I have been spending the past week or so in my hometown visiting family and friends and generally showing off my daughter to everyone. During this I have been able to witness, once again, small town politics at it's best.
One citizen previously started a concerned citizens group to preserve and protect a creek. He was then asked to be on the planning board so he 'left' the citizens group to avoid conflicts. His wife took it over.
A developer was putting up some homes and submitted paperwork to build a pier for residents to keep their boats at. This gentleman was against the pier. Piers are under the purview of the Port Authority which reviewed it and approved it as it followed all the regulations. The larger plan then went to the planning board for review and they rejected it based on the pier.
Numerous individuals said this was inappropriate but the board didn't listen. Lawsuits followed and now the board has been told they were wrong, the pier is not under their realm of responsibility. Folks against the pier are up in arms.
Even better, the folks running the citizens group recently had their boats vandalized on their piers. They are upset as they can't leave their boats out anymore. What they fail to consider is the considerable expense that they are putting the developer through and the hassles the folks who bought the land have had to deal with. Most of the land was sold but has gone back on the market clearly indicating the problems their actions have caused. Someone got irritated and decided to express their frustration. Vandalism is clearly illegal and the perpetrator, if caught, should be prosecuted. Yet, what is the difference between what the vandal did and what the citizen's group is doing?
Both result in financial hardship to another without the benefit of legal standing. The citizen's group is using it's influence to have the planning board ignore the rules and take independent actions that don't stand up in court. This is similar to limited terrorism, we will keep making your life difficult and costing you money unless you do what we want.
The town should be forced to compensate the developer for his losses and the facts of the case should be clearly defined and distributed to all taxpayers in the town. The standing of every board member and what they said and voted on the development should be publicized with what the cost to the town has been. If neighbors start realizing their taxes are going up because of Joe Next Doors actions the pressure on Joe to follow the rules will force a change or get Joe out of his role.
Likewise, when a developer sues trying to get something extra they don't deserve and they lose they should pay the town for the towns costs.
My hometown is hardly the only town dealing with similar issues. It is too bad that common sense no longer applies and that lawyering is a growth business. Sometimes I wish I had chosen that occupation and will surely suggest it to my daughter when she is old enough to ask.
Posts
