A Pre-Election Note from OHNO60

dave said:
How soon we forget history. Wasn't it the same group of post office combatants who drove private investment away from the W.C.?

Yes. Clearly. Well said.

It's all sad to see all of the disingenuous arguments that misalign with prior arguments. To my knowledge, the arguments are all different, but the underlying root causes are blatant self interest. But instead of honesty, we have to debate

- Kings trucks

- Structural quality of Post Office

- Environment/Recycling?

- Importance ofthe post office (remember the debates about how important having that post office there was to sooooo many people?)

- Height

- Architechtural style of new designs

- disruption to town

- parking

In the end, the opposers, like Author I assume, live nearby and just don't want the hassle. I would respect the debate more of the same people didn't keep changing their passionate pleas on why not to proceed.

Having said that, I am more disappointed by the ugliness regarding TC members and candidates It's so unpleasant to witness.

FWIW, @author is correct I believe. There may have been MOL posters who were of that camp, but the actual group was not the same.

I don't get why the WC keeps coming up during discussions about the P.O. redevelopment. Not sure what the motive is, but whenever the WC or Station House come up, I just assume the writer/speaker has run out of arguments about the P.O. project and just wants to rant.

Woot said:

dave said:
How soon we forget history. Wasn't it the same group of post office combatants who drove private investment away from the W.C.?

Yes. Clearly. Well said.

Simply not true. I suppose if you repeat an untruth over and over again people will start to believe it.

But in this case the statement has no basis in reality. I have been active in opposing the construction of the new building. Not one man or woman who has taken the same stand with me had anything to do with the Womens Club.

I believe John had stated repeatedly in early 2013 that he was not part of the suit, and he in fact was not.

author said:

Woot said:

dave said:
How soon we forget history. Wasn't it the same group of post office combatants who drove private investment away from the W.C.?

Yes. Clearly. Well said.

Simply not true. I suppose if you repeat an untruth over and over again people will start to believe it.
But in this case the statement has no basis in reality. I have been active in opposing the construction of the new building. Not one man or woman who has taken the same stand with me had anything to do with the Womens Club.

Were you not at the same exploratory meetings? Or did they just overlap in terms of timing?

Note that Dave said "combatants," not "suers." I don't think all WC opponents threatened to sue.

True. Though outside of the eight named plaintiffs, I'm not sure whether any others contributed financially to the cause.

ctrzaska said:

author said:

Woot said:

dave said:
How soon we forget history. Wasn't it the same group of post office combatants who drove private investment away from the W.C.?

Yes. Clearly. Well said.

Simply not true. I suppose if you repeat an untruth over and over again people will start to believe it.
But in this case the statement has no basis in reality. I have been active in opposing the construction of the new building. Not one man or woman who has taken the same stand with me had anything to do with the Womens Club.

Were you not at the same exploratory meetings? Or did they just overlap in terms of timing?

Sorry...........don't know what the exploratory meetings were. If you mean any meetings having to do with the purchase of the Womens Club, the answer is no. I was not involved there at all.

What I have heard from a most reliable source whose name I will not reveal...........is that there were five neighbors actively and financially involved in the law suit. Before the event was over they had each spent something like $20,000.00 in attorney fees.

apple44 said:
I don't get why the WC keeps coming up during discussions about the P.O. redevelopment. Not sure what the motive is, but whenever the WC or Station House come up, I just assume the writer/speaker has run out of arguments about the P.O. project and just wants to rant.

I brought it up in this particular thread (along with DeHart) as an example of how much easier it is to mobilize people to stop a project than it is to start one.

Really? Wow. For an extra $20k they could have just bought the WC and let it rot.

ml1, true, but the next reference to the WC (yesterday) didn't seem to be piggybagging on your argument. Rather, it was (paraphrasing) "why are we tearing down a solid building (P.O.) when we are saving one that is falling apart (WC)?" just coming out of nowhere.

ridski said:
Really? Wow. For an extra $20k they could have just bought the WC and let it rot.

That's the plan for the P.O. site now, right. The only point of agreement on the P.O. site is that nobody can agree on what to do with it.

I did print that as Twenty Thousand Dollars per house hold...............if it came out as Two Hundred Thousand just subtract a zero and the figure would be more accurate.

Towards the end of the law suit one neighbor was forced to drop out as the cost was onerous.

How much longer the neighbors could have held out I don't know. It had practically become

a war of attrition.

author said:
I did print that as Twenty Thousand Dollars per house hold...............if it came out as Two Hundred Thousand just subtract a zero and the figure would be more accurate.
Towards the end of the law suit one neighbor was forced to drop out as the cost was onerous.
How much longer the neighbors could have held out I don't know. It had practically become
a war of attrition.

Ah yes, I see, you did. I got confused by the decimal point.

ETA: Including the one missing form my own post. I'm on medication today, but obviously not enough. Just ignore anything I post today.