View Mobile Site

Farber responds

Posted: October 31, 2013 4:14 p.m.
Updated: November 1, 2013 5:00 a.m.

It seems someone or someones at the Chronicle has a long-standing irritating hair across their bottom(s) when it comes to the lawsuit against the “Y” and it has made them malicious.

It is general, correct knowledge that absent the lawsuit, the “Y” would have been built. The Camden Committee for Responsible Government saved the people of Camden the prospect of a fully constructed “Y” before a referendum was voted on in the municipal election. Put another way, absent the lawsuit, there would have been nothing to vote on because the facility would have been built. It was rewarding that the voting citizens agreed not to construct the facility.

I am fully satisfied that we did the right thing, what should have been done in the best interests of the taxpayers of Camden. As matters stand now, the hospitality tax can be utilized for the purpose it was intended, to attract tourists.

The paper’s view of the judge’s decision and how democracy works is quirky at best. It could be the judge is mistaken and, if she is not, it is certainly true that the law as written is a bad one.

Perhaps someday, when someone at your paper writes an editorial on the subject, he or she will find an opportunity to praise public involvement rather than indulge in petty criticism of those, including me, who took the principled action to serve what they believed and still believe to be in the best interests of the people of Camden.

To set the record straight, there is no sum outstanding and owing to Weston Adams’ law firm. Great reporting that no one even bothered to ask.

With hopes, however, faint that you will someday see the light…


Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.

Contents of this site are © Copyright 2018 Chronicle Independent All rights reserved. Privacy policy and Terms of service

Powered by
Morris Technology
Please wait ...