Email Address

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Buyer's Remorse

Wikipedia describes "buyers remorse"   to be rooted in various factors, such as: the person's concern they purchased the wrong product, purchased it for too high a price, purchased a current model now rather than waiting for a newer model, purchased in an ethically unsound way, purchased on credit that will be difficult to repay, or purchased something that would not be acceptable to others.  For fun lets see if any of that applies to the MSB assembly (less one lone NO vote from Keogh) who took the giant leap last week by eliminating any tower/tall structure ordinance in the borough. 

Too high a price?  We seem to be caught up in the national dialog that all regulation is too high a price to pay.  When you drill it down is it just today's piggy bank or should we be considering what the price will be later as we kill all attempts to be pro-active and get ahead of the potential problem now?  Are we not just sending the cost of correction down the bunny trail and on to  some other generations debit card with sky high interest when we decide then this supposed government over reach is a under reach?  Who really has the ability to say that by allowing anything to happen is a good outcome looking down the road in 5, 10 or 20 years?  Even Clark Kent doesn't have that kinda vision. 

Did the borough purchase the wrong product?  By their own testimony industry leaders were willing to work with some kind of ordinance.  Business is always going after things to be a little more to their liking and financial benefit but by killing any regulation as this pro business assembly has done are they doing business any favors? Is what the assembly is flaying around to protect really provide any certainty of investment?  Business wants assurance to plan for the future not by today's whims or sound bites. Even the biggest players know rules and regulations swing like a naked ring master on a trapeze in the political wind.  They want the certainty that logical rules are in place to make their long range decisions. 

Did we all pay too high a price?  Working groups of volunteers spent from 2007-2011 collaborating on this ordinance.  Let's all have a moment for a collective shudder at the staff time and resources that went into getting to this point.  Resources that could have gone to other things that went without. Volunteers from the industry and community that took the time away from their own projects to lend a hand and a voice to this one. 

Okay I'm really starting to itch...

Purchased a current model rather than waiting for a newer model?  The current assembly seemingly cares a diddle about what prior assemblies or public input wanted before the recent crowning.  Are we all forced to now watch the unraveling of all legislation that doesn't have this current assembly stamp on it?  What gives one body the power to decide for all former and future bodies that their way is best? 

Purchased in a ethical sound way?  With the ethics ordinance blowing in the wind who knows right?  Was it decided by text at the table? Was it traded for some other shiny object as part of a bigger agenda?  Yikes do we even want to know? 

Purchased on credit that will be difficult to pay or something that's not acceptable to others?  Legislation should be about the next generation not the next election or wrapped around the axle of a bigger personal or political ideology.  Our assembly is suppose to be non partisan and not follow a political party agenda. Doesn't killing off any and all regulation fall head first into a current political platform?  Yeah that's what I thought. 

The assembly additionally eliminated the need for a land use permit in the majority of cases in the borough.  Unless you live in what's considered a FEMA flood zone and don't plan on constructing less than 75 feet of a water body your pretty much good to go without a permit.  In excess of 600 permits were issued by the borough last year for the token fee of $25.00-$50.00.  Many of them were not because permits were required but by folks wanting to make sure they were building in the right location on their property and not too close to an easement, setbacks etc to AVOID problems down the bunny trail.  Taking the time and making the investment now to assure that when they were ready to sell they weren't sitting smack in the middle of a big expensive problem that prevented their sale or cost them a wad of cash. Again being pro-active to insure their property values were protected. 

So there you have it.  The tower ordinance is all over but the crying.  Or is it?  Will sensibility rise from the ashes and at least bring back the old ordinance for a place holder until cooler heads prevail? Will the assembly revisit the land use permit issue and decide that having the assurance that all things are where they should be when we build now instead of later might be just the ounce of prevention we should be encouraging as an investment in our future? 

Many more questions than answers.  Stay tuned.  Meanwhile we might think about adding to our shopping cart representation that give us a whole lot of  less buyer's remorse or really no remorse.  

No comments:

Post a Comment