Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Did I show You This Aleady":
"It's not entirely clear how the vote will
Oh, I think you know. Why else the repetitious, desperate attempts
to affect the obvious? The term 'whistling (I'm being polite) in the wind' comes
"My view is, it should be flushed away ,never to be seen
Your (minority) view is well known - you've only shared it
innumerable times. One year starts as the last ended ... and to no avail.
It has this avail :
Each time it brings a commenter rearing forward on hind legs to thrash away at the "whistling in the wind" threat of termination of a nefarious agreement that had to be slyly slid through without public attention or a legal review by the town solicitor of the day.
A contract can be legal and still represent only one party. if the other party has sold out their interest for a mess of potage.
The community was not served by the architects of that agreement
Any more than the community is served now.by what is proposed as a new agreement.
The commenter makes an assumption that my view is a minority.
It certainly is not, as his is.
I do have authority to speak for others.
People who may themselves have sought explanations from Councillors and the Mayor over the holidays for the logic of handing out all that money, surrendering a valuable asset plus maintenance and utilities for all of a dollar a year.
I have yet to hear the logic. And I have a ringside seat.
For the purchase of what ?
Culture, you say.
How is that defined?
How is it different to programs provided in town facilities over the past fifty years?
Paid for with user fees from facility users.
Not filched from taxpayers' pockets without as much as a by-your-leave.
Folks who understand very well the difference between paying one's own way and demanding others pay it for you.
Our language is rich with descriptive phrases. "Whistling in the wind" is cited.
"Spitting into the wind" is even more expressive.
Parasitic scavenging, bottom -feeders, fly-by-night operators are all phrases to fill the vacuum created by failure to reason.
I tend to avoid calling people names. It's too easy to respond and slide down that slippery slope.
The agreement offered for Council's consideration does not serve the interest of the community at large.
It serves a special interest group with nothing whatsoever vested in the community at large.
They have no requirement..
They were not elected for that purpose.
Not like the Mayor and Council.