‘Not a dreamland castle’

Category: Letters

Created on Thursday, 14 March 2013 00:41

Last Updated on Thursday, 14 March 2013 00:41

Published Date

Written by Vic Dumas

To The Editor:

I would like to comment on the editorial in last week’s Valley Reporter.

Maybe the town office vote was not a mandate, but it was a substantial majority. We live in a democracy and most of the time majority rules. Look at the water issue and also very few properties purchased in the past 20 years had a mandate.

I don’t think the voter response or the 60/40 are bad numbers. We have a group of nine people down in Washington who make very important decisions. The vote is often 5/4, not a mandate. They are a very small percent of the total U.S. voters, they are called the U.S. Supreme Court. I don’t think the church was the issue in the failure of the office bond vote. I think a lot of people have come to realize that we cannot continue to spend large sums of money on very extravagant and needless properties which provide little or no public good. I don’t question the fact we may need a new office. But we need one that fits Waitsfield not New York City -- just an office building not a dreamland castle.

Vic Dumas
Waitsfield

• The sign
• ‘Surprise and disappointment’