|
The notion of a defense fund is a good one; it implies that the money will be used to defend access rights and that would be a huge asset to the cause. A good first step would be to find out how much an attorney would want to show up at the next meeting and present a counter argument, and then how much they would want to sue a town over a previously closed area in order to get a precedent that could be cited with respect to the next closure issue that is certain to arise.
When one party shows up at a council meeting with a lawyer to articulate their concerns about an issue – any issue - and those who hold a counter position do not show up with professional legal representation, it is akin to bringing a knife to a gunfight. A ruling from the Rhode Island Supreme Court could have a sweeping effect, not only for the current closure issues, but for the previous ones as well. If a representative can get a bill passed that ensures parking at the ROW’s, that could also have a blanket effect.
Rhode Islanders do not need to be divided before they are conquered – we already are divided. Even though there are many counties and towns throughout the country as big as our state – we still identify ourselves as from this town or that. For example: I live in West Warwick and they are most likely to put casino gambling in my town if it passes on the ballot, regardless of my objections. Why should there be separate rights for quality of life depending on the affluence of the community? I can’t park on a street in Middletown because the noise is disruptive – yet a Middletown resident will be able to come and gamble in my town. What is that?
If a local government can quell a firestorm over closure by providing access for locals only and that remedy is supported, that is not a victory. We should not accept a solution that provides anything less than free and unfettered access for all.
|
Threaded Mode