Sometimes we feel like we have a single shot shotgun, and we’re facing an incoming flock of fugawy birds numbering in the hundreds. Other times, it’s an incoming flock of ooh-ahh birds.
Kind of like Elmer Fudd with his blunder-buss and the wascally wabbits.
Just when Elmer thinks he’s about to give Bugs his just desserts, he runs into someone who says “look, Elmer, there’s the rabbit over there.” It’s especially curious when the someone looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, because it is a duck.
We have a stack of things to write on, opine on, and research, and in one of life’s great injustices, we also have other things to do. So color us in official overload, because we made the mistake of talking to others and paying attention today, and now we have more things to work on than when the day began. But we’re still carrying a single shot scatter-gun!
So scatter-gun time it is; and we’ll do our best to get two birds with one shot.
The first bird is one that sprang up out of the bushes, and looks remarkably like an ostrich. It’s not the first time we’ve been surprised in recent weeks, and if we ever get back on track, we’ll close the loop on that story. Todays ‘flushed bird’ is an editorial in the local paper taking pretty dead aim at the BDC. It appears here; you’re on your own with finding a paper copy or trying to read it on their web site. If you can do neither, contact us, and we’ll help you out.
The op-ed would seem to reflect a rather scathing view of the BDC and its operation over the years. It looks like the editors may have woken up from years of sleep; or maybe they actually live here in Cape Brunswick, and are beginning to feel a bit put-upon. Our property tax bill arrived today, and we’re certainly feeling more put-upon then ever. But not everybody can be on the free-money train.
Even more interesting is this little passage:
And that’s not even the worst example of the queer pecuniaries of quasi-municipal development in Brunswick.
Next we have Councilor Benet Pols asking the BDC to pay to raze an abandoned home near his to increase his property value.
The proposal was rejected because it didn’t fit “the BDC criteria” — not because a sitting councilor was asking for financial favors from his peers.
Overall, we find the editorial tone a bit snarky, and the effort shows some signs of actually pursuing a story. Good for them; too bad they didn’t get real years ago before they had 7.5 toes already in the ground. But they did miss the mark on Town Officials’ relationship to the BDC. Four town officials ALWAYS sit on the Board of BDC, per the Bylaws, and the Town Council appoints the other three. They garbled this point just like Council Chair Wilson did last week.
Now at least we have a reason to check their pages – to look for a Benet Pols response. Will sharp teeth be on display?
(Note: we were unable to confirm important details of the ‘other bird’ in this story by our deadline, so we’re going with half the story until we do. That’s still more than you get just about everywhere else.)
TTFN and stay tuned in.
No comments:
Post a Comment