Monday's Paris selectboard meeting hosted well over 45 folks: reporters and cameraman; officials at the front table; a sizeable representation of ATV owners, club members as well as individuals; a smaller representation of landowners along the Parsons Road where the ATV route crosses between trails; and the 7-8 regulars who continue to exercise their general interest in municipal proceedings as Paris voters.
Agenda item #8, to consider a process for group - or individual - requests for access to public roads or property, was very timely.
After a lengthy discussion including fair opportunity for each side of the question, it seemed clear to uninvolved (albeit not uncaring) listeners in the audience that there had been no process at all, just information presented, several people doing homework, some more, or less, than others.
But without specific directions, a workable solution has less chance of emerging; expectations can not possibly be clear. Even if the old saying "You can't please everyone" keeps cropping up, at least if there was a clear directive that spoke to all parties concerned, there would be fewer surprises on all sides.
Consider: a speed limit of 35mph on Any Imaginary Road. Who hasn't traveled more than 35 mph on such a road when conditions seemed to merit? And who has had any success arguing with an officer of the law if stopped ? There are really no surprises when the rule is clear.
Otherwise, without a clear process, the citizens of this town - be they recreational groups, landowners, or elected officials trying to iron things out - are faced with re-inventing the wheel every time a new concern erupts, just like we have in the current road use issue.
Quoting the existing laws is not the answer. There seem to be other steps necessary, because there are unresolved issues here.
More homework, or perhaps more awareness all around, might have helped prevent the serious concerns and anger threatening to break loose. Maybe. But without a workable tool, there is too much open to interpretation, too much ambiguity. And the result is that no one is really protected - on any side.
So. There are evidently plans in the works for concerned parties to meet - imminently - with the town manager, to gather information that will be used in a selectboard discussion at the October 25 selectboard meeting, rather than the December 13 meeting as previously stated.
This seems to be a reasonable step toward a solution. Citizens on all sides deserve to have the hearing they should have had before any decision was officially made.
Note: there will need to be skillful and careful facilitation, by an individual both sides of the question can trust, in the sharing of comments. Although both sides need to have their interests well represented, packing the room with hundreds on one side and 15 on the other side will not make the solution more workable - it will simply appear as a threat, people will dig in their heels; and there will be no solution at all.
Only rampant anger. We've had that in this town before, and it does not work.
There has to be a process crafted that makes absolutely clear what is being asked and who is responsible, #1; a meeting of all stakeholders must be set up, #2; then, and only then, should the selectboard become involved to have their input and discussion, and take their action.
