#1 2010-05-06 15:51:18
Good afternoon all.
My, My. Hasn't this town Meeting generated a blizzard of postings, so far. And, isn't that a good thing? You betcha!
Here's what is "grinding my gears" (Peter Griffin. Family Guy)
The creation of this committee was a last minute, desperate act by the proponents of the Westfield project. Give them credit: it worked. The chair made all of the right noises about fair & balanced (was Fox News in the building?), blah, blah, blah. Now, instead of being 0 for 4, game over; they are still alive, with a shot at snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
And, the committee is the key. Remember, there are seven (7) members. per the article, post amendment.
Here's my problem with it. You have your basic four members, as follows: 1 x BoS, 1 x FinCom, 1 x HsngAuth, 1 x CoA. right?
Well, isn't that FOUR votes for the Westfield project right there? At least three. Take a look with me:
CoA is for it
Housing Authority (Mr. Boucher) is for it
Give the Bos & finCom a 50/50 split, and you have three votes. going on four.
But, you might say, there's the three members of the public at-large. Yes that's true; there are three members of the public at-large, added as an afterthought. As in: window dressing. To be appointed by the Appointing Authority. Wow! sounds pretty good. Let's see: the AA includes the Moderator, along the Chairs of the BoS & the FinCom. Still feelin' good about the tres amigos?
I have taken the liberty here of borrowing the garb of Carnac the Magnificent. the envelope is being brought to me, after being hermetically sealed in an old mayonaise jar on Funk & Wagnels front porch. I am holding the envelope to my forehead, and closing my eyes in concentration.
The answer is: Alan,Ellen, Michael, Bruce, John.
The question is: What are the first names of the most likely appointees to be "public-at-large".
Run the numbers, people. It ain't lookin' good.
And another thing: PetetheMeat ( I think that is correct) wrote that this process would extend out for a year. Doubtful. There will be warrant articles at the fall TM, which will be geared to go based on the positive report generated by the committee. Plenty of check-out lanes, no waiting.
This committee is a loser for the opponents of the westfield project. The camel's nose is already in the tent; it won't be long before the camel occupies the remaining space.
That's what grinds my gears. Let me hear from you all.
Offline
#2 2010-05-06 16:18:06
There may be a technical trick or two to stop the main article from appearing yet again on the Fall Town Meeting warrant, but that's not a discussion to be had until and unless it's necessary and we should hold fire on that.
But if they do in fact get it on the warrant, then they still will have lost some moral ground by bringing it forward scant minutes after the report is presented.
And don't forget, there's nothing stopping any of the rest of us from presenting our own articles and amendments to deal with that property specifically and perhaps even the question of elderly housing generally.
In any event, the core proponents still seem to have a tremendously outsized interest in this project, an interest that goes well beyond any normal dispute between reasonable people over good policy or even good provenance for our elders. So it's still going to be a numbers game going forward, and beating this thing by five votes is cutting it way too close. And that's something we can certainly do better with in the six months available to us.
Offline
