That Worcester Street parcel is not suitable for a DPW yard for a whole litany of reasons--and Peter Adams knows it. Housing has long been discussed there and makes much more sense. Why not both? Time to get creative: The town should put out an RFP to see if a developer is willing to build a couple of affordable units--and set aside room for the SP. View Comment
Sorry, Commoncents, but I live in the real world, where:
1. Everyone is ok.
2. The police chief warned just a week ago that the ice isn't safe: http://grafton.dailyvoice.com/opinion/chiefs-column-beware-ice-grafton-lakes
3. A dad endangered his own life and that of his son by driving his skimobile onto the ice of a lake with an active outlet (which means that in essence, all the water in the lake is moving year-round.
4. There are limited resources and those squandered on people who put themselves unnecessarily at risk may not be available to help someone who really needs them.
When people make stupid decisions in the White Mountains and need rescuing, they receive a bill for the cost of the rescue. Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for someone's foolish actions? This wasn't an accident--it was the result of carelessness and arrogance. There's plenty of places to snowmobile in East Grafton that aren't on top of a body of water. View Comment
BobH is right, the question of delays in response does not speak to the preemption argument, and yes, proposals can be thrown around, but so can a heads up.
The Fire Chief had to recognize this proposal as problematic or potentially controversial at first glance. I hope that if nothing else, procedural changes are made to ensure that everyone is given as much notice as possible when something big and cross-departmental is ... well, coming down the tracks. View Comment
Actually, the point of a Building Inspector is to protect the community. And that is what Mr. Berger is trying to do. The problem with letting people keep chickens without a permit isn't that there's chickens. It's that they didn't follow the rules, which ARE there to protect the consumer, by the way.
So, a lot. Liability, for one thing. The town knows these situations are non-compliant and isn't doing anything. I'm thinking that could cost a lot more than $20,000 in the long run.
Fairness, for another. What about the people who do things right--apply for permits, hire engineers, get a lawyer, etc.? Don't they become the idiots in this scenario? Why should anyone follow the rules if there's no consequences for failing to do so?
The truth is the Selectmen (and by extension their professional staff) have utterly failed the town on this issue to this point and created this situation through procrastination, delay and a lack of leadership. They have been weak in the face of loudly voiced but mainly reactionary criticisms to the idea of non-criminal disposition (and/or too lazy to learn what it means enough to see the benefits) and created an unsafe and unsustainable situation for the town. Hopefully that can change. View Comment