No Means No!
Within hours of the release of the election results — which included a sixth consecutive defeat for a warrant to repair or replace the Sandown Road bridge — one of it’s most vocal proponents opined, “I don’t believe this is a dead issue yet.” He continued, “Charles and Lance do their mail outs and they sit back and watch and hope for the majority to fall for their misleading information,” and “I can’t think of much more we could have done, other than going door to door to properly educate the voters on the facts of Art 28 and not the gimmicks of 202 Sandown Road.” Another said, “Almost 1/2 the people that bothered to vote do feel it is important and we shouldn’t let the issue die.”
Well, more than half of the people who bothered to vote do feel it is important and we should let it die. I won’t pretend to speak for the 480 people who voted against the warrant, but I wasn’t fooled — by either side. I’m not stupid and I do understand the issue. I believe the proponents have been dishonest. I don’t buy any of the life and death drama. The only polling on the subject suggests that most people on Sandown Road prefer it to be a dead end. I can understand this as I live on a cul-de-sac and enjoy quiet walks with my dogs and family. We rarely venture out onto Colby as the traffic is fast and there are no sidewalks.
I also have a problem with the way this has been handled from the beginning. It bothers me that we went from a $30,000 repair in 2003 to a $800,000 bridge in 2007 to an $30,000 repair in 2008. It bothers me that the latest warrant was a citizen’s petition — is this the way to manage our roads? Maybe we don’t need a road agent at all? I don’t like that the BOS, FD, and PD campaigned for this article using public treasure without offering equal time for opposing views. I don’t like the dishonest way the warrants were handled at the Deliverative Session in 2007 and 2008.
I wonder if things would have been different if…
* the town had surveyed the residents before taking on the project
* the town had put replace/repair options on the ballot
* the town had provided data to support life and death claims
It would have made a difference to me if I believed most residents wanted the bridge re-opened, and I learned that emergency personnel had actually been *meaningfully* delayed by a detour, and I could have chosen a less expensive option.
One thing I will remember next year is, “It’s sad to say…but the only thing that makes me feel a little better is the fact that Long Pond Road was defeated too“
Loading ...
Concerned parent of two children in the TRSD school system who pays taxes and is not employed by -- or contracted to -- the town or the SAU...one of the Rest of Us
May 26th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Len:
I think your analysis regarding the Sandown Road bridge controversy is right on target. The thing that bothers me most about the politicking on this issue is that the Fire Department had articles on the ballot that would benefit all Danville residents (such as a new fire truck, the SAFER grants, etc.) and yet its chief and many of its personnel wrote letters, signed a petition, or otherwise strongly lobbied voters in favor of the bridge repair “citizen” petition, yet did nothing of the sort (at least that I was aware of) to promote the articles whose passage would clearly have supported the well-being and safety of Danville citizens. Whether any of the articles were worth the price to taxpayers is a separate and debatable question, but it seems to me that fire personnel ought to have expended their political capital on fire safety issues, not road repair issues.
By the way, two clear differences between the Long Pond Road culvert and the Sandown Road bridge are 1) that Danville residents live on both sides of the Long Pond culvert while no Danville residents live on the other side of the Sandown Road bridge and 2) that the floods a couple years ago prevented some Long Pond residents from even getting to their homes while never in my 24-year residency here has anyone (including public safety personnel) ever been prevented from getting to homes on Sandaown Road or any of its connecting roads.
Finally, I want to point out that, as far as I know, only one part-time police officer (who has since moved out of the state) had any involvement in pushing the Sandown Road bridge repair. Otherwise, the police department–wisely, properly, and to their credit–remained above the fray.
Regards,
Charles