Small town politics are hell. For those who don’t view it as sport, debate around local issues can get personal pretty damn quick.
Small towns have long memories, and hurt feelings linger.
In a lot of ways, it’s worse than the national scene. Future-President Hillary Clinton or (God forbid) Donald Trump won’t be harangued by an angry constituent while doing a milk run at the grocery store (not that either likely does their own shopping).
Not so for your school board or planning board member, or your town councilor.
Brunswick Councilor Steve Walker has taken his lumps during the debate over 946 Mere Point Road and its aftermath.
The council last week decided to sell the coastal property it had acquired through foreclosure several years ago, rather than develop it for public use.
There was no preclusion from selling the property back to former owner Richard Nudd. There was no language in the motion put before the council forcing them to take the highest bid, nor did it place any restrictions on how the town conducts the sale.
Following the vote, the majority of councilors approved Walker’s motion that proceeds above the back taxes in the amount of $64,500 be put back into water access needs by either securing new property or maintaining existing areas.
Walker, a vocal proponent for both the environment and for outdoor recreation, has been accused of selfishness and arrogance in pursuing what some perceive as a land grab.
We don’t agree.
If one were to look at the Mere Point issue logically, one might say “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
In the case of Mere Point, Walker was acting on behalf of the many, of the overall population of Brunswick who would benefit from having coastal access that is at a premium in Brunswick.
What will they get instead?
In all likelihood, another McMansion on a hill.
Mere Point neighbors can continue to enjoy their sequestered view of Maquoit and Mere Point bays without the intrusion of the public.
And the town can file this bitter saga away in its long memory.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less