Save the iron bridge. It's beautiful; it's irreplaceable.
This story continues to be unclear as often as it appears in the news. Does Rufus Griscom object to the county's maintaining East Madrid Road at all, or does he only think it should be done in some different way?
I am interested in East Madrid Road because I am interested in the old narrow gauge railroad. The intersection spoken of, where Potato Hill Road and Barnjum Road meet East Madrid Road is actually an old railroad crossing. I have used that intersection occasionally to reach Perham Junction and other points on the railroad path from Reeds to Redington.
I don't know Rufus Griscom, but from his name I assume that he is related to Bronson Griscom, who used to own a farm in that vicinity. Bronson Griscom was apparently something of a rail fan, since he adopted the Sanders station building and put it on his land; he also adopted the Fairbanks station building and put it on another property he owned in Fairbanks.
I would very much regret East Madrid Road's becoming unusuable, since at present there is no substitute for it in reaching certain historically interesting locations.
We had a good Farmington tradition called Moonlight Madness which always took place in the last week of July. Suddenly for the past several years this hasn't been good enough for somebody downtown, and we've been subjected to a series of arbitrary changes, none of which improved the traditional festival one whit. At first they just changed the name; now they have to change the timing by over a month, with no explanation. Next year I suppose it will be something else. Somebody must be benefiting by all this messing around, but it isn't the people of Farmington!
Use of painkillers does not cause crimes. Prohibition of painkillers causes crimes.
Have the officials made sure the tenants they are evicting have safer quarters to move into? In my experience officials who do this kind of thing usually couldn't care less about the tenants, and I see no indication that the situation is any different here. The claim to be concerned about the tenants' well-being is sheer hypocrisy.
and God bless her. I would be willing to pay a modest fee to any doctor who is actually trying to help people and treats human beings as distinct from computer files. I don't think we have any such doctors in Farmington.
Joanne, it doesn't matter whether or not I would want to live in Patrick McInnis's building. The point is that somebody does want to live there, and nobody has given me a sufficient reason why that person should be kicked out of his home.
Calling a person a "slumlord" is rhetoric, not fact, and it's a very ugly tactic. The guy would almost certainly prefer to make the improvements in his property that the officials demanded, if he had the money and/or the knowhow. Maine is full of people who just can't afford to make extensive changes in their properties, and I guess you would just call them names and throw them all out onto the street. The codes are constantly changing, and the state would never have been settled if people like you had had their way. Instead of attacking someone who is unfortunate, try giving your attention to something that might help somebody.
As I say in my last reply to Ernest Labbe, I won't be coming back to this page, since the article is two days old, and probably nobody is reading it except you and me and Ernest.
Ernest, you say that the house doesn't look bad from the outside, and I'd agree. You don't say what prompted town officials to start investigating the place; probably you don't know, because they usually don't publicize that fact. But something triggered it. When I said it may be that neighbors complained, I don't mean necessarily the next door neighbors or across the street. We're looking at a town; there could be any number of people in that town who don't like Patrick McInnis for any number of reasons.
I don't understand the social dynamic that causes some people to assume, any time someone gets in trouble with officials, that that person is a bad guy acting from the worst motives, and to think the worst about him and everything he does. Expressions like "this actor" and "the type of person they are dealing with," show that you are disposed to dislike him even though he probably never did you any harm. What I see is that this is an elderly man who probably can't afford the changes that the officials are demanding. They don't pick on rich people!
Meanwhile there is at least one person who would prefer just to go on living there and who has health problems which may make it difficult for him to move. Does anyone care about what happens to him? That's a rhetorical question, as I am not going to keep coming back to this page. The article is now two days old. If you need to have the last word, you can have it.
(I posted a reply to Ernest, but I can't find it on the page, so here's another attempt.)
I would be glad to learn any facts that are relevant to this case. It has all the appearance of cases I have become aware of in other towns, where town officials have picked on someone who happens to be unpopular with his neighbors, and have ignored other property owners with violations that are just as bad. I continue to think there should be more concern about what happens to the people who voluntarily chose to live there--just kicking them out doesn't make them any safer.
If the house was filled with smoke last night, but there was no fire, that isn't relevant to a case based on fire codes. You don't say what caused the smoke--probably you don't know. Surely you aren't maintaining that this property owner is just a bad guy, and that's why there was smoke in his house, and anything done against him and his tenants is therefore right? There might be smoke in my house some day, or in yours.
Joanne, I like your pussycat. But your reasoning isn't convincing. Probably half the buildings in town fail to meet the codes in some respects; there must be a reason why town officials picked on this particular guy and started crawling all over his house looking for violations. The article doesn't tell us what that reason is, because of course the officials aren't going to publicize it. But if experience in other towns of my acquaintance is any guide, this usually happens when someone complains about a neighbor. Why is one neighbor complained about while another, with perhaps as many violations, isn't complained about? Well, probably the reason has nothing to do with which neighbor had the worst violations. It's more likely to be about the personal feelings of the complainer toward the complainee. Laws of this sort are enforced selectively, and nobody will admit to the basis of the selection.
I would like to see some concern shown as to what happens to the tenants when they are forced out of a building where they voluntarily chose to live. But apparently there are no laws dealing with that although surely it is just as important as whether the building meets all the safety codes. So there are no pressures on the town officials to deal with that need, which affects the safety of individuals more than the codes do.
You don't indicate your basis for calling the property owner in this case a "slumlord." Do you know this man personally? or is that just your kneejerk reaction to a story of this sort.