Who would have thought a little sliver of land could cause so many problems? The Cushman Park easement granted to a homeowner last May at Town Meeting is still in a tangle. The easement required special legislation. As the legislature is apt to do, the proposed legislation was amended was conditioned on the Town setting aside other land for conservation purposes.
This in turn opened up a slew of itsy bitsy points on the cost issue. The latest one, according to an article in today's edition of The Standard Times apparently revolves around the need to do an appraisal.
Well, according to the article, the property owner who would benefit from the easement is quoted as saying:
"When we heard from the Legislature two months ago, no one brought it to my attention that I was supposed to pay any money for this," he said. "The easement just lets me use town land — it's not my land, it will never be my property, why should I pay?"
I just note for the record that when the matter was brought to the attention of Town Meeting in May, no one told Town Meeting that in addition to the grant of the easement, the Town was going to be required to put a piece of land it owned into a conversation restriction in order to grant the easement. Town Meeting wasn't told the Town would incur costs.
I have a very easy and in my mind the correct solution to the whole matter. Go back to Town Meeting and now spell out exactly what the Town has to do and the actual cost for the same, and see it Town Meeting still wants to grant the easement.
Let's take the battle out of the newspapers and selectmen's meetings and let us wage it in the forum which should be deciding whether it was Town Meetings intent to do more than just grant an easement. Let's ask Town Meeting whether the Town should pay to do an appraisal for the privilege of allowing someone to use its land forever.
It will not be the benefiting property owner's land, it will never be that party's property. As to why the party should pay, one should consider just why the Town should have to pay this cost in the first instance; and in the second, just what happens if the easement is never granted.
Quite frankly, the fact that the Selectmen may be able to legally accomplish granting the easement by putting a restriction on other Town land without a vote in my mind does not mean it is the right thing to do. Any time there is an add on to any special legislation request made by vote of Town Meeting, the issue should go back to Town Meeting.
But hey, it is only one person's opinion.
Next time something like this pops up, maybe the selectmen who propose such a proposition will think the thing through, and get something in writing before hand. It might be nice to also remember government does not exist to cure every single problem suffered by every single person.
Moving on from an issue that shouldn't even exist ...
Just a tidbit, worth note to probably no one but me. Sometime this week, probably Wednesday, this blog will hit 50,000 page views, by approximately 3,100 unique visitors. There have been viewers in 34 states plus the District of Columbia, a dozen and a half other countries.
My goal had been to reach that marked before the one year anniversary, but being a couple of weeks late, in the relative scheme of life isn't all that bad.
Given the fact that it isn't marketed, and the content is essentially unique to the Town of Fairhaven, with a dash of regional matters, and a pinch of state and national issues, I am content nonetheless.
To those of you who read it, a sincere thanks. To those of you who comment, also a sincere thanks.
Question: Do people understand the difference between a public meeting and a public hearing?
Observation: In an overall good way, Fairhaven is a pretty quirky town. We have the largest representative Town Meeting membership. It works. Not sure how well it would continue to work in the event we did away with the artificially low quorum, but it works.
Truth be told in recent years even if the quorum were set at 50%, we would be all set for most meetings, although we would have been in trouble for the last special.
I am not, nor would, advocate changing the number. I don't see the need. Just an observation, as is the opinion that had it been known last May what the cost associated with the above matter would be and the conditions on it, the issue discussed wouldn't be one that shouldn't be an issue, it would be non-existent at this point.
Another question: how many of you have actually read the DOR report? It is available on the Town website. Did you know we have a website?
If you are opposed to a strong town manager/administrator, how about three solid reason why you are?
Enough pondering for a Monday. Enough the last "warm" day. By late afternoon the temperature will be changing. Be safe.
Isn’t there M.G.L. that prohibits a community from spending taxpayer money that would only be spent to directly benefit an individual resident? I imagine Town Meeting could do so, but a vote at a Selectmen’s meeting seems would violate that provision. $6,000 to a single named taxpayer is what I thought the law was meant to prohibit. Otherwise any person could receive taxpayer money, as long as two people of the board wanted it to give it away.
ReplyDelete