To Do List: Vote on June 10, 2008
On June 10 there will be a lot going on at the polls. South Berwick voters can weigh in on important issues facing the town. At the recent town meeting some votes were decided by as few as two votes, so every vote matters. Here’s what you will be voting on:
Primary races for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives
Primary races for the Maine Legislature and County posts
State referendum on a bond for infrastructure
SAD 35 budget validation referendum
South Berwick Charter Amendment to provide for recall of elected municipal officials
Voting takes place at Town Hall on Tuesday, June 10 from 6 AM to 8 PM.
Here are some answers to frequently asked questions about voting:
Who can register and vote in Maine?
You must be a United States citizen, at least 17 years of age, and live in Maine.
If you are a 17-year-old who will be 18 by the November 4, 2008 General Election, you are eligible to vote in the June 10, 2008 Primary Election. You must be registered to vote and enrolled in a party to participate in this election.
Is there a deadline for registering?
No. It’s never too late to register to vote in Maine. You can register to vote until, and including, election day.
Do I need to go to the polls on Election Day to vote?
No. Any registered voter may cast an absentee ballot instead of voting in person at the polling place. You do not need to have a specific reason or be unable to vote at the polls on election day to use an absentee ballot. You can go into Town Hall for absentee voting Thursday, Friday, and Monday. If you want to speed things up you can fill out and print the absentee ballot application ahead of time and bring it in. Here are all the rules about absentee voting and more Maine voter information….
Here’s a list of all the primaries and ballot questions: Primary Races (contested races in red)
U.S. Senate
Democrats:
Tom Allen (D)
Tom Ledue (D)
Republicans:
Susan Collins (R)
1st District U.S. House of Representatives
Democrats:
Michael Brennan
Adam Cote
Mark Lawrence
Steve Meister
Chellie Pingree
Ethan Strimling
Republicans:
Dean Scontras
Charlie Summers
Maine House of Representatives
District 146
Mark Eves (D)
Bonnie S. Gould (R)
District 148
Roberta B. Beavers (D)
Sarah O. Lewin (R)
Maine Senate
District 1
Mary Black Andrews (R)
Peter Bowman (D)
Judge of Probate
Donna Bailey (R)
Robert Nadeau (D)
Register of Probate
Carol Lovejoy (R)
Bobby Mills (D)
County Commissioner
David Bowles (R)
For more information about the candidates go to Maine Democratic Party web site and the Maine Republican Party web site or if you would rather listen than read, Maine Public Radio has compiled all their stories on the candidates… or you can “google” the name of any candidate to find their web site.
State Referendum Ballot
Question 1: Bond Issue
Do you favor a $29,725,000 bond issue for natural resource, agricultural and transportation infrastructure that will leverage $29,780,000 in other funds? See a sample ballot
Here’s a citizen’s guide to the referendum…
SAD 35 Budget Validation Referendum
Shall MSAD35 accept the budget that was adopted at the Budget Meeting on June 5, 2008? (This number won’t be available until after the June 5 meeting–I will try to post it as soon as I can find what it is)
South Berwick Charter Amendment
Shall South Berwick amend its Charter to provide for the recall and removal from office of elected municipal officials? See a sample ballot
June 6th, 2008 at 6:49 am
I urge everyone to remember to go to the polls next Tuesday and vote no on the recall amendment. Many people think having a process to remove elected officials sounds democratic. But the particular process we’d get with this amendment is flawed. Unlike other towns, where a recall can be triggered only by a solid portion of the electorate, our proposal would allow a tiny minority to force recall elections, at which small turnouts of voters could remove town councilors. Recall efforts could happen again and again throughout the year, for reasons that don’t have to be legal or legitimate, but could be political and even personal.
No matter where you stand on South Berwick’s issues of the day, this amendment is the wrong tool, inviting more conflict and fewer solutions. Let’s vote it down.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
There has never been as controversial or as inept a panel than what we currently have.
They didn’t like the town manager? They canned him and had to buyout his salary. When we wanted answers as to how much this was costing us, they wouldn’t disclose anything.
The town manager worked hard for us THE PEOPLE, but the town council didn’t like someone standing up to them.
Vote yes to recall. It is not a vendetta, most other towns have this clause. Voting yes to recall means you want your elected officials to be acountable for their actions which effect all of us. We can impeach a president of the US, and we can’t remove a SB town councilor?
Vote to recall.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
No matter how you feel about managers, issues or anything else in South Berwick, this recall proposal is dangerous. Most other towns peg their recall process to the number of registered voters. The recall process on our ballot instead allows a small group – only 282 signatures – to trigger recalls repeatedly. Regular elections can be undone by recall voting that has no requirement for voter turnout. Small minorities will be able to rule. We should vote NO on the recall amendment Tuesday.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I am not sure who the “minority” is. I’ve heard that word thrown around a lot. I don’t consider myself in the minority and I voted for every amendment Monday.
Whatever. Like I said, I have been here 43 years and last Monday was the first town meeting I ever attended. My mistake. From now on, I will be a LOT more attentive to what goes on. So at least something good came out of it. I was glad I went even though I was not pleased with most of the outcome. It was my wake up call. I’ll be voting on Tuesday, and the next time one of these people are up for town council seat, I will know who I am, and who I am not voting for and why.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Three people ignored the people of South Berwick and voted to force out our Town Manager. If three people isn’t a minority…what is? Vote Yes.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
That’s just it, Edward. The minority could be ANY minority who gets mad enough on ANY issue. The recall proposal on our ballot states that the number petitioning for recall would only have to be 10% of the voters in the last election. Those could be my friends, your friends, anybody’s! But it is too small a group to be undoing our regular elections, where 2000 or 3000 of us vote, and 4000+ are registered.
That’s why, no matter how you feel about the budget, you should VOTE NO on the recall.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
The town manager, bss? Are you referring to the previous town manager, whose budget would have raised our taxes 26%? I don’t think “the people of South Berwick” were so crazy about him once they knew that.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
the two most experienced councilers knew better and so do you . that 26% had a lot to do with the decisions being made or not being made by the council. It was a warning. They didn’t like it so out he went. In two years 26% percent will be realized if we let this go on. Time to send a message to the council, personal agendas and personal vendettas have no place on the council. The town spoke in overwhelming support of the Town manager, I was there. They ignored the town. We need to let them know they can be held accountable. Vote Yes.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
So you don’t like the departure of the former Town Manager. Well, Many people do. Many, many people do. He spent money like there was no tomorrow, he robbed the town’s savings account to do it. He kept proposing half-baked schemes for “Santa Claus” to come to town with economic development that would never work. Look, he’s gone. The town is already moving forward in ways that seemed impossible last year. The whole council STOPPED the financial disaster that was his last budget. The point is the Council has to do its job. This recall provision is a poorly designed mechanism to ball up the works. Don’t like a councilor? That’s what elections in November are about. A power grab by a minority (280– HELLOOOOO) is a poor solution that won’t work.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I agree with both Edwards and bss.
