Weirs Beach Cumberland Farms Open

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

If there was a negative impact to the environment from leaving the current canopy in place, I would want it fixed at once...

Originally Posted by jrc

Tearing down a perfectly serviceable and functional canopy, just to replace it with a more aesthetically pleasing has a negative effect on the environment. All the carbon released to deconstruct the existing canopy, dispose of it, manfacture the new canopy and install it will contribute to global warming for no social benefit.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

As both a gasoline refinery operator, and a retailer, I vote for Cumby to donate $15,000 to the automotive training at the Huot Vocational Tech in Laconia, and $15,000 to the marine technician training at Lakes Region Community College in Laconia.

I find it interesting that not one of you addressed the question I posed of "Where does the slippery slope to ignoring the government begin?" I understand that the re-do will negatively effect the environment (so..if scumbys didn't have to do this, all that equipment would have been shut down and not doing anything else, thus not expelling carbon? ) but what about visual pollution? Do we know that the CORRECT AND APPROVED canopy will not cause less visual pollution then the current INCORRECT AND UNAPPROVED one? If it was an infraction that effected the environment, but no one caught it, is that OK? Where do we draw the line before everything becomes a "opps, didn't see that before, my bad but I guess we shouldn't waste money doing it the CORRECT AND APPROVED way?"

I still say a fine and a fix is in order.

[Resident 2B]

WG,

I am with you completely on the fine, I see only negative value in a fix. Let the money go to something that helps something that needs help.

It is wasteful to replace a functional structure. I do not see anything ugly about it, in fact, I feel it looks better than what they will be replacing it with. Just my opinion.

I question where the Laconia Building Inspector was during the construction. He had to realize that the canopy was not to plan. Perhaps he did notice it and CF went forward anyway. If that was the case, a stop order should have been issued.

R2B

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Let the money go to something that helps something that needs help.

I think that is a slippery slope as well though. Then you set precedent for implementing fines and dictating (or endlessly arguing over) where/how the fund should be distributed.

I don't know the emotions of the planning board, but I am guessing this is more about enforcement of approved plans, than punishment for not following the approved plans. If the cost to re-do had been $4500, or $450,000, the decision should have been the same.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

I find it interesting that not one of you addressed the question I posed of "Where does the slippery slope to ignoring the government begin?" I understand that the re-do will negatively effect the environment (so..if scumbys didn't have to do this, all that equipment would have been shut down and not doing anything else, thus not expelling carbon? ) but what about visual pollution? Do we know that the CORRECT AND APPROVED canopy will not cause less visual pollution then the current INCORRECT AND UNAPPROVED one? If it was an infraction that effected the environment, but no one caught it, is that OK? Where do we draw the line before everything becomes a "opps, didn't see that before, my bad but I guess we shouldn't waste money doing it the CORRECT AND APPROVED way?"

I still say a fine and a fix is in order.

Maybe you don't like the store, the people that work there, or their owners, but what have they done to be named scumbys? It seems a little juvenile.

They screwed up and the town screwed up by giving a C of O (is the building inspector being held accountable in any way?)

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Maybe you don't like the store, the people that work there, or their owners, but what have they done to be named scumbys? It seems a little juvenile.

Actually, scumbys is an old nickname from my juvenile days, so I guess thats the right word.

I could take offense to your inference that I am juvenile, but then that would be juvenile as well.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

Actually, scumbys is an old nickname from my juvenile days, so I guess thats the right word.

I could take offense to your inference that I am juvenile, but then that would be juvenile as well.

Understood Weirs guy, it just struck me as incongruous with the rest of your post. I did not know if you had a real issue with them (or if they really were scummy at that store and then all should know about it).