I've received a wide range of emails on my earlier post to the listserv. They range from accusing me of being naively incendiary to soliciting my help in stopping the sewer extension, to puzzling over whether I'm pro or con the proposed extension.
I don't know enough about the specifics to form a clear opinion. To my mind, the question isn't what I think of this project; it's whether this project is consistent with the planning and permitting goals of the community.
I've said a hundred times that I feel our planning and permitting approach in this town is broken and needs to be reconsidered. This is not a matter of blaming anyone. We're planning and permitting like many of the communities around us. I just think we can do a much better job in a way that engages townspeople more constructively.
I think it is unfair to individual applicants (Housing Vermont and the attempt to locate affordable housing at Agway property; Simpson and the gateway property; Upper Valley Events Center and the old dentists office on Rte 5; now KAF and the sewer extension) that we legislate development parameters without any clear sense of the impacts upon individual land owners. I'm all for scenic preservation, affordable housing, a commercial district and adaptive reuse. I'm bothered that we continue to approach both planning and permitting with this top-down perspective that leads to inconsistent enforcement and ad hoc rezoning to try to mitigate what many might feel are onerous, illogical restrictions on individual land owners.
Should King Arthur Flour get a sewer extension from the Hartford line? If we want to encourage continued growth of their operations here in Norwich, then yes. If we want to encourage further commercial development in the Route 5 South corridor, then we should be looking to help KAF extend the line so it can serve more businesses in that area. If we're concerned that this line will eventually be extended to downtown Norwich, leading to a very different growth pattern, then the answer is probably no, but that should be addressed in our Town Plan and our regulations. The question should always be, what does the community want, collectively, and how can we, as a community achieve those goals?
The Planning Commission is in the process of revising our Town Plan after recently revising our zoning regulations. I've rankled their membership enough over the years to leave off what I think of the current revision effort. I hope townspeople will try to get up to speed and engage in the town plan revision meetings and the details of the KAF application as it becomes more public.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The Best and the Brightest
As President Obama reviews his options for continued American involvement in Aghanistan, I've been rereading David Halberstam's 1972 survey of our descent into Vietnam, "The Best and the Brightest."
One theme prevails in reading this history now nearly forty years after it was written. Halberstam's focus on the individual decision-makers feels misplaced. For all their talents and weaknesses, these men were not in control of events, let alone equal to them. They were the products of an earlier time, just as today's Administration is inevitably out of time. America's disastrous adventure in Vietnam was, by all historical measures, the inevitable product of a hugely complex political and social struggle which dwarfed the men who led us into full-scale war as surely as it dwarfed the millions of casualties which resulted.
The American political mood made it impossible for our elected leaders to find an exit strategy short of victory. The Vietnamese themselves made that victory impossible.
The lesson here for Afghanistan is quite simple.
We can be certain our Afghan adversaries will make victory impossible. Their advantages are profound. They have more at stake and, unlike us, they have nowhere else to go. We will tire of this war. We deceive ourselves and our allies to suggest otherwise. We consign thousands and thousands of as-yet unblemished bodies and minds to the meat grinder of a campaign we cannot finish. It is time to declare victory and go home.
Sadly, of course, we won't.
The Obama Administration has a second term to think about. Their political opponents will criticize whatever the Administration chooses to do, but most certainly any strategy that "leaves Afghanistan to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."
We the People dither. Afghanistan is a righteous cause for a handful of reasons: We were attacked and have a right to defend ourselves from further attacks; the Taliban viciously oppressed the Afghan people, particularly their women; having created a power vacuum, we have a moral duty to help rebuild the country; leaving short of victory emboldens our enemies and discourages our allies. All true, to some degree, and all irrelevant when one acknowledges the cost in lives and limbs against the absolute inevitablity of our eventual withdrawal without achieving any one of those goals.
Halberstam would say our fate is in the hands of those decision-makers in war council at the White House, as though the outcome were actually in the balance. I think our fate is already sealed by the short-sighted, contradictory, and ultimately naive impulses which possess our body politic and will take generations to gestate. I would love to see Barack Obama prove me wrong.
One theme prevails in reading this history now nearly forty years after it was written. Halberstam's focus on the individual decision-makers feels misplaced. For all their talents and weaknesses, these men were not in control of events, let alone equal to them. They were the products of an earlier time, just as today's Administration is inevitably out of time. America's disastrous adventure in Vietnam was, by all historical measures, the inevitable product of a hugely complex political and social struggle which dwarfed the men who led us into full-scale war as surely as it dwarfed the millions of casualties which resulted.
