairness of enforcement in this particular case.

It appears clear at this point, going forward, prior use or not, the public should be on notice.

This issue provides one of those multi-layered problems.  From my understanding, the town does not own this land.  Could be wrong here, but from what I read it was indicated the land is in fact owned by a preservation group.

If in fact that is correct, shouldn't enforcement in the first instance be against the landowner who at a minimum would seem to have acquiesced in allowing the damage to the wetlands to occur?  Whack the landowner and let it deal with the private recourse against who ever has done the damage.

Also, just why should the town have to put up signs anywhere?  If it is not owned by the town, why does the town have to post?

If it is owned by the town, why should it have to post?

Taking your vehicle and driving it across land you do not own without the express permission of the landowner, because everyone else does it, should not be an automatic excuse.  Get caught dumping tires at certain spots in town popular for that activity, and try to explain your act because everyone else does it,  and see how far that will fly.

Public land does not automatically equal public access and doesn't allow for improper use.

Mother nature may repair herself if in fact the damage occurs occasionally.  If the traffic gets heavy enough, to the extent it occurs faster than the ability to repair, it becomes permanent.  the reason why you stop the occasional "use" is to prevent it from becoming more than that.  

I am not an environmental expert.  I don't know what will or will not happen going forward.  If in fact the damage will naturally repair itself in a reasonable amount of time, and if in fact this practice has been going on for years, there is indeed a certain amount of mitigation that comes into play in any ultimate action on the specific issue.

Going forward there should be no issue about it.  Letting Con Com become clear on what it can and cannot do subjects no one to any action than that which would in fact be allowed.  It might actually prevent action from taking place that should not be taken.

The dispute comes up because someone got caught.  As is the case in most of these matters.  The issue of what to do about the specific instance should be separated from the issue about finding out what can actually be done to enforce the bylaws when there is in fact a violation.

The vote shouldn't have been a split decision.  

Speaking of split decisions ...

Seems Romney has picked up a few points in the projected electoral college decision.  He is still behind, but the gap has narrowed just a tad.  Remarkable considering he has be traveling the world with his foot firmly entrenched in his mouth. 

The popular vote projections still give the President a 2% lead when all the polls are averaged.  The two I tend to give weight to though are split.  Romney has a 3% point lead in one, and Obama has a 2% lead in the other.  

For this race, I truly have no clue at this point as to the outcome or who to vote for.  

As to the Senate race, the average for all the latest polls I have looked at (6 of them) gives Warren a 0.1% lead.  Don't get much closer than date.  In two polls she has a 2% lead;  Brown has a 2% lead in one poll and a 1% lead in another; and, it is a dead heat in two others.  Truth be told, that data is a bit old, as far as opinion polls go.  Keep waiting for a new poll to come out on this one.  Be interesting to see  something up to date.

And the House race for our new district.  Who knows?  Do you?  Be interested in hearing who and why.