Meet in the middle

To the Editor:
What happens when the Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC) adds conditions to a project and they are ignored by an approved applicant? How are those conditions enforced?

My experience is nothing happens. The MVC blames the town, the town blames the applicant, the applicant blames the MVC. So the only ones to suffer and pay the price are the neighborhood residents.

It was good to hear at the Stop & Shop public hearing that the use, transfer or sale of public property would have to be presented at town meeting for voter approval, since all residents are actually the owners of public property.

These were some of the questions I had hoped to ask the MVC at the hearing last week, so all citizens present would know in advance how, in what way and by whom those conditions would be met, And if not, who would be held responsible, accountable and what actually will happen to rectify any violations of the order of conditions.

The towns and MVC have budgets for their legal representation. However when the MVC’s conditions are not met, who will pay the legal bills of each of the directly affected residences or businesses?

No one wishes to have their failings aired in public, and that is why I believe I was cut off from speaking at last week’s meeting.

Size and scale seemed to be the common thread in all the discussion at the meeting. I believe there is common ground for meeting in the middle and getting a new, larger, more efficient store built. Also a plan that visually enhances the harbor approach.

When people listen and respect each other’s opinions they then can move forward in an effort to compromise and actually get something done.

A no-way-or-the-highway approach only results in greater dug in positions on both sides with a stalled project, and intransigence the winner.

Patrick King

Oak Bluffs