This Is It For Today.

Interesting comments and an article in the Fairhaven Neighborhood News (9/20.2012 edition).  Take a look at the Editor's letter on page 2 and the Planning Board Meeting article on page 13.  I caught some of the meeting on T.V. last night.  Because I didn't watch the whole meeting, I will won't address the meeting itself.

I will simply note that first the same concerns changes to the Wind Turbine siting by-law.

I will also note I agree whole heartily with the fact one always must consider the source of any study and report.  Who pays for the study is definitely a factor you should consider, along with the qualifications, status within the scientific community, methodology, and affiliations of the person(s) conducting the study.  

Another point raised in the article, which I did not happen to see on T.V., was the signage issue. This is an issue that gets raised periodically.  You got to love it though.  Postings signs has probably been a public exercise since someone first figure out how to do it.  

It is one of those things where at first look you might be tempted to simply think, what's the big deal.  At second look, you might be tempted to think the same thing.  Thinking about it some more, you still might think that way.

I see the complaint side of it though.  If everyone who posted them would remove them, you might not even care.  There in lies the problem though.

Let's forget about the fact that the utility poles aren't public domain, or you aren't suppose to place free standing signs for any reason on the town easements/land.

Where I get torn here is I am not going to begrudge the owner of a lost pet from doing what they can to try and get the animal back.  I am certainly not going to even chastise one for putting up such posters for a missing person.

But it is neither my right nor decision on what should or shouldn't be allowed, and thankfully so; and, that dovetails nicely into the "selective enforcement" bit in the article.

While there is no hard data on this, basing matters on numerous conversations with numerous officials from numerous communities, I would hazard a guess that 90% of all people, or more (say 100%), subject to enforcement actions experience that process as a result of getting caught in the act of doing something, or someone makes a phone call complaining.

So if the complaint gets investigated, or you get "caught", and the process begins, how is that selective?

It would be nice if we had personnel who's sole function was to patrol neighborhoods to make sure no one gets away with anything.  We don't. 

But the fact that someone else may have gotten away with the same or similar act doesn't make the enforcement against you selective.  

There are definite steps to make for a more uniform enforcement procedure, to insure everyone complies.  Some may consider them draconian.  

I believe a while back I mentioned the fact that there are numerous communities that actually have people patrol neighborhoods to actively seek out violations of zoning and building codes and other areas of the law.  

Maybe that's what we actually need so the perception isn't selective enforcement.

I know, isn't that what we pay the people in the various positions to do now.  Yes.  Except that we also pay them to do many other tasks also.  So until we decide to beef up the actual enforcement action, those who are complained of or who get caught are the ones who "suffer".

I would be more concerned with the matter if someone could point out to me people who have been caught or reported who were allowed to get away with it.  

Away, that is it for today.