Our family moved to The Valley about nine years ago. We selected this area, Waitsfield in particular, for many of the reasons others love it: the proximity to skiing, town center and conveniences, farming community, beautiful and simple place for kids to grow up and a commitment to education (as evidenced by the Blue Ribbon awarded the school in 1994).
Since 2002, there have been changes that have been occurring in town, some in a gradual fashion, others more abrupt. Due to the nature of my work, I travel out of the area frequently and admit that my finger is not firmly on the pulse of things. "Keep it local" (by Alan Solomon) and "Facts not fairly represented" (by Lynne Kingsbury) fielded some interesting points but brought some questions to mind. Articles by Robin Morris and Lisa Loomis last week detailed further concerns. After reading all of this in The Valley Reporter as well as speaking to a limited number of folks, there are some questions that the answers remain a bit ambiguous despite an abundance of attention so I'd like to put these out there for consideration.
1. Why were background facts about the project, in particular, those which have now proven to be the proverbial thorn in its side, not presented as part of the public informational campaign? Referring here to the issue of legally obtaining rights to that land and water before the project has begun; it has been heard that this was an issue from the very start of the project.
Issues: Taxpayers have skin in the game before the rules of the game are clear. Do others sense a special assessment coming?
2. Why was local counsel not used by the town (echoing Alan's question)?
3. The counsel was fired. What now is the sentiment and faith of the taxpayers with respect to the select board?
4. Why did the school agree to hook up to the town water when it will be more expensive in the long run and, if there are additional benefits versus upgrading with the forgiven state loan for the UV system, what are they? And what is the contingency plan if the town water project stalls? After reading the notes from the school board meeting, this is still unclear. Steps continue to be made forward yet the overall project is in jeopardy; as a result, are sunk costs now another reason to move forward (echoing Lynne's question)?
5. Are there policies or procedures that address a situation where the chair of the select board and chair of the school board, from the same household, are promoting/voting on the same project in their respective venues?
6. The economic crisis is affecting the townspeople. How does this play into the decisions of members of our select board, boards and committees? In the January 11, 2011, article by Michelle Monroe in the St. Albans Messenger, it is stated that between "since the onset of the recession, median income in Vermont has fallen by $3,100 per household, according to Woolf's analysis" ("Vermont Incomes Plummet to 2001 Levels"). It compared incomes in 2001 versus 2009. Local increases in costs, taxes or special assessments have the potential to hit hard.
Since the recession, many of us are working harder to make ends meet. This makes attending meetings, voicing your opinion, getting involved in committees much harder. But what is the cost if we don't?
Anne Vlahos lives in Waitsfield.
