Here's what's good about the petition: It creates the opportunity for a
very public discourse about the water project and the process of
condemnation. Public discourse is always a good thing - especially as
the town contemplates taking private land for the public good.
Here's what's bad about it: It muddies the waters of the town's current
negotiations to purchase the necessary land from the landowners. Neither
party can negotiate nor reach a decision with a petition and possibly
new action pending at Town Meeting on March 1.
When the water project was proposed, voters were assured that the costs
of the project would be borne by the users. That factor played a
significant role in the bond vote passing. To shift costs now, from
users to all taxpayers, is a big change and it is one that all voters
should have a chance to discuss and vote on.
According to the Vermont secretary of state's office, the petition can't
be voted by Australian ballot and will have to be voted on from the
floor of Town Meeting. Here's what's good about that: Voting from the
floor means that the discussion of the petition and the water project
and the condemnation issue will be much more nimble. It will give people
the ability to amend the article from the floor and give people the
opportunity to raise questions about the article and understand it in
real time during Town Meeting.
Here's what's bad about that: An issue as important as a major shift in
the financing of a $7.6 million municipal water project deserves the
scrutiny of all voters - not just those who attend Town Meeting.
Australian ballot would allow more people to vote on the article and
certainly make it fairer in terms of democratic participation in the
process.
But that won't be the case here.
{loadnavigation}