It is about time that we hold the council accountable for thier actions.
There is no way that you can tell me that there was no personal vendettas in the removal of the Town Manager.
Maybe certain people will think twice, before pulling the bone head move they pulled.
An yes I have lived in this town for the last 40 plus years.
An it is time that we take back control of this town from the “Minority”.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
in my opinion they are incompetent at best. I am not alone. We’ll see what happens on Tuesday. The good citizens of South Berwick didn’t just wake and decide to petition for a recall. Did anybody note how many people were making decisions for the town on Monday night… a heck of a lot less than 280. If nothing else, hopefully more people will start getting involved.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
So does 280 make good sense? I think not. It took 1000 to 2000 voters to elect a councilor. You are talking undoing an election. That’s serious business. Heck, there are 200-300 people against ANYTHING that gets decided. It allows that kind of interest group (however well-intentioned) to undo an election. In my book, that;s simply wrong. You know, it would cut both ways. If this were in place a year or two ago, do you think that it might not have gotten used by the antio CZ crowd? (1100-300). But that would have been wrong.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
bss - In your “opinion they are incompetent at best” ? We’ll, you are entitled to that opinion. But lots of people people elected them, in fact the mnajority of voters did: that’s why they won the elections. The fact is: most don’t think they are incompetent. If they did, they would not have elected them in the first place. That’s the essence of democracy. If enough people share your views at election time, then chnages can be voted in. Before that, why don’t you work on communicating your ideas, and try to build some kind of agreement or concensus? It seems your idea is that with this poorly written recall ” I’ll have the power to mess up this thing”. That’s not democracy. I’m voting a resounding NO.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
And by the way, I think 3 councillors faced a hard issue, negotiated with the former manager, and a solution wsa reached. They did not “ignore the people of South Berwick”. They represented them well. They made some hard desisions. Most people I know fully agree and support that series of actions, and think things are much better because of it.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
bss !!!! your not alone and it seems your informed! however I was pleased with the town meeting turnout the 280 present clearly is not good for anyone thinking its a majority. We also know the 26% increse was what all dept heads requested and the manager passed it on to show citizens and council what it reall cost to mannage the town. Budget cuts are great if the backed with educated thoughts but this is not always the case! There are ways to save tax dollars!v but many of you need to get educated and wake up
June 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
They were elected to face hard issues. Get over it. They took the easy road.. and got rid of somebody they couldn’t get along with because they didn’t like his “style”. They asked for public input and they got it …overwhelming support of the town Manager. I was there. They ignored it. Three people did it, but they don’t believe they should be held accountable for their actions? I am sorry, I am fed up and a LOT of the people I know are too! We are all struggling to pay taxes, heating oil, food, gas .. did you expect us to take a buyout of a contract and legal fees lightly?? Some of us have had it, time to send a message. P.S. I would support this even in the best of times. What would happen if a racist was somehow elected and announced that he supported the KKK. Would you want to wait until his term was up??? I think not.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Lest’s all remember recall is only a tool in the box! 280 people could get it to an election so lets not fear the minority! As its the voters that will show up and make there voice count. The village people are a minority and the towns people will vote the proper way!
June 6th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
So John C: Do you think the $1Million in cuts to the municipal budget made by the Council (and added to at Town Meeting) were the wrong way to go? Would you have rather had the 26% increase? I’m confused. I thought we were concerned with limiting tax increases?
June 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I absolutely do not and will not support a recall amendment as it is being presented currently. Nobody was talking about this before this situation occured with the former town manager, so to say this was not directly because of that to me seems disingenuous. I never once heard a few of the supporters ever express the need for a recall amendment when they themselves either ran for or sat on the Town Council. In fact, some of those same people voted to use our town’s undesignated fund as a revenue source when they served as councilors, and are now angry with some of the councilors who are left to clean up the mess they themselves help make. So how fair is it that we now try to create a recall amendment simply to recall people we don’t like who are trying to do the best they can with a messy and ugly situation. Clearly they did a far better job on our budget in several weeks than Mr. Grossman did in several months. I see no reason to vote on a recall amendment that is obviously aimed at certain counselors because we didn’t all agree with how they handled things. Public service is not an easy job, and this amendment would send the wrong message to those who might want to serve in the future…if you can’t please all of us (an impossible task in a great and diverse town), a small minority of us can get rid of you. Not the message we want to be sending.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
And , many of the people I know that oppose the recall amendment (and also supported the change in town managers) are Tatnic people, if that makes any difference between village people, which I don’t think matters. I thought it was one town we live in.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Hi Bill,
New to town (only been here 10 yrs)
What the h3!! is a Tatnic?
June 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Dave (NTEC),
Out Witch Trot , Agamenticus, Hooper Sands, Rodier, Bennet Lot, Emery’s Bridge, Mountain , Bell Marsh Roads, etc. It’s the hilly area that leads to Wells and York.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Well put, Elita G. You did not beat around the bush………….
June 6th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
THanks Bill,
I keep hearing the term but didn’t know what it refered to.
I guess I’m just too new, because I just consider everyone residents of South Berwick.
I take it part of this area was the targeted area for the zoning increase from 3 acres to 5?
June 6th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Yes, up on the “shoulders” of Mt. Agamenticus. Some people like to try to characterize “village” people as special interests. (Sounds like a quirky 70’s band….). I don’t think that’s the case at all. People share points of view from all parts of town, and very different points of view. The “village” characterization is a distraction, and not true.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
The use of the term “minority” refers to the wording of the original petition, and of the ballot itself that we will vote on. It calls for elected officials to be removed whenever 10 percent of the number of people who turned out in the last gubernatorial election, which for us turns out to be 280 people, sign a recall petition. That many signatures could trigger a recall election, but there is no safeguard saying that there has to be a good turnout for the final recall vote to be valid. Thus an election with only a small angry group could trump the normal elections. Most towns don’t do it that way, and we shouldn’t either. We’d be inviting any group with an axe to grind to have too much power. ANY group. Please vote no.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I would have to agree that any recall option would have to have a much higher signature rate, up around 40% to even get a recall started.
