One big happy family
To the editor,
Why we won’t have a municipal election? Answering that question is easy. COTI could not find or need a candidate. COTI’s consistent position is the restriction of property rights, based on their opinion as to what is aesthetically correct. The present council has adopted COTI’s policy (i.e., its refusal of granting “riparian” rights to bayfront property owners). Why fight someone who has adopted your position?
While the stated reason for the council’s action was the potential damage to seagrass (based on the city’s study. Huh?), the most vocal argument appeared to be the aesthetic problem of docks. Perhaps we should consider camouflaging that portion of the causeway that approaches the island. It, too, was not here originally. It’s good that we did not have a Planning Commission when Frank Bailey constructed his store and dock. Would that construction have been visually correct?
A check of the makeup of the council producing the ordinance in question will find COTI’s members in the majority at the time of passage. Does that surprise anyone?
The Island Reporter’s editorial of Feb. 3, 2011 states: “It appears that islanders are content to accept the status quo without so much as a choice between ‘either’ and ‘or.'” Unfortunately, the editorial is correct.
How can you have controversy when the present council bought the arguments of COTI as to property rights. It appears we are all just one big happy family. It’s a road we’ll live to regret.