Where we are at

To say there isn't a whole lot to write about this morning would be a big fib. After flipping through the electronic pages of both The Standard Times and the Fairhaven Neighborhood News the mind is near overload with ideas competing for daylight.

Before I get to anything, I feel compelled again to note blog "terms", despite the fact I said I was done doing so.  I suppose I have to put some form blurb for the comments.  Then I can truly be done with it.

Stay on topic please!!!! Also, witty one and two line zingers aren't likely to be published. For every one of those which make it at least five are sent to the spam bin.  Think "Town Meeting" format for your "presentation".

More than enough of that.

In general ...

I have said it before, and I will say it again .... No one side has the moral high ground on how the predominate issues in town are being debated.  What ever the mantra, stance, creed, mission statement, etc. of the "official' groups, there are supporters aplenty on both sides that have been shall we say less than diplomatic in their tactics, even when using diplomatic tactics.  .

Indeed the fine art of diplomacy includes then ability to express to an opponent exactly what you do believe without resorting to vulgar/base speech.   It doesn't mean that your intent is any purer however.  No matter how diplomatic the turn of phrase, most people can eventually figure out when when they have been insulted, be it from a smiling face or one with a frown.

Anyway, it seems that's how bad things have gotten.  The battle now seems to be waged on at least one front over who is more mean. 

More than enough on that too.

The editorial in the S-T is interesting.  The bullet list is a fairly concise and an assessment of things from a mixed perspective I guess.  Not sure that I would personally agree with the list in its entirety, but one can see how such a list might be perceived to exist by some. 

The opinion that not all challenges have been wiped away, nor can they be ignored is dead on.

Not sure I would agree with the statement that the town as been able to navigate through treacherous waters so far.  I look at it more as having been able to ride out the storm so far rather than actual navigation.  

That's why it is an opinion and that's why everyone is entitled to one of those.

The article in the S-T is just as interesting.  For this one you should also take a look at the FNN insert which contains the motion approved by a 2 to 1 vote by the B of H.  

I usually find Selectman Haworth's comments to be just a bit better phrased than what appears in the S-T article.  I don't always agree with him, but at least there seems to be a rationale basis for his positions. I definitely do not agree with his rationale here.  

Let's start with this "crafty" motion.  How does one approve a "temporary" mitigation plan?  You can either accept a mitigation plan or reject it.  At least that's how this blogger interprets the applicable laws and regulations.  

The motion clearly starts out with the condition "Subject to further testing and verification" and clearly states the new order will be conditioned upon "compliance with the specific terms set forth" in the plan.

You may not agree with the plan, its terms or conditions, but the order is what it is and quite frankly I don't see how using the word "temporary" could accomplish anything more than grounds for appeal.  But hey, that is just my interpretation. 

Now the issue of how one gets the further testing and verification must be dealt with.  No doubt.  It may be there is some reg. or statute that could allow the B of H to impose the cost for the same upon the developer.  If there is, I am not aware of it.  If there is let me know and I will look at (the fact there are specific rules and regs. that let other boards do that to applicants does not cross over and give the right to the B of H by the way).

The B of H was required however to make a decision on that mitigation plan.  So maybe I am missing something, but "temporary" doesn't come into play.  

To condition the plan on a temporary basis to allow more time for the contract to be renegotiated?  How would that be legal for the Board of Health to do?

If the selectmen want to try to continue to renegotiate, let them go right ahead.  The selectboard's contract provides a mechanism to deal with breaches per not the contract.  It did.  Notice sent.  Response made.  You think the developer is still in breach well you know what you have got to do then.

Like it or not, B of H has legal limits to that broad power.  I would submit that conditioning an order as "temporary" for the purpose of allowing an entirely different board to renegotiate would clearly exceed those limits.

I would agree also with a statement by a third party in that article that the latest action is being perceived as having been conducted in less than an "open manner and planned ahead". Interestingly enough, that is exactly the complaint that was made by some that seems to have led to the formation of another group in town with an opposing view because of the actions by two board on June 10th.    

There was no temporary option, certainly not based on allowing the selectmen to renegotiate.  But hey, that's just my interpretation and opinion.

I am out of time.

Be safe.