To set the record straight, to start with, I and my wife are relatively new full-time residents in the town of Waitsfield, even though we owned our Waitsfield home for more than 25 years as a vacation outlet for my family of five married children and 10 grandchildren. Over those 25 years, we collectively lived in the home for approximately one total year.
With that said, you might question my right to comment upon the pros and cons of the current water project dilemma. Even though needing or not needing water security may not affect me personally, I, as a resident of Waitsfield, recognize that this is a community necessity, and the merits of the project for the good of all dictates that I must raise my concerns.
My first observation and conclusion is that the project proceeded without a serious study, or was it an assumption by those in control that what they were doing was the "best way" even though they forgot to check the "right of way"? To dig and install piping on people's private property is unacceptable, and before this is settled, it is going to cost us all a lot of money. To simply "take" the properties that were violated under "Eminent Domain" proceedings would be disastrous, as it would plunge the confidence of our community government into a hole that would take years to rebuild once again, in addition to large tax increases to pay our way out.
The petition suggested by Corinthia Richards seems to be the right approach at this point. She proposes to open a discussion, involving all concerned, securing input from all sides that would hopefully find an equable solution. Secondly, as I read The Valley Reporter's long history of the Virginia Houston property, and the current condemnation proceedings, I learned that this discussion concerning water on the Houston property goes back to the early 1990s. The town's version and Houston's version clashed in many areas, but the fact remains that this issue was not new, which leads me to believe that the town dropped the ball, big time, when they went forward with the digging and installation of a pipeline on obvious private property.
Lastly, I think Anne Vlahos's question concerning the fact that husband and wife separately chairing select board and school board positions and, at the same time, placed themselves in a position of supporting and voting on the water issue, is a fair question. I feel that the editorial in the February 3, 2011, edition of The Valley Reporter missed the point of Mrs. Vlahos's question. It was not a question of insulting the skills and capabilities of the two people but more the entering the edge of "conflict of interest." It would have been better if one of them chose to recuse themselves. It was not a question that challenges the competence or the amount of time they donate to the town but one of good judgment. I think an apology to Mrs. Vlahos for misunderstanding her motives would be in good order.
Scarpato lives in Waitsfield.