The American political mood made it impossible for our elected leaders to find an exit strategy short of victory. The Vietnamese themselves made that victory impossible.
The lesson here for Afghanistan is quite simple.
We can be certain our Afghan adversaries will make victory impossible. Their advantages are profound. They have more at stake and, unlike us, they have nowhere else to go. We will tire of this war. We deceive ourselves and our allies to suggest otherwise. We consign thousands and thousands of as-yet unblemished bodies and minds to the meat grinder of a campaign we cannot finish. It is time to declare victory and go home.
Sadly, of course, we won't.
The Obama Administration has a second term to think about. Their political opponents will criticize whatever the Administration chooses to do, but most certainly any strategy that "leaves Afghanistan to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."
We the People dither. Afghanistan is a righteous cause for a handful of reasons: We were attacked and have a right to defend ourselves from further attacks; the Taliban viciously oppressed the Afghan people, particularly their women; having created a power vacuum, we have a moral duty to help rebuild the country; leaving short of victory emboldens our enemies and discourages our allies. All true, to some degree, and all irrelevant when one acknowledges the cost in lives and limbs against the absolute inevitablity of our eventual withdrawal without achieving any one of those goals.
Halberstam would say our fate is in the hands of those decision-makers in war council at the White House, as though the outcome were actually in the balance. I think our fate is already sealed by the short-sighted, contradictory, and ultimately naive impulses which possess our body politic and will take generations to gestate. I would love to see Barack Obama prove me wrong.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Shoot Us All
I stand corrected.
Jim Thurber was indeed asked to stop posting to this list in an email from Bob Raiselis a couple days ago.
Now what?
One side of me says this is a shame. Someone complained enough about Jim Thurber's posts that ValleyNet felt they needed to take some action. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and if enough listserv participants counter-complain, his posting rights will likely be reinstated. We can go on and on about whether Jim Thurber should be voted off the island. The bottom line to me is that I have a choice whether to read Jim Thurber, Steve Thoms, or the Valley News for that matter. Let them write and let people vote with their eyes. I hope Bob Raiselis will relent.
For those who want to hang ValleyNet in effigy, I would be interested to hear how a community non-profit should handle complaints of abuse such as these. I don't see an easy answer, but I think a solution will prove itself. If censorship really becomes an issue then readers will go elsewhere. If snarky comments, snide remarks and angry emails about prolixity or naivete become too common, readers will go elsewhere. If people go elsewhere, the point of a community listserv is lost -- not what ValleyNet or most readers can possibly desire.
Another side of me says this is all too precious to contemplate. There are people being maimed and killed in our names in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Dan Weintraub isn't the only person who sincerely believes our economic future is under dire threat. There are people going hungry and sleeping in their cars tonight within a few miles of us. I love to hear myself verbalize as much as anyone, but I struggle to see clear villains in this matter.
ValleyNet's trying their level best to accommodate a wide variety of interests and uses for an avowed public purpose. Give them credit for the attempt and perhaps a bit more understanding for the difficulty of their position responding to abuse complaints from readers. Jim Thurber likes this list and some people apparently don't like that he now lives in Colorado. In the big scheme of things, we're talking annoyances here, not capital crimes. How about a little more tolerance and a little less vitriol.
Jim Thurber was indeed asked to stop posting to this list in an email from Bob Raiselis a couple days ago.
Now what?
One side of me says this is a shame. Someone complained enough about Jim Thurber's posts that ValleyNet felt they needed to take some action. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and if enough listserv participants counter-complain, his posting rights will likely be reinstated. We can go on and on about whether Jim Thurber should be voted off the island. The bottom line to me is that I have a choice whether to read Jim Thurber, Steve Thoms, or the Valley News for that matter. Let them write and let people vote with their eyes. I hope Bob Raiselis will relent.
For those who want to hang ValleyNet in effigy, I would be interested to hear how a community non-profit should handle complaints of abuse such as these. I don't see an easy answer, but I think a solution will prove itself. If censorship really becomes an issue then readers will go elsewhere. If snarky comments, snide remarks and angry emails about prolixity or naivete become too common, readers will go elsewhere. If people go elsewhere, the point of a community listserv is lost -- not what ValleyNet or most readers can possibly desire.
Another side of me says this is all too precious to contemplate. There are people being maimed and killed in our names in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Dan Weintraub isn't the only person who sincerely believes our economic future is under dire threat. There are people going hungry and sleeping in their cars tonight within a few miles of us. I love to hear myself verbalize as much as anyone, but I struggle to see clear villains in this matter.