The reason for recall would need to be alot more strict as well.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Exactly, Dave. I really do think most SB residents really want to work together on things. This amendment would make that much, much harder, by taking conflict to a whole new, terrible level.
Let’s let disagreements be just that, disagreements. If we argue and even get mad now and then, fine, let’s do that. And vote councilors out of office at election time if need be. But revenge and retribution have no place.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Molly here—people have very strong feelings about the recall amendment. Thanks to all of you for keeping the discussion here relatively civil. I am on the road in Pennsylvania this weekend so won’t be able to check in frequently so I ask you to remember to attack ideas and not people. Also, when people write strongly worded comments they sometimes get diverted to a filter I have set up to keep out spam and keep the site family friendly. So if you put in a comment and it doesn’t appear, it’s waiting for me to okay it. By the way, I have never excluded any comment other than spam.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Hey Sharon,
Well, Many. Many, many people think you are a gas bag.
How elitist of you to assume that everyone and anyone can take on this bill. I’m very happy for anyone who can afford what we are now under law supposed to give. I am heartsick over this bullsh*t for those who can’t.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Molly — Looks like Edward got through your spam filter!
June 6th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Edward,
Thanks for the comment. No one has ever called me a gas bag. It’s a new experience.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Likewise, I’ve never been told I had a cynical viewpoint.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
As it is, I know I may end up voting for the recall and so may some of my neighbors along Emerys Bridge Road and Witchtrot, not because we think its a good proposal, but simply out of sheer fury and frustration. Maybe, maybe, we will get their attention. Maybe, maybe we could get some action on code enforcement. We are not terribly thrilled with the privilege of paying taxes to a town government that seems to have zero interest in helping preserve property values. We need a government that is, and if a recall provision, even a badly designed one can help us get there, well, so be it. So be it.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Sharon,
I was out of line to call you a gas bag. I got carried away and I apologize. I do think that there are those who are not going to be hurting after the way things turned out on Monday and Thursday (School budget)
I am one of those who will hurt. I have a very modest income and spend it on a pretty frugal existence. My car is paid for but has almost 200,000 miles on it. I live in a one bedroom condo.
I am also very proud (and fortunate) to say that I have never been on unemployment, disability or workmans comp or any other kind of assistance from the government. I don’t ever want that, and I’m wondering how I will be able to handle hundreds of dollars I will have to come up with in December when my taxes are due.
To anyone who is in the same situation as I am. PLEASE start to go to these budget meetings. We need to stick together on these very important issues and be HEARD.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Sally, please don’t vote for this recall proposal, no matter how furious you are. It will just dig us deeper into problems. I agree we want a council that preserves property values. But this recall amendment, because it’s badly designed, will shift the focus to recall battles that will go on year in, year out. There’s no limit. One group might remove a councilor, and then another group will just step in to reinstate them or pull out the one you like– small groups of voters battling other small groups of voters, and our regular elections meaningless.
Dave Webster (not the ex) makes sense when he suggests we instead go for a recall process with 40% of registered voters or some reasonable number like that, not the one on Tuesday’s ballot, which calls for 10% of voters in the last election. That would make things the Wild West around here.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:54 am
The 40% was actually someone elses recommendation and an example from some other areas that have a recall option.
My original thought was for 33% but the 40% sounds much better.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Edward–Thank you for apologizing.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:54 am
I still would like to have Sally or someone explain the Emery’s Bridge Road / Witchtrot code enforcemnet problem. I keeps getting referred to, but not explained.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Edward,
Apology not necessary, but it is appreciated. I think you and I agree. This is how I see it: The budgets were “out of control” over the last 4 years. The former manager proposed another “doozey” for this year, with additional huge increases, and blamed the Council somehow for not believing in “Santa Claus” with economic development. The Council took the bull by the horns, and wrestled the budget down without his help. Then they brought that budget with $900,000 of their cuts to Town Meeting. Town Meeting added over $200,00 additional cuts, so we cut over $1,000,000 from the former manager’s irresponsible budget. The budget is now $220,000 LESS than last years. LESS. That’s huge progress. They also could not draw from the “reserve” to cover that budget, because the former manager had drained it. I think this sitting council has done the Town’s business well, and part of the reason is they are working with an Interim Town Manager that helps them do that work. Edward, things are going well in comparison to 6 months ago. We would be looking at much larger tax increases if this Counsil hadn’t done the good work they have done. More work necessary? Sure, and I agree with you that that will be important.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I can’t make a logical connection between the recall amendment and code enforcement.
The code enforcement officer works under the direction of the town manager. This structure is designed to take code administration and other departments out of the political arena. If citizens have an unresolved code issue the person to contact is the manager.
One of my great concerns about the recall amendment, and why I’m voting against it, is the potential for politicizing of every council decision, or in the case stated above, perceived council responsibility.
We elect councilors in a rotating series of elections. This system allows the citizens to express their views every year. The voters can make changes or reverse trends to the institution over the course of the election cycles. These votes can be based upon the body of the councilor’s work over their term.
In the meantime the three year term of office allows an elected councilor the required time to learn the job, rules of procedure, budgets, etc. necessary to become an effective member of the board.
As drafted the recall petition has the potential for effectively reducing the councilors term, related learning curves and forces councilors to pander to every special interest group who can muster 300+/- signatures.
Thus, government becomes politically strangled and rendered ineffective by a continual revolving door of recalls, mid-term elections, and counter recalls and elections. It doesn’t make sense to institutionalize dysfunction.
Please vote no on the recall petition this coming Tuesday.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Having the ability to recall might be a good idea, but this one is not well thought through. We should vote NO on Tuesday, and then later try it again and get it right. If it’s passed this way, we will all end up regretting it — no matter which side of the issues we are on. It will hurt all of us.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
…
Zoning denied the track’s owner’s appeal two years ago. He was told to plow track under and return the land to its natural contours.
The “natural contours” of the land are not evident……as yet.
We have contacted the Town Manager. Dead end.
One of the neighbors asked the planning commission to consider a sound ordinance. Nothing big, simply equivalent to the town’s industrial sound ordinance. No. Deemed not necessary.
