Wind: 0 mph
To the Editor:
I paid attention to the "little birdy" this evening...web browsing The Valley Reporter...coming across the article "Contentious Fayston Subdivision Goes to Environmental Court" by Kara Herlihy. Is she referring to objects (Fayton subdivision) or the person(s) involved?
I happen to believe along the lines of Robert Kennedy Jr. who said, "We have very good environmental laws in this country. If we enforced them, we probably wouldn't have environmental problems."
Have you taken the time to check out the decision that the State of Vermont Environmental Court came to in regard to the defendant, Frederick Viens II v. Thomas Tafuto and Kathleen Tarrant-Tafuto, plaintiffs? The town of Fayston wasn't the least bit concerned about the welfare of the plaintiffs when they issued an illegal permit to the defendant while the plaintiffs were away on vacation. Why should the environmental court care either...as long as the bear are allowed to continue in the woods?
This case, and others like it, should never have to go to court in the first place. It was the defendant who decided to hire a lawyer in retaliation for getting called on the fact that his nearest neighbor was experiencing toxic fumes from their young son's bedroom window. Today, the plaintiff's son (now 15) is considered chemically sensitive. His sister (13) and mother live with him in a basement apartment, trying to forget the "nuisance odors" along with the many gunshots that were fired at them. And how about the excrement that was flung into their mailbox along with other multiple offenses? These kinds of things aren't meant for children let alone courtrooms. They will probably be visited upon the third and fourth generation.
Formerly of Fayston
Editor's Note: Kara Herlihy's article was referring to the Crean subdivision and use of the word contentious referred to the ongoing issue of whether residential development is appropriate for areas identified as prime bear habitat.