Who should tell them to pound sand?
To the Editor:
What follows is one man's observations of a May 26 meeting of a subset of the MVC, considering the complaints of some neighbors regarding the Goodale pit.
These folks, as a group, having bought and built with the full knowledge of the operation nearby now choose to take exception to that operation. Having exercised their right to seek redress from the town officials with the relevant regulatory authority, they find that lever wanting for lack of basis to support any claim.
Having pressed their complaint with the selectmen to no avail, they now seek satisfaction here, again to little effect.
Indeed, these neighbors are the canary in the coal mine, the first to become aware of any
violations or danger emanating from the sand pit. Had such been in evidence, they would have put us all in their debt by bringing it to the fore. Yet, as aptly put by the chairman, all their evidence was anecdotal, all their complaints subjective. Poor statistical analysis, the unrealistic contention that any and all risk is unacceptable, and the vapid demand that their target should have been more solicitous before exercising his legal rights, failed to find traction.
I respectfully suggest that having found no support among the town officials in making their claim, the onus falls squarely upon them as protagonists to produce the
facts to prove their case, or let the issue be. But such facts were in short supply.
The one overweening fact, left unspoken, is that Jerry Goodale is endowed with a monopoly but has chosen not to assume the guise of a monopolist. The fact that he runs an honest business, with products fairly priced, and has set a high bar for the rest of the Island business community, earns him and his family our respect and gratitude, certainly not the umbrage seemingly underpinning what appears to be naught but buyers' remorse, poorly disguised as outrage, but really nothing but whining.
While I humbly commend the commission for a fair hearing and a wise vote, I offer that the matter, as currently couched, never belonged in their purview. Left moot was the question if this was not actually an exercise in regulatory overreach where there was no
permit application or permit requirement to rule upon.
One wonders if we must be saddled with such a body to protect ourselves from ourselves, if there should not be a vetting mechanism, perhaps akin to the grand jury process, that filters the vacuous argument from the compelling, the frivolous matter from the momentous, before others are burdened with defending that which needs no defense.
James A. Glavin