Meanwhile, property values of the surrounding properties have dropped like a stone due, yes, of course, in part to the down turn in the real estate market but also in part to the track’s existence. The one family that has managed to sell their house (almost everyone now wants out due to the Town’s indifference) took a 20% hit. Which set a new comparable value for the neighborhood. A nice, deeply, lower one.
But, according to code enforcement, the problem has been cured and there’s nothing more they can do to help. And according to the town government, we can’t seem to get any answers whatsoever.
So, Tom, you expect us to vote to protect these people by voting against the recall??
They sure aren’t working to protect us, so I don’t know why I should vote to protect them.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Sally,
I didn’t know about this. It is some kind of amateur race track? I agree, something should be done.
As Jack pointed out though, enacting this particular recall ordinance is not going to help solve the issue of this noise/property values/code enforcement issue. If the recall amendment passes, you will then have TWO problems: the track and the new climate of political chaos that will ensue from too-easy recalls, make solving anything harder than ever.
Try to think of other ways to address the track (such as writing on this blog, which you have done, very good! please write more about it!). Bring more awareness and concern, get more people behind you, and let’s all work together to get a solution out of town hall. But please don’t pass this recall amendment! It’s like shooting yourself in the foot.
June 8th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Tom,
If I were to sell my house I would have to take a hit well in excess of 100K. That is, if there were any buyers interested at all. If you take the downturn in the real estate, and couple it with the “situation” on Emerys Bridge Road, there are literally no buyers interested at almost anything but rockbottom prices right now. This is the way things have been here for well over two years.
There are certain aspects of the town government that seem to be run to protect the interests of a very small group of people. Now whether this is due to sheer laziness, inattention, or is just last shred of “government by good old boy”, I don’t care. Whatever, it has to change. If a recall proposal, even a badly designed one, can help us get there, good. I mean, what is the problem with a residential sound ordinance equivalent to the industrial ordinance? 55 decibels? That’s the INDUSTRIAL LEVEL. What a commercial enterprise can put out during working hours. How would you like to have noise levels higher than this disturbing your dinner hour on a regular basis? Let’s find out who opposes this, and with a recall ordinance, we can try to get them off the council.
This is not the only effort we’re trying to get organized to make, Tom. This situation isn’t going away, if anything, its getting worse, because the real financial impact is beginning to be felt. That’s why we are grasping at each and every straw. We don’t view this as creating TWO problems, we look at it as curing one…….putting in place a provision that will keep these Councillors a little more attentive to the reprecussion of their actions…..even the decisions to ignore making decisions or the decision to enforce decisions.
We’re desperate. The Town won’t listen. With a recall shotgun at the ready, they will have to. That’s why the recall proposal, even tho the group proposing it has far different purposes in mind, is so popular in this part of town. Its not that complicated.
June 8th, 2008 at 7:24 am
We hear you, Sally. You have pointed out a big issue that is affecting your part of town. But just imagine for a moment that other people have other big issues affecting their property values, and what if they compete with yours some time? And we are all armed with nuclear missiles?
That’s the problem with the recall amendment. The way it is written, it’s less a “recall shotgun” and more like the “nuclear option.” This is just an analogy of course. But the point is, the recall amendment would have unintended consequences and not necessarily solve anything, that’s why we should vote against it.
June 8th, 2008 at 7:27 am
As for town government “protecting the interests of a small group of people” too much, Sally seems to have missed all the town council meetings of the last few years. Our five councilors are not an organized group marching in lock step. Quite the opposite—in fact there have been some huge arguments and some citizens have complained that there is too much fighting. But because we have town council elections every year in November, the makeup changes all the time—people get voted out, people get voted in. I happen to think that since last November the makeup of the council is better than we’ve seen in a long time.
I don’t know why the issue of the track has not been solved, and I hope it is soon. But I could guess that part of the reason it hasn’t had more attention in recent months is that we have just been through a very tough budget process, where the old town manager’s budget was way out of balance. To keep all our taxes from going through the roof, as his budget called for, the council and staff all had to drop everything and spend weeks focusing on cutting what ended up totaling over $1 million in expenses, a time-consuming process—all while angry voters have been advancing a badly designed charter amendment aimed at recalling them.
In other words, the town’s failure to solve this noise issue in months since the recall was put on the ballot actually demonstrates the limitations of the “recall shotgun.” If it passes, the town will become even more inept, and things will only get worse.
June 8th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Tom, MCG
What you are saying is completely reasonable, but angry, desperate people vote accordingly. This situation here has been ongoing for over three years now, not just something that’s only a few months old. We can’t even get the Planning Commission to consider a sound ordinance. Absolute stonewall there. Couldn’t even get on a meeting agenda. Stonewall.
All it would take to cure this situation is one call to code enforcement by a Council member saying, “why aren’t you enforcing Zoning’s decision?” All it would take would be the Planning Commission agreeing to consider the situation. All it would take is the Zoning group asking code enforcement why they aren’t enforcing their decision.
It isn’t happening. It hasn’t happened. Consequently, the neighborhood sees the Town government as aligned against them. The neighborhood property values are evaporating like mist.
Angry people make angry decisions. While I agree that this proposal could throw local government into gridlock, but why is that worse for us out here? Why? They are hurting us really badly now. Gridlock might actually help in that the powerbase of those blocking any action will be more tenuous. We might get some action that way.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Sally,
You just stated the best argument to OPPOSE the recall amendment.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Why Bill? The current set of Councillors seem to be completely happy with the status quo. If there is no recall provision, there is no incentive whatsoever for them to help us until the next election. So, rub out another 10% in property values around here.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Bill, just to clarify the situation. I do understand that the budget process has been incredibly time consuming. But, to get this situation resolved, all we have needed all along is two minutes of a Councillor’s time to call Code Enforcement and tell them to do their jobs. To tell them that everyone but code enforcement seems to know that the track still exists, can be seen with the naked eye, and that it is their job to enforce the Code.
Two minutes.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Sally,
You should gather together all of your information, and present it to the council at the next meeting. Then you can ask them directly why the code enforcement ordinance is not being enforced.
Ask each councilor to respond.
You can also at that time ask the acting town manager to respond.
She is the one in charge of all of this. I am not saying she is responsible for your issue, since she just took over recently.
