Tuesday is???

As a reminder, to Town Meeting members, the Special Town Meeting will be held tomorrow at 7:00 P.M. This one could be relatively quick, or should be.  

All the pro and anti pot sentiment aside, first and foremost the intent of the proposed zoning article is to designate an area for and to restrict the pot activities to that area in town.  Assuming we are not forced to sit through a presentation of the proposed applicant, this one logically should not involve any significant debate.

You can be against pot, you can be adamant that legalization of medicinal marijuana is the beginning of the end of society as we know it, in which case you should absolutely be supporting the article. It is probably your best way to limit the area of operation and slow the tide of the decline of society.  Not even the moratorium will keep the facility out, which has a maximum life span of June 30, 2014.   

So unless the debate spins into a morality play about the good vs. evil, the real issue is should there be a "restricted" zone. Nothing else.

Another matter that has potential for "discussion" is the Rogers/Oxford building articles.  One seeks money to pay the ongoing expenses of possession of the building and the other now apparently will be limited to a sum necessary for an appraisal of the Rogers School. 

The first article should be considered a necessity at this point.  Kind of anyway.  So should the second.  you are required to know the value of the real estate you sell.  

Might have some discussion on the contracts and raises.  The Union Wharf articles might have some questions.  

Anyway, I have learned over the years you never can be certain as to what will or will not turn into a hot button issue at a Town Meeting.

The most positive thing I see happening in town, by some and better than just a few but not quite enough, is adopting the concept that we participate in a marathon and not a sprint.  More of thew folks involved are looking at long term implications.  More are understanding that growth must be sustainable; that inflated estimates and arguments do more harm than good in the long run; that the "me" or "my department" concept has to give way to the "Town".

There was a comment yesterday noting that  There's going to have to be a balance between saving money and safety. Where's the point when the balance shifts?

Balance was/is a very good word to use.  One has to always balance between safety and the cost of it.  If you think that is incorrect, well you can certainly try to convince me otherwise.  The fact we actually vote "budgets" sets the supposed balance.  If the concept is the budget voted should not apply to certain departments, well just let me know that because it will make my life a whole lot easier.

The point where the balance shifts, in all honesty will come when providing the a department determined level of spending beyond the budget starts preventing others from providing the minimum. when budget increases sought or budget overruns start drawing from desired services or competing with necessary service for limited cash.

If you want superior services, the easy solution would be to increase the tax levy by 25%.  Do that, with some hard oversight to insure we simply don't throw away the increase willy nilly, you can probably have superior services in all aspects for at least a generation and a half.  

We all know that isn't going to happen.

The most important service some individual needs is the one needed at any particular time, or the one they can be convinced they can't do without.

It is, as always, what it is; and, what it is, as always, has much more to do with perception than reality.

Enough for today.

Be safe