I spent most of the Chamber of Commerce town meeting listening to the spokesman of the opposition deflect and avoid answering questions. His responses repeated the half truths and outright falsehoods that his campaign had been known for.
A good part of my objection to their campaign is how they are doing it. They would have a good case if they stuck to the facts and did not employ scare tactics and rumors. They have even implied that children will be bussed in from Hartford to use the fields if this is approved (and so what if they are!). That was just tacky and only the tip of the iceberg.
But worse is the fact that the opposition is lead almost entirely by the builders and engineers that would personally profit from this. This is OK if they were honest about it but they lie. They state that the land can’t be developed so they (and thus they have no skin in this game). Their Pac, “The Fiscally Prudent Majority” claims to protect the tax payer when they are only protecting their pocketbooks. Still, they lie about being a majority.
Worse still are their street signs:
A good part of my objection to their campaign is how they are doing it. They would have a good case if they stuck to the facts and did not employ scare tactics and rumors. They have even implied that children will be bussed in from Hartford to use the fields if this is approved (and so what if they are!). That was just tacky and only the tip of the iceberg.
But worse is the fact that the opposition is lead almost entirely by the builders and engineers that would personally profit from this. This is OK if they were honest about it but they lie. They state that the land can’t be developed so they (and thus they have no skin in this game). Their Pac, “The Fiscally Prudent Majority” claims to protect the tax payer when they are only protecting their pocketbooks. Still, they lie about being a majority.
Worse still are their street signs:
D’NOT
MILK THE TAXPAYER
MILK THE TAXPAYER
Even my English isn’t that bad.
Still, there is no excuse for my behavior when I took my turn asking the questions at the town meeting.
Still, there is no excuse for my behavior when I took my turn asking the questions at the town meeting.
In the line witing for the podium I had four questions mentally prepared. I had settled on one when the person in front of me asked a virtually identical question. The opponent smiled and quoted deflected the question. This was irritating. I was tired of his refusal to answer questions or even answer honestly.
Irritated, I began him by asking if developers had become less talented over the last 15 years. This confused him, Then using his own slides I indicated where builders had built within the 100 year flood plan 15 years ago and then asked him if the lthought the and was developable. I interrupted him when he started to prevaricate, repeated questions as he stalled and kept escalating the speed and tone of my follow-ups sticking to a single line of questioning on variances, remediation and flood insurance (and people thought I slept when I was on the wetlands committee in town). In effect I badgered him before finally answering the key question; Yes, even land within the 100 year flood plain can be developed.
I publicly badgered an elderly man with Parkinson’s.
It was effective but nasty.
The final questioner had waited patiently for me. He started hard as well but appealed to the opponent’s professional acumen to tell us how many houses can be built on the property without variances. Although the opponent attempted to dodge the question it was asked again with further professional appeal. Tired, the opponent admitted that at least 25 houses can be built without a variance.
Two days later a postcard from the opposition came telling us that the land was undevelopable.
Oh, well.
It was effective but nasty.
The final questioner had waited patiently for me. He started hard as well but appealed to the opponent’s professional acumen to tell us how many houses can be built on the property without variances. Although the opponent attempted to dodge the question it was asked again with further professional appeal. Tired, the opponent admitted that at least 25 houses can be built without a variance.
Two days later a postcard from the opposition came telling us that the land was undevelopable.
Oh, well.
No comments:
Post a Comment