All departments report to the town manager. The council’s only employee is the manager.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Sally,
I may not have been clear, but I don’t believe the council CAN call code enforcement about your issue, or any other, but can only direct the town manager to do so.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:52 am
And this current council has a new chairperson. There has been a change in leadership. There is a change in attitude. I suggest that you agree with Dave, and confront the issue with the new council leadership. Recall is your worst option: it makes would make people defensive and non-cooperative.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Implicit in the Council and the Town Manager’s role is upholding the current law. Anyone of them can call Code Enforcement and simply ask why this particular department seems to be so reluctant to enforce the law, the town’s codes and the zoning commissions’ decisions.
Also, I would note that this presentation to the Town Council happened two years ago. You might want to look up the minutes of those meetings. It was a useless effort. People spoke to Grossman, and recently, to Roberta. This situation has received absolutely nothing but lip service for years, and the bill is now coming due.
Unfortunately, it seems to be coming to a head when this recall proposal is up for a vote — and many in the neighborhood see this as an opportunity to make their voices heard. We are completely and utterly frustrated, and are now taking major financial hits due to this.
Patience has run out.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Sally,
Since your last presentation 2 years ago, I believe we have at least 2 new councilors, if not three.
Your previous post stated you wanted the council to tell code enforcement to act on this situation.
I dont believe they can directly interact with these groups in that regard, but I could be wrong. I believe they would need to go through the town manager on any orders to these groups.
Still, it is your choice to vote on the recall option.
One question though, if the person or persons who get recalled are replaced by people who don’t act fast enough for your group, do we then start having continuous recalls until you are satisfied with the result?
How can you be assured that who ever is voted to replace the recalled person would be sympathetic to your cause?
June 8th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Sally,
Did you ever stop and think that maybe the town isn’t interested in using the police powers of government to advance your personal agenda and stomp on your neighbors private property rights? Give me a break, you’re propoerty values haven’t dropped 20% because of your neighbors, everybody’s values have dropped… Knowing what I know about your situation, it seems to me you’re all just a bunch of transplant NIMBY’s who don’t like what’s going on next door.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Two years ago it was a very different political world in S.B. The make up of and leadership of the Council has shifted significantly. Have you called or emailed the new chairperson, Jeanne Demetrocopolous, or other sitting councillors?
June 8th, 2008 at 9:20 am
We can’t be sure, Dave. But if we stand pat with who we currently have, it seems to be a pretty sure bet that nothing is going to happen. We’re hemorraghing property value here now with the track problem coupled with the real estate decline. We can’t afford to sit tight and hope for that the rule of law will prevail.
We need action, and frankly, at this point, any movement in any direction would be a plus.
Please, understand that I think that this a very poorly designed proposal, but I am going to vote for it just to show my utter fury at this town’s utter indifference or kowtowing to whatever remains of “good old boy” government relationships, has allowed one neighborhood’s property values to deteriorate so dramatically simply in deference to one individual.
It is shameful. Shameful. Shameful.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Nick,
I have lived in this town for over twenty years. I would like to move now. It is not possible without taking a major financial hit. It did not exist when I moved to SB. It did not exist five years ago. If anything, the individual involved is the “newcomer”, building a house a few years back and then, burdening the existing neighborhood with his behavior.
I am not expecting the government or the police to “advance my agenda”. I am expecting them to enforce current codes and laws. Which are currently not being enforced.
It is very simple. I would like the rule of current law to prevail.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Sally, If someone has told you that amending the town charter this way on Tuesday is going to correct a problem with a racetrack and raise your property values, I have a Brooklyn Bridge you might be interested in buying.
Be careful — Don’t fall for false promises.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
MCG,
No one has “promised” us anything. We are not as dumb or naive as you seem to think. Plus we’ve been down many roads with this situation over the years.
I have absolutely no expectation of positive or immediate changes whatsoever. What we are hoping to do is send a message that “business as usual” and selective enforcement is not acceptable. The laws are the laws and the codes are the codes and should be enforced and applied equally to all.
This proposal puts some power in the hands of the voters so that we can not only send this message, but put the Council’s feet to the fire to make sure the message is heard.
Myself, I’d like to see a 33% recall bar, but, I’ll live with the 10%. It will more than likely last two years before it is amended. During that period, we might be able to get some action on our situation. At the very least, we can collect the 280 signatures necessary and hold them at the ready to put into play if the Council continues its current policy of “benign neglect” towards our situation.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Regarding the many comments about our property values… the national headlines are dramatic, but averages can be very misleading. I heard one informed expert, (an interview on Maine Public Radio maybe?) who claimed that southern Maine has actually not seen much drop in price. Does anyone else actually have any data about recent home sales prices in our area?
I’m also interested in hearing more about the sound ordinance suggestion. Noise pollution is an issue I’d love to see embraced.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
What I don’t like about the recall amendment is that if this passes, even if only a small number of voters turn out, the results of the recall election TRUMP the regular election. That is not fair. A fair election should not be able to be ruined by angry minorities who get to hold election after election till they get their way.
Most towns with a recall process have ones that are thoughtfully designed. This one is a mistake.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
S,
In the course of the neighborhood lawsuit, independent appraisals were done in preparation for trial. Southern Maine may be immune. This neighborhood was not, and coupled with the percentage directly attributed to the track by the appraisers, the losses were significant.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Hey Nick,
Sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly is a transplant NIMBY?
June 8th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
And I meant to say, Sally, that I actually am sympathetic with the situation of the noise problem. We all probably can really relate to that and support you. I want you to win. It’s just that the recall amendment is not the answer, and it will pull us into deeper problems.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Absolutely right, Max.
I confess I have not even heard (pardon the pun) about the track/noise situation. This forum could go a long way toward getting more people in the community mobilized against it.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Edward,
A nimby is someone who says
“Not In My Back Yard” NIMBY.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Imagine the cost to the tax payers of an endless stream of recall voting sessions if this thing is approved. Every time someone (and we all know who those someones will likely be) is upset with a councilor, there we’ll go again … and again … again … And for those wishng to get themselves or friends in in place of the sitting councilors, remember, your little recall idea may well come back to bite you … again … and again … and again …
June 8th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Right, Mary Lou. And it may be that South Berwick should have a recall process — just not the one that is before us now, that allows recalls for trivial reasons, and no safeguards to assure that a large number of voters participate if a recall is to be valid. Let’s vote this down on Tuesday. Then if enough people are still interested, set up a fair charter committee and do it right, like other towns do.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Thanks Dave!
And by the way. Thanks for your words at both meetings on Monday and Wednesday. I wish I was a better speaker. I felt bad that a few of you were going to the mike a lot. Thanks for standing up. And you had some really good questions.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Regarding the NIMBY comment in this particular situation, virtually all participants with the exception of one family and the noisy individual have lived in the neighborhood for at least 10-15 years.
