Damage control

With a rash of letters this week concerning important national issues, the Editor decided to stay on familiar ground by dedicating half of his editorial to disputing Frank Onishuk’s personal opinion about what is an undeniable lack of voter participation in local government.

He says that it’s not a case of defeatism, but rather a “lazy endorsement of the status-quo”.  I guess that’s why the chairman Sarah Silk, running unopposed, was supported by only 67.5%.  You could put it another way and say that roughly one in three of those 29% that bothered to show up were too lazy to endorse her, even if there is no other choice.

Meanwhile, more than half were not too lazy to check the NO box indicating that they did not endorse the policy that the BOS has pursued for the last six years.

I don’t know Frank personally, but I have corresponded with him over the years.  He has put in some time looking into alternatives to BMH for Town Offices.  Several years ago he investigated the concept of modular offices and obtained plans and a quote from a supplier.  It was a reasonable and thoughtful proposal, and reflected his vision of how he would like to have his tax dollars spent.

In usual fashion the Editor puts words in Franks mouth and then ridicules him for it.  Nowhere in the letter does he talk about “bulldozing” the building, yet the editor says he is “one of the few, if not the only” one with that opinion.  In the course of my involvement in this controversy I can say that I’ve only met a few that think a bulldozer would be a good idea, but if you add the number that would prefer to use dynamite or a wrecking ball it starts to become a fairly significant crowd.

This entry was posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office. Bookmark the permalink.