February 2, 2010
If I were a Town Meeting member I would vote FOR the Temple project, BUT not in it’s current form. I attended Town Meeting last evening. I listened with as open a mind as I could to all of the arguments. I will be there tonight. Here’s my takeaway.
The Temple, CVS, Harvest Foods, the Town of Milton and the Residents of Milton are knowingly harming a small number of Direct Abutters (DA) to the project. The gentlemen from Sweden or others may be an exception. My definition of a DA is an abutter who’s property physically touches the project.
Elected Town officials and zoning laws are to provide a measure of protection for individuals and the Town. As hard as it is, and my hat is off to everyone involved in this process and I congratulate all of you for your open-mindedness, dedication and hard work, a better solution can and must be found.
If I were a TM member I would vote FOR the project if the following were true:
* retain the same number of mature trees that exist on the property today
* be assured all construction & operation is green & energy efficient
* allow for a 50′ buffer on all 4 sides of the property
* remove the CVS drive-thru
* shorter hours of CVS & Harvest to a max of 12 hours per day
If the project is unable to compromise and allow for the above, except for the trees and green construction as these, in my opinion, should be a given of any project in Town going forward, the project must provide the DA with some form of financial compensation. This compensation is an acknowledgement by all beneficiaries of the project of the DA’s pain and suffering. This compensation insures that the DA will also benefit from the project’s success. Financial compensation to come from each of the following in an order of potential financial benefit:
* CVS in stock and/or goods and services
* Food from Harvest Foods
* Tax abatement from the Town
* Scholarship, Charity or Memorial, etc. in the individual abutters’ namefunded by the Temple
A YES voter on this amendment as it stands should be required to stand up and admit that they would not want to live in or purchase a DA home and that they understand, affirm and knowingly acknowledge that their YES vote is causing undue harm to the DA.
Or,
Every home-owning YES voter should be required to put the title to their home in a hat. Then the DA would be allowed to draw the title to their NEW home from that hat. The YES voter and the DA would be required to move into their NEW homes before clearing, blasting and construction begins. This scenario assures that every YES voter will have to confront the reality of powerlessness being thrust upon the DA by well intentioned people and organizations and removes the power from those with money and influence.
Respectively and most sincerely,
Daryl Warner