The group of neighbors who showed up in court in Alfred to support the neighborhood group suing the noisy individual were primarily old timers and native SB’ers. So the NIMBY point here is moot.
Still, I would caution everyone that this is the type of charge leveled often simply in an effort to inflame the situation and paint a picture of “newcomers unable to adjust to our way of life”. Every time you hear such a statement, you have to be smart and look into the actual situation. Because there may not be many if any newcomers involved, which is the case here. Plus, just because you are an old timer or a native doesn’t necessarily mean you are willing to accept outrageous, inconsiderate or harmful behavior simply because it is being done by another old timer.
Bad behavior is bad behavior.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
sally,you lost! plain and simple.if you were the one wanting to do something with your land,you would say just the opposite,
the homeowner has rights just like you.
you went through the process and it cost alot of money for the same end result.kudo’s to the judge!!! im so glad that he had the courage to stand up for ALL LAND OWNER RIGHTS and not just you and your FEW neighbors. nad dont blame code enforcement,he did his job.you just cant accept it. and oh yeah VOTE YES ON THE RECALL!! if the councilors will listen to the will of the people.they wont have to worry about a recall.
but if they do not,well then it is a great to in the box of politics.
June 8th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
sally,just another note.just read your post saying the noise offender is the newcomer.wrong again!! he has been here all his life and had a track at his house before you got here.you people need to do some research before you start spouting off about things that you know nothing about!!!
June 8th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
ok so you dont like “nimby”. how about “CAVE” people.CITIZENS AGAINST VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING” you all want to change everything that is proposed to you.
i like the recall but not like this,i like the budget,but it is too high,i like things but……… those are great plans but not for this town.we have so many experts on here blah blah blah.go to meetings and vote.dont hide here all your life.you should all thank molly.
without this blog you would know nothing about this town. not a “nimby”
June 8th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
doom?
What are you talking about? Clearly you don’t have much idea of what is going on here.
The original code complaint was appealed by the noisy one, and he lost. He was ordered to take down all banners and flags, remove the hay barriers and plough under the track.
Then, the neighbors suing applied for an injunction until the case reached resolution at trial. The judge issuing the injunction was scathing as he shut down all riding last summer. Absolutely scathing. So the neighborhood group did not lose this one either.
In fact, before you applaud the judge, you should know that it was so clear as to what side he was on, the noisy one and his lawyer then petitioned the court for a new judge to be assigned to the case. This was denied.
With regard to moving to trial, the neighborhood group decided after spending 50K on legal prep, the injunction and multiple depositions, they would not put up another 25K for the actual trial, and a settlement was reached, whereby the noisy paid a settlement amount and future riding hours were limited by day, duration and number of riders.
So far, excluding the lack of enforcement on the code violation, I don’t see how the neighbors lost. We are all far better off than when this started. Except in terms of the evaporation of real estate values. Because the continued existence of the track has to be revealed to all potential buyers, the one house that did sell set a new, much lower, comparable value for the neighborhood.
So there, yes, we did lose. Substantially. However, should the code be enforced as it should be in line with the actual ruling on the violation, much of the damage might be recouped.
As far as land owner rights go, this was not a case to use for that. Town land use codes in existence for years prohibit the activities that were conducted on the property in question. This was no expansion of anyone’s right to tell a landowner what he or she can do with this land; this was and still in, simply a case of a neighborhood trying to bring a property in line with current code.
And getting no help from the Town in doing it.
June 8th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Tne individual in question grew up here, went away. and then returned.
The house in question was built just a few years ago when the individual returned. The surrounding houses are owned primarily by long time residents.
With the exception of one couple, none of those funding the law suit were newcomers. They were all here BEFORE THE RETURN.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Wow,
Sally, that is too bad. Sounds like an ugly and frustrating situation to say the least. Hope things somehow turn around for you folks.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Nobody is having fun spending time and energy trying to stop this recall amendment from passing.
A recall amendment could be a good thing in the right situation.
The specifics of the recall amendment that we will be voting on this Tuesday are unbelievably inequitable.
At last weeks town budget vote about 150 people showed up to vote. If only 150 people in town showed up to vote on whether or not an elected town council should be removed from office the vote would be valid and as little as 76 people could remove (recall) a town councilor from office.
Why should as few as 76 people have the power to remove a councilor from office when over 1,000 people elected the councilor at a regularly scheduled election?
Come on everybody, if we need a recall amendment let’s make one that is well thought out.
The design of the proposed recall amendment is crude and unsophisticated.
We in South Berwick can do so much better.
Let’s vote this charter amendment down, maybe prepare a more even handed recall amendment and all start working together.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Gretchen,
While I don’t necessarily disagree with you on the merits of this recall petition, the number of signatures is based on a percentage of the number of people who vote is the gubenatorial election, not town hall votes.
In this case, 282 people signing a petition can force a recall vote. This vote would not take place at a town meeting but would require the voting booths and voting machines all be set up for an official vote just like what we are having Tuesday.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:14 am
There are around 7,000 people in South Berwick. This recall amendment is not a bad idea– it just needs to be done in a way that is representative. There are no safeguards against a small group of angry or disappointed people overturning our regular elections repeatedly. Please everybody go to the polls tomorrow and vote no.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Recall !!!!! It can only be good if your position is not on the right side of the sitting council. After reading this post most all of you have been on one side or the other! Recall not good ! but its a tool. Fear of not enough residents getting out to vote!!! A real concern the majority of voters have never come out to vote. So its obvious the minority rule and this will never change. Lets all do your home work! How many residents and how many votes cast!!!
June 9th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
John C.– I don’t see it that way. Even Richard Clough, who sponsored the current recall amendment and is for it, said it is “not a vendetta.” So it’s not about the sitting council, and neither are the problems opponents have found. My point was simply that the way it is structured on the ballot, where 10 % would be able to trigger recalls without limit, the recall would be bad for democracy in South Berwick, no matter who is on the council. So let’s defeat this amendment and start over.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
In my discussions with folks over the last two weeks, to a person, all people who have favored the recall amendment tied their opinion to specific policy disagreements over the last several months. So it seems this truly is a vendetta proposal for many………….
The way I see it, there will always be a good fraction of people against any position of the council, be it the current council, or the one a year ago, or the one the year before that…. and probably next year’s council as well. That’s what debate is for; not recall.
