“What in the world are they doing?” I thought as I watched the naked poles being erected on the Bank Park site “This must be a mistake, it doesn’t fit.” But surprisingly, once completed I began to enjoy the varied views of this little gem. Instead of the bulk of a solid building the pergola frames pictures of our village, allows light, and creates a welcoming space from its tiny footprint.
But coming around and getting to live with and even enjoy the park is not the only reason for voting “no.”
The petitioners, accidentally I’m sure, insult us by offering to buy our votes. I’m leery of allowing them at their own unlimited expense to take care of my town’s difficult chores. If the pergola must come down we need to debate it and decide responsibly with our votes and our money one way or the other. We know there’s no free lunch. I must say “no.”
The petition, which cannot be amended, makes no mention of any due process of review or control. It allows the petitioners to go right to it and tear the pergola down. The very process of volunteer town committees and town votes and selectboard review that the petitioners are trying to claim should have been more scrupulously followed are, it appears, too much trouble for them. Without assurance of deliberative review and careful use our of town processes, I must vote “no.”
The town owns the pergola. The petition gives us no hint of its fate once torn down. It’s anyone’s guess. Perhaps there’s a plan for re-erecting it in someone’s yard, or selling it to cover costs, or will there be a cremation or a burial? The petition is silent on this. Therefore I must vote “no.”
The unintended casualty of a win for the petition will be the regular day-to-day business of the town, our volunteer committees, the selectboard, and town offices.
The vote against is a vote for good governance and for restraint. Once dismantled it’ll be hard to put the pergola, like Humpty Dumpty, together again
Alan F. Stewart
Wilmington
Post a Comment