_____________________
More inportant than the Town or the State are the wishes of the Donor (WGM). Why would anyone donate open space to any Town or quasi municipality if this is what happens? Bill Defeo should be brought up on professional charges such as dereliction of duty and behavior in conflict with his oath of office. His primary obligation as Probate Judge is to uphold the wishes of a decedent, as long as it is not in violation of any statutes, and not the wishes of the Towns Selectmen. This merits some investigation. _____________________
This always fascinated me when I served on the New Fairfield Zoning Commission. Somebody would take a phrase or a word and “provide a country Lawyer interpretation that totally misconstrues the meaning, eludes common sense and – in Roger Clemens case – ‘mis-remembers the meaning of basic English language and English Common Law’ that many of us took in school. Here is very simple language contained in a document that the Town asks be ignored for the benefit of the Selectmen’s “better idea”:
The Town, in its Application, highlights select words and phrases in the expression of beneficial purpose directed in the Merritt Will and, in effect, asks the Court to ignore other entire sections in that expression, to find that Walter Gordon Merritt expressed an intent that the Property could be used by the Town for any of its corporate or municipal purposes, regardless of whether or not those purposes are “consistent with the primary use and purpose” of maintaining “the wild portions as a wildlife sanctuary for the benefit of the public.”
Does the Town really need to PAY someone to find this language? According to this, it is pretty clear. Laws are laws; documents (such as Wills) are valid. Some are actually interpreted literally – like a Will … because the guy is dead and can’t speak for himself. There’s “no changing his mind.” Not in the case of a Will. So, if we don’t want our “Last Will & Testament” to be changed, why should we change others? Where does the Town get off by even trying? Possibly because it wants to?
So, I don’t know how everyone comes out on this – but I hope this is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. If it is a good idea, it should make sense on the surface of the argument. On the other hand, if it is a bad idea or just “fluff” for the sake of allowing someone’s brother to build and lease a cell tower (which oh-by-the-way is “necessary” to improve police & fire department communications) then it should be summarily killed. But, this is not a new argument – it has been around since I was on the Commission in the 1990’s. And, the “dead spots” in town do not bother me because no one could ever note one – not any – instances where public safety was involved, a house burned down injuring someone, an injury (or death) happened because police couldn’t be summoned for help, etc. It always seemed to me that a new communications tower was for and – unless otherwise proven – still is, for these guys to chit-chat from one to another, provide info back-and-forth to each other that could wait and be communicated some other time. It just never justified the cost of a $$gazillion construction of a communications tower at taxpayer expense. If they can’t find the answer to the problem, maybe there really is no problem. There are no easy answers – there are, however, very expensive “fixes.”