The point is that recall is a bad tool as it’s structured with this proposal It’s structured as a political tool by an agrieved minority. It’s not structured for legitimate recall reasons: like criminal wrongdoing, or non-participation, or blackmail. etc. etc. As Gretchen said, South Berwick can do a lot better. Vote NO tomorrow, and then let’s have a reasoned discussion of a provision that would have reasoned, broad support.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Sally, on your June 8th post at 8:29, are you suggesting that a recall amendment is a sword to hang over the heads of councilors with whom you disagree — vote our way or else …? Wow. Aren’t regular elections enough for you?
Again, I repeat, what will be the cost to tax payers of continual recall petitions and votes to settle scores of a few?
June 9th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
The public process during Town Meeting on June 2 was a transparent display of obstructionism. In an attempt to monkeywrench the town budget, a handful of people worked out a strategy to hijack the democratic process. This had two components: First, in a clearly orchestrated maneuver, they proposed amendments that would have reduced two-thirds of the budget warrants by an arbitrary round number or percentage. Police and fire protection, the rescue squad—even street lights—came under attack. Few of these proposed reductions were justified or explained, and they bore no apparent relationship to specific line items in the budget that were considered frivolous. As far as anybody in the room could tell, they were simply designed to chop spending across the board, or “drown government in the bathtub.” Second, the early motion to require a secret ballot on 17 articles ensured that the meeting would take much longer than usual. As the night wore on, many members of the silent majority—in the end, about a third of the assembly—had to leave to put their kids to bed or get ready for work. (Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the secret ballot was discarded partway through the evening.)
I’ve got no quarrel with closely analyzing our budget expenditures and proposing appropriate reductions. A lot of folks are genuinely hurting, and nobody wants to pay more taxes than they have to. But I’m also certain that our councilors would welcome specific, responsible suggestions to reduce the town’s expenditures—in fact, that’s precisely what they asked of their department heads and the former manager. They were dealt an extremely difficult budgetary hand, which was compounded by previous accounting errors and a three-year legacy of financial negligence. Anybody who believes that the previous town manager was a paragon of fiscal responsibility wasn’t watching. The town’s expenditures have risen precipitously since 2004, even as we looted our general fund (the town’s piggybank) by more than half. (See Gretchen Straub’s excellent chart and analysis elsewhere on the 236diner.) I don’t believe any one person bears exclusive responsibility for this fiasco, but it happens to coincide precisely with the tenure of our previous manager.
I do have a problem—a big problem—with the notion that the arbitrary reduction of all government spending is the key to a secure and prosperous society. And I can’t respect proposals that simply reduce budgetary line items by a round number or a fixed percentage, without regard to how that money will be spent. This is a ham-fisted approach to management. It is irresponsible and fundamentally undemocratic.
If you had any doubts about how the proponents of the recall amendment intend to wield a blunt instrument to derail our local democratic institutions, you need only have spent five hours at town hall last Monday night to see obstructionism in action. Please exercise your franchise and support good government: Vote NO to the recall amendment on Tuesday.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
wow sally! you really won a big one.the ruling got him to take down some hay bales and banners WOW! he still will ride just like he was.and it was a landowners right argument.give me a break! your argument means that no one can ride a dirt bike,snowmobile,4 wheeler,or anything that bothers you..you all spout off about how this recall could and i mean could recall any councilor for any reason.
sally and her heighbors didnt like some dirt bikes on private property.so lets make them stop!!
whats next no chainsaws,weedwhackers,or mowing allowed in
“THE NEIGHBORHOOD”.get over it sally.and some lawyer thanks you for the 50 grand. ha ha!
June 9th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
You make my points for me, doom. You make my points for me.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Okay. Now some of the discourse on this blog is becoming positively sophomoric. Why don’t we all return to our corners, take a deep breath, and just remind everyone we know to vote. Regardless of how they vote, its important that everyone participate and not take this right for granted. One of the easiest ways to prevent minority rule is to have more than just the minority going to the polls.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Doom and Gloom–remember there is no anonymity on the internet. If you have ever sent me an email, registered as a user, or been an address on an email forwarded to me I can match your IP address even if you use a fake name. I know who you are. I have spoken to you before about your rhetoric on this blog. I am speaking to you again now. Cool it or don’t post anymore here. If you want to state an opinion state your idea don’t go after people. And I agree with Sally, you do not do those who hold your views any service by the tone of your posts.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Scott- I agree with you. I think the theatrics hurt the process. The drawing out of the night meant that there wasn’t time for any real discussion and the number of people who actually spoke was quite small. I went into the budget meeting expecting there to be more cuts. There were a whole group of people there who wanted to hear some rational proposals for cuts and would have voted for amendments that made sense. I think that the choreographed plan by Mr. Clough ended up backfiring. The arbitrary amounts of the cuts didn’t make any sense and then when his group made specific suggestions, the suggestions were rather alarming, like putting off maintenance, not putting money in reserve accounts for capital improvements that we know we are going to have to pay for in the near future, and further reducing the undesignated fund. If we could have heard from others in the audience who had ideas for sensible cuts we might have gotten some more dollars out of the budget. Fortunately, the Town Council and the Town staff had already done a great job of cutting the budget they were presented by the former Town Manager.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I love politics. But, enough already. If the recall referendum passes we’re all going to have to quit our jobs just to keep up with all the efforts to unseat our local elected officials. Imagine an atmosphere in which people who hold public office must constantly be in campaign mode to protect themselves. Sounds a lot like the US Congress, and we know what a mess that is.
South Berwick’s political system is not perfect, but it works pretty well. If you’re not happy with a member of the Council you can vote him or her out of office at the end of their three year term. The three-year cycle provides enough time for councilors to get things done, and gives citizens ample opportunity to change the composition of the Council if that’s what the majority wants.
I will vote no on the referendum, and I urge everyone who wants to see us move forward together as a united community to do the same.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Thank you Mr. Landis, well put. I left feeling the same way. I too am all for fiscal responsibility and public input, but I am totally against sitting through even one more meeting like the one we all sat through that Monday night. And I get the feeling that was just a taste of things to come if this amendment passes.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
What we witnessed at our town meeting and the school budget meeting was a cross between classic demagoguery and tripping over dollars chasing nickels.
I applaud your comments, Scott. At every opportunity we need to call out those who seek to inflame and excite the populace using impassioned appeals to trigger emotion and prejudice. The proposed budget amendments largely failed due to a load, shoot, aim mentality which gave no options for the voters assembled to discern the difference between smart and foolish dollars.
