Nice job by bobBrady to direct some focus on the process & procedure of the charter change articles. More needed, there.
I apologize for missing a key element in Article 39. Namely, what is a "residential" property. Thankfully, the article failed.
Residential could be the owner of an apartment building, a 40B developer, an owner of a subdivision, an owner of a vacant lot, even the owner of a sliver of unbuildable land. Or, the owner of an unbuildable waterfront parcel where the dude parks his camper on summer weekends. All of the preceding would be "residential". Poor wording equals 'VOTE IT DOWN'.
Time to review the rest of their articles for similar faux pas.
Nice job by bobBrady to direct some focus on the process & procedure of the charter change articles.
I agree NAL. Obviously the debate that his amendment started showed that he was not alone in his interpretation of the Charter. I appreciate Bob's willingness to speak up and stress that we must (at least attempt to) assure that "the process" is followed. Everyone seems to have an opinion of Bob (one way or the other)..I think we're lucky to have him..he's an asset to Wareham. (Now get your @$$ on that board Mr. Brady!!)
Gotta love those tin hats. We should let out of towners on town boards because they're rich enough to have two houses and they spend money in our stores when they come to visit, but we're the ones who are elitists.
whoops, just spotted another problem with Article 39. Damn, it is lucky that it went down.
the term "owner" is not defined for this purpose. Everyone (including me) considered it to be the 'person(s)' who owned a seasonal residence. But hold on! Go to the assessors' on-line database, and one can quickly see that there are variety of forms of ownership. In addition to individuals (and there can many of those for an individual property), there are: partnerships, trusts, corporations, LLC's, etc.
So. would all of these owners get to serve?
Take Makepeace, for example. they are 'owners' of 'residential' property. would they get to serve on a committee to study, say, the elimination of property taxes on cranberry bogs? Absurd?, maybe.
But it points up the need for more srutiny of the Charter articles, if this kind of sloppy language pervades the remaining articles. And, it points to the need for televising the FinCom debate & discussion of ALL articles.
And, to any blithering idiots out there (no, no names, please) who think the FinCom should NOT review each & every article in the warrant, please read both the Charter & the by-laws. these documents spell out with clarity the role & function of the FinCom re: TM and the warrant.