If the water system is paid for by the people that most directly benefit from it, and there is no impact on other wells, what is the problem with developing this critical piece of infrastructure? It seems that this is about town growth for many voters.
That Waitsfield could look like Stowe or certain parts of New Jersey seems to scare voters from anything that facilitates more growth. There seems to be no confidence that the town boards and planning commission will limit bad growth and support good growth, although historically we see the opposite. Waitsfield is regarded as a model of good planning but is now up against some tough planning obstacles because it lacks critical infrastructure like municipal water.
If this vote is not about water, then it is surely about growth. Many want to see the door closed, or maybe just not opened, to more people, more businesses or more anything. That is our right, although, is it realistic in the broader context? The town population has continued to grow at a constant rate without the water, so it's more a question of where and how fast development will occur, rather than if it will happen.
I ask the voters to think about this from the perspective of whether they want to see the town go forward into this century with a healthy attitude about growth, and with the tools to plan and control it, or to just say no. Either way, it's your choice.
Bill Parker
Member Waitsfield Select Board
{loadnavigation}
