The town of Berlin had one other option it could have pursued this week instead of dipping into the treasury to pay for the construction of a fence and a walking trail between unhappy neighbors.
It could have done nothing, but said otherwise.
That’s what governments often do when they have little authority to intervene in an argument over the unforeseen consequences of their own actions: insist their hands are legally tied, but vow to negotiate a deal that, more often than not, never quite works out. This politically expedient angle shows government doing something when it really isn’t.
In this case, as Flower Street residents ask for some separation between their properties and the Cannery Village project that abuts their backyards, the town took the direct route and dealt with the problem.
The essence of the issue was that the residents had no actual control over what was built next door, while Cannery Village did what local government gave it permission to do, thereby creating an awkward circumstance where neither side could be obligated to do anything.
Similarly, town government’s authority in the case more or less ended when it approved the Cannery Village development.
Enter common sense, as the town did what it needed to do to address a difficulty that it didn’t foresee. Putting up $90,000 to erect a partial fence and create a walkway between the properties might be the orthodox way of doing things, but the town has done a number of unorthodox things in recent years for the common good.
It would be easy to criticize Town Hall for getting into the Flower Street/Cannery Village predicament, because pointing out past mistakes is always easier than finding a way to fix them.
Although no one wants the town to engage in a shoot-from-the-hip management style, it is good to know that it is capable of taking a stand-up approach and applying some common sense to resolve the otherwise unresolvable.
It could have done nothing, but said otherwise.
That’s what governments often do when they have little authority to intervene in an argument over the unforeseen consequences of their own actions: insist their hands are legally tied, but vow to negotiate a deal that, more often than not, never quite works out. This politically expedient angle shows government doing something when it really isn’t.
In this case, as Flower Street residents ask for some separation between their properties and the Cannery Village project that abuts their backyards, the town took the direct route and dealt with the problem.
The essence of the issue was that the residents had no actual control over what was built next door, while Cannery Village did what local government gave it permission to do, thereby creating an awkward circumstance where neither side could be obligated to do anything.
Similarly, town government’s authority in the case more or less ended when it approved the Cannery Village development.
Enter common sense, as the town did what it needed to do to address a difficulty that it didn’t foresee. Putting up $90,000 to erect a partial fence and create a walkway between the properties might be the orthodox way of doing things, but the town has done a number of unorthodox things in recent years for the common good.
It would be easy to criticize Town Hall for getting into the Flower Street/Cannery Village predicament, because pointing out past mistakes is always easier than finding a way to fix them.
Although no one wants the town to engage in a shoot-from-the-hip management style, it is good to know that it is capable of taking a stand-up approach and applying some common sense to resolve the otherwise unresolvable.