ValleyNet's trying their level best to accommodate a wide variety of interests and uses for an avowed public purpose. Give them credit for the attempt and perhaps a bit more understanding for the difficulty of their position responding to abuse complaints from readers. Jim Thurber likes this list and some people apparently don't like that he now lives in Colorado. In the big scheme of things, we're talking annoyances here, not capital crimes. How about a little more tolerance and a little less vitriol.
Shooting the Messenger
I encourage ValleyNet's critics in this matter to develop a set of rules to govern such a public forum, launch their forum, and live by their rules for a few years. Between trolls, commercial interests, and hot-heads any set of rules will be hard-pressed at times. I appreciate Bob Raiselis' efforts to keep listserv policy enforcement/discussion off the list itself. I realize that authority can be abused in the wrong hands, but have yet to hear any complaint that any opinion or viewpoint has been suppressed from this list. Many public forums include a separate list for discussion of list/posting policy and if anyone wishes to initiate such a list, I would be very surprised if Valley Net would refuse to host it.
I simply disagree that ValleyNet has somehow"forfeited all credibility as a discussion host." When Vicky Fish launched this list more than three years ago, there was nothing else like it in town. Before that, the Selectboard squabbled about who could use the town email lists and for what purposes; the factions in town government had their own email lists to reinforce their own views on things; and the Valley News was the Valley News. This list has survived and grown as an open forum without advertising, spam jams, or any serious questions about ValleyNet's role as host until this week. Does ValleyNet, as listserv host, have the capability to ruin it's community listserv's by suppressing viewpoints or blocking submissions? Yup. Any evidence it has or would like to do that?
I hope Norwich Pillory will contemplate whether he/she might be partaking a bit in the "intolerant and intemperate attacks" which -- as Jeff Doyle mentioned a couple weeks back -- might justify Norwich Pillory's feeling the need to post anonymously.
Watt Alexander
- - - - -
Bob Raiselis says "keep the discussion centered on the town rather than the
town discussion list" even though the town discussion list has become a town
issue. In point of fact, Bob has become a town issue. But we are not allowed
to mention that. And since he is hosting the discussion and can toss anyone
out of the discussion at his own discretion without any permissible public
recourse, we are supposed to keep the discussion focused on a topic that we
are not allowed to mention.
I don't know how the rest of you feel about this but my sentiment is that
valleynet has effectively forfeited all credibility as a discussion host. I
hope also that the various subscribers to the Norwich listserv who have
advocated the ouster, suppression, or silencing of participants in this
forum will contemplate the fruits of their intolerant and intemperate
attacks.
Oh yes, Bob, please feel free to toss me off the list. But I won't promise
not to publish any email you send me, so if it is truly private, please just
keep it to yourself. (There's a double-bind for you in return for the one
you tried to impose on us.)
Your anonymous pal,
Norwich Pillory
I simply disagree that ValleyNet has somehow"forfeited all credibility as a discussion host." When Vicky Fish launched this list more than three years ago, there was nothing else like it in town. Before that, the Selectboard squabbled about who could use the town email lists and for what purposes; the factions in town government had their own email lists to reinforce their own views on things; and the Valley News was the Valley News. This list has survived and grown as an open forum without advertising, spam jams, or any serious questions about ValleyNet's role as host until this week. Does ValleyNet, as listserv host, have the capability to ruin it's community listserv's by suppressing viewpoints or blocking submissions? Yup. Any evidence it has or would like to do that?
I hope Norwich Pillory will contemplate whether he/she might be partaking a bit in the "intolerant and intemperate attacks" which -- as Jeff Doyle mentioned a couple weeks back -- might justify Norwich Pillory's feeling the need to post anonymously.
Watt Alexander
- - - - -
Bob Raiselis says "keep the discussion centered on the town rather than the
town discussion list" even though the town discussion list has become a town
issue. In point of fact, Bob has become a town issue. But we are not allowed
to mention that. And since he is hosting the discussion and can toss anyone
out of the discussion at his own discretion without any permissible public
recourse, we are supposed to keep the discussion focused on a topic that we
are not allowed to mention.
I don't know how the rest of you feel about this but my sentiment is that
valleynet has effectively forfeited all credibility as a discussion host. I
hope also that the various subscribers to the Norwich listserv who have
advocated the ouster, suppression, or silencing of participants in this
forum will contemplate the fruits of their intolerant and intemperate
attacks.
Oh yes, Bob, please feel free to toss me off the list. But I won't promise
not to publish any email you send me, so if it is truly private, please just
keep it to yourself. (There's a double-bind for you in return for the one
you tried to impose on us.)
Your anonymous pal,
Norwich Pillory
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)