TO BE … OR NOT TO BE
BY DANIEL W. DRAKE ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER
In its finite wisdom, the Board of Selectmen has agreed to a citizen's petition to include two non-binding questions on the ballot for the April 15 town election. The voters will be asked to answer the following: "Should the Town of Nantucket allow the 'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund to construct upon, and nourish, the town-owned coastal beaches on the east side of the island?" and "Should the Town of Nantucket build, or allow to be built, a multi-level parking garage for public use in downtown Nantucket?"

By including these questions on the ballot, the selectmen are making a serious mistake. They are jumping the gun by putting these questions on the ballot before all of the facts are known and there has been an opportunity for intelligent discourse based on full knowledge of both the facts and regulatory or planning decisions. They are, as Selectmen Willauer and Roggeveen pointed out before they caved in and went along with the decision to put the questions on the ballot, running the risk of preempting the work of the governmental bodies charged with overseeing these projects, despite the fact that the votes have no legal force. They are also setting a dangerous precedent for the future.

To what end are the voters being asked to opine on these questions? Certainly the proponent of the questions, Catherine Flanagan Stover, has been vocal, both as a private citizen and while a selectman, in her opposition to the 'Sconset beach nourishment project. She would not be proposing the ballot question now if she didn't think it would help her cause.

The beach nourishment project question is very narrowly worded as to whether the townowned land along the 'Sconset bluff should be part of the project. The question ignores the much broader implications of the project, potentially for the affected homeowners as well as for the ocean environment. It also ignores any other beach nourishment project. If the vote is negative, the opponents of the 'Sconset effort will use "voter opinion" as a hammer to slow down or defeat the legitimate processes of government in any way they can. If the vote were to turn out positive, they will ignore that outcome and turn to other obstructionist tactics.

The same tactic is being used to create a roadblock for the Great Harbor Yacht Club with respect to a piece of land right in the middle of the project that the town is alleged to own. The approach is simplistic and purely political. It also smacks of isolationism, Nantucket-style.

Incidentally, the proponent of the question has submitted an article for town meeting which, if passed, would impose a two-year moratorium on the 'Sconset project. Isn't the fate of that article an adequate gauge of public opinion? What if the moratorium is defeated but the ballot question results in a negative answer? Or vice-versa?

As we saw recently with the Island Spirits property bus depot project, Nantucket's voters can be quite fickle. That project passed by a two-thirds majority at Town Meeting but, a few weeks later, the funding was defeated by almost the same majority. There should be a lesson in that which shows that any vote is pretty much a snapshot of the day it is taken. It is, by no means, a foregone conclusion that the same outcome would occur a few days or weeks later.

The downtown parking garage issue is not well framed at the moment. It has only recently become a topic of serious discussion. Presumably the town traffic engineer is considering such a thing as part of the traffic plan he is developing. If he does feel that such a facility is important, he must be allowed the opportunity to make the case. In addition, we have no sense of what the owner of the only downtown parcel suitable for such a project has in mind. If the electorate ultimately has to vote on a parking garage, let it be on the specifics, not on the trial balloon.

Non-binding votes take on a life of their own. We are reminded from time to time that "Nantucket voted against the windfarm in Nantucket Sound" a couple of years ago. Maybe that vote should be taken again to see if people feel the same way in this day of $4.00 per gallon heating oil.

The argument is made that the selectmen need to know what people are thinking. Can't they find out what people are thinking by taking the pulse on Main Street or walking the aisles of the Stop & Shop? Of course they can, but they want more. They want the political tool that these non-binding votes give them if the result is the one they want.

The selectmen were elected to make reasoned decisions, or at least so we would like to think. Sometimes those decisions are not going to be in line with the outcome of a straw vote. Yet the straw vote will be out there and, because it is officially sanctioned, it will be much harder to ignore than the outcome of some poll taken by a third party.

Where do these non-binding ballot questions stop now that the door has been opened for them? One can only imagine the sorts of things that might be presented. Already a long list comes to mind of questions which reflect an agenda of political concerns - or, perhaps, even a platform of pettiness.

There are times when a non-binding question on the ballot might be appropriate. Take the downtown bus depot, for example. As noted, the provision passed at Town Meeting. So why was it defeated at the ballot box? Was it too expensive? Was it because there was no larger traffic plan into which it was incorporated? Was it because the voters simply didn't want it? All of these reasons were given for the defeat. But now it is back as a gift. Maybe we should find out whether people really want it or not? Or, maybe we shouldn't. How would you word the question so that it would be fair to all sides?

In most instances, it is very difficult to compose a ballot question in a way that is both comprehensive and even-handed, while still comprehensible to the voter. Maybe that is why we have elected people to represent us in making these decisions.

Mr. Willauer and Ms. Roggeveen, your instincts were right the first time. These decisions are yours and those of your colleagues on the board. The spectrum of public opinion is one of many matters to be considered in reaching your decision. In that context, the outcome of a non-binding ballot question with a white or black outcome is worth less than the paper

upon which it is recorded. I

The "Lighthouse Keeper" reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent the editorial position of The Nantucket Independent. Please send any ideas or comments to drake@nantucketindependent.com.