Like the town council or school board have anything to do with the price of fuel, give me a break!
I share the view it is time to move on from past failures and we need everyone’s help to positively affect better outcomes for ourselves and our Town.
By the way, there are elections coming for two councilors in less than six months. At that point we shall have another say on the direction we are heading. Candidates, please?
June 10th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
My vote is for someone considerably more sophisticated in financial planning than anyone currently on the Board. While what happened the other night — cuts with no explanation of how they were calculated or seemingly any actual reasoning behind the numbers — cuts had to be made. More cuts should have been made.
Someone should have sat down, worked thru the entire schedule and allocated percentage cuts to various departments to get back to the taxes charged last year. After cutting the obvious fat. And regardless of what many here may believe, there was fat. There is always fat.
But with some reasoning behind the cuts, it wouldn’t have been so weird. Cuts were needed, but the way this was done was ridiculous.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I don’t believe that it is allowed for individuals to target any specific line item in the budget, just recommend a cut in the warrant article amount.
The council and town manager would then need to go back over the budget and decide what specific cuts would be made.
I could be wrong, but that’s how I understood the explaination at the meeting.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
That was my understanding, too, so the person presenting the amendments didn’t have to, or wasn’t allowed to, target any specific line. He just had to present a certain amount.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Dave, you were there. When asked how the cut proposed with each amendment had been calculated, there was no answer.
While we might not get to target each line item, we could have heard that this amount includes cuts on…..a, b, c and d.
Or at the very least a percentage cut — as in, we need to knock 15% out of the overall budget, looking over the situation, it would seem that XXX could take 3% of that and so, the amendment suggest amending the budget for XXXX department by $4317.
Instead, numbers seemed to be plucked out of the air. It was downright weird. I supported major cuts, but….I wish I’d had the nerve to walk up and give up some counter amendments with rationales.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Sally, I understand where you are coming from, but I don’t believe that level of detail is allowed.
I don’t believe they can even make a mention of what they want cut, because some people may think that is what will actually be cut. That decision lies with the council and manager.
Can you imagine what kind of problems would come up if someone said
“I want to cut $5,000 from John Doe’s salary and benefits”
June 10th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Well given what I think of the capabilities and performance of several of the individuals, I would actually welcome such an opportunity.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Did the recall/removal amendment to the Town Charter pass?
June 16th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
No it failed 2 to 1.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
I know the recall issue is a moot point now that it failed to pass but I think it’s only fair to straighten out a few things that were said in this blog about this “Amateur race track” on Emery’s Bridge Road. First of all, it was presented to the Town Council without any of the good neighbors notifying the “Noisy One”. In fact, to date, none of the neighbors have ever contacted the Noisy One indicating there was ever an issue to begin with. So much for the good ole’ days of being neighborly, whether new neighbors or old, and trying to straighten out issues in person. In an effort to mitigate increased taxes due to implementing a new Noise Ordinance, the Town Council recommended the neighbors actually talk with the Noisy One and work out a compromise - which they did. At least the neighbors that cared to speak to him in person. The compromise allowed riding 3 pre-determined days per week and within set times per day. He also offered to re-schedule riding on any one of the pre-determined days if anyone had reason for him not to ride. Shortly after this, the Noisy One was served a Cease and Desist Order because of the neighbors petitions to the Town Council, Zoning Board and Code Enforcement dept., which included many false accusations, including creating this Amateur Race Track among many other blatant lies about what was going on at the property. The Code Enforcement Officer visited the property in question and did in fact tell him to remove the hay bails, tires and flags. Which he did. But at no time (and this is written public record for those of you researching this) was it mandated that he “plough under the track”. He was told what needed to be done to meet Compliance with the Town’s Zoning Ordinances, and he made the necessary changes. The Code Enforcement officer returned to the property and officially signed off re: the changes.
This issue was also brought in front of the Zoning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals, so to say the Town turned a blind eye is outright ridiculous. The Town attorneys also got involved when the neighbors sued the Noisy One as well as the Town of South Berwick and York County Superior Court felt the Town met their obligations in the matter and dropped them from the civil suit altogether.
After all the litigation, time and money spent, the compromise now is to ride 2 days per week - not three - and still within specific times. Not sure that this amount of riding in the Noisy One’s own backyard with his young daughters is the reason for the national decline in home sales??? I also happen to know that the Noisy One is surrounded by other neighbors who have their own hobbies/businesses which could be viewed as equally offensive (wood cutting, farming, commercial vehicles, firing range) and he has never petitioned the Town or tried to stir up the neighbors in an effort to end their livlihoods or family fun. None of us live in glass houses and it’s too bad we can’t be more tolerant of one another and just get along.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Who ever this Sally is hasn’t lived here long enough to know that the “Noisy One” came to live here in 1972 and at that time there were only three occupied homes within a one mile radius of his home at the time and he had a riding area where his own home now stands since 1982. Of course I might be misstaken as I’ve only lived here in the same house on and off since 1943 and full time since 1972.
So Sally get a LIFE of your own and leave good people to themselves.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Its not the noisy one that is offensive Hello!!! Its the noise and if you do not know what it sounds like go take an ear. Fun maybe, games maybe, kids fun yes , adult fun for sure. loud and noisy, Ya think. Lets all get a grip quite down and put a muzzle on the noise. Two strokes going around and around not fun to be around So quite down have fun and get along. Yep It just does not matter who moved to town first or who has more money or who does not like each other. Grow up and quite down. It will then get better!!! So I could belive because it was once a wood lot with native Americans hunting ,fishing and fighting with the newcomers to the land. We shoud not have built modern homes in the land of noise. Of course this was long before 1972.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Well! I’m convinced….
June 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
quite down,nick!! ha ha
June 25th, 2008 at 8:44 am
every time a house goes up for sale in my neighborhood I cringe at the thought of an “anonymous” neighbor moving in. I have to admit I have been blessed with good neighbors. My family has enjoyed the hobby of raising various livestock over the years. The neighbors have been great, most of them have enjoyed bringing children and grandchildren over to enjoy the animals as well. Our hobby doesn’t save us any money in fact it is quite costly, but we enjoy it. We don’t have the money to fight an opposition group. We go to great lengths to control the waste and any potential odors etc. What has happened to the “noisy one” could easily happen to us. I cringe at the thought.