The Wine Gallery, 30 Main Street, will host a discussion on Wednesday evening, February 25th at 7:00 about "pay as you throw". Jesse Corum and Moss Kahler are the discussants, with Ann Ryder moderating.
There is a $5 minimum. Please call 246-6400 or send an email to wwines@sover.net to reserve a space.
Authored by: Genie on Thursday, February 19 2009 @ 09:53 PM GMT+4
I agree. Talking trash over fine wine. What a mix for a mess. And; those who cannot afford to attend this discussion are those who can't afford to buy the PAYT bags.
Sledge hammer economics are not an effective tool to use in teaching about recycling or reduction of consumption.
Authored by: Mosski on Thursday, February 19 2009 @ 10:33 PM GMT+4
This talk was not put forward by the PAYT advocates. Windham Wines has been hosting public discussions for some time now. For six weeks in a row before the national election last November they hosted discussions on education, foreign policy, energy, etc.
This is an event that will probably have some town meeting representatives in attendance. It would be good for them to hear reasoned arguments against PAYT.
You are not required to buy any wine. There is no cover charge.
Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 08:40 AM GMT+4
Does that mean you pay at the door, or that you have to buy at least one glass of wine? I wasn't sure.
I do think it's a little strange to host this forum as a private event. Maybe it only seems so because the "for" side is a Selectboard member.
It's no more strange, however, than the people who are running the public forum on this saying ahead of time that no one wlll be allowed to argue against PAYT at the public forum. Errrr, OK....
---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR
Authored by: Floyd on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 06:36 PM GMT+4
The Windham Wines series is a continuation of their previous series from the Fall of 2008.
Actually one of them, the foreign policy debate between Dan DeWalt and Lynn Corum, was just on BCTV 8 today.
I don't think anyone is keeping track of what anyone drinks. I personally think having a drink may make it somewhat easier to listen to opinions you don't agree with.
Authored by: annikee on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 10:12 AM GMT+4
A forum where you MUST buy a glass of wine? No thanks. And it'll exclude the under-21s. That's not public at all. And sorry, but a 5$ glass of anything is beyond my wallet. So all the trusties and rich can go and knock back a few and have a meaningless talk about PAYT. Have fun. No interest here.
Does anyone see the subtle machinations of how these things happen in town? A forum where you can't criticize, and another wine party for the elite? Think, Brattleboro. Wake up.
---
".. failure of an ideal..is harder for the world to forgive and forget than.. the grand swindles of corrupt politicians" LM Alcott
Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 10:21 AM GMT+4
I agree with you on one level, and I'm not planning to go either, but I expect the wine bar folks are trying to do something interesting and fun here; it is part of a series of discussions, and it just happens to be on a very current and hot-button local issue. Nothing wrong with that, though I don't think an SB person should be involved, since it is not a truly public, open event.
I can see why people are disgruntled about not having a truly public, open forum about this issue, but the wine bar people aren't in charge of that. Why doesn't someone put a third event together?
---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR
Authored by: annikee on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 10:52 AM GMT+4
I agree that Jesse Corum being the pro-PAYT to Moss' con is inappropriate. And yes, WW has staged a few discussions about politics. But the other issues weren't a hot button, class war issue.
There ought to be free speech at the public forum. But there won't be. So many won't go. Then the PAYT league will shriek, "Nobody came to oppose it" and we'll get PAYT. I've seen these old boy machinations before.
---
".. failure of an ideal..is harder for the world to forgive and forget than.. the grand swindles of corrupt politicians" LM Alcott
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 01:44 PM GMT+4
I see what you mean, but I think it's definitely a matter of perspective. The WW people are saying "we'd like to have this discussion at our establishment." It's no different than if the Rotary asked Corum and Kahler to discuss the issue at one of their luncheons.
If the town was saying "we're having a public discussion, and it's going to be at WW where you must pay $5 to attend," it would be a different story.
The bigger complaint, to me, is that the public meeting, the town's meeting, is limited to one side of the issue. Sounds very familiar. Maybe the town could have a "free speech zone" on the Vernon border where people with opposing views could go.
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 01:54 PM GMT+4
Is the drinking age in Vermont still 21? If so that would make this a very different situation than the Rotary as those who are under 21 I would assume couldn't attend. And in fact I would suspect that those between 18 and 21 are in one of the groups most likely to feel the effect of this financially as that age group would more likely be renters.
Authored by: annikee on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 03:23 PM GMT+4
No, but there are laws about underage people being in alcohol-serving establishments in Vermont. Dunno the extent of them, but I remember Ellie throwing the underage out of Mike's at a certain time. And it was early, because it was still light outside.
---
".. failure of an ideal..is harder for the world to forgive and forget than.. the grand swindles of corrupt politicians" LM Alcott
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 03:19 PM GMT+4
I don't really think you have to be 21 to walk into Windham Wines, but even if it were so, there would be no breach of ethic or breach of law.
There's nothing wrong with a private business sponsoring a discussion on their premises. This is not sponsored by the public, and neither the participants or the sponsor are under any obligation to the public. (Exception: If there were a quorum of any board participating, in which case it would most likely be considered a public meeting under Vermont law, and should be warned and open to the public.)
It's even acceptable for a private club or business to hold a private discussion on an issue, with or without an elected official present. It happens quite often, actually.
Personally, I think Windham Wines would be a lot smarter to have no "minimum" purchase, even if it's just a couple cookies. If it was free, they might lure someone in who might come back and spend more than $5. Like me.
Authored by: tomaidh on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 11:13 AM GMT+4
This isn't an "old Boy" thing. And nobody's forcing anybody to drink wine. I don't drink, but I'll be there.
W/W sells food and soft drinks as well. I don't smoke either, but I think 5 bucks is about the price of a pack of butts. Less than a bag of trash?
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 11:39 AM GMT+4
The earlier "forums" were on general political topics. This is a specific ruling by the Selectboard on a specific issue that already has some questionable questions about impropriety because some members will financially benefit as business owners and landlords.
As a member of the Selectboard I think it is at best inappropriate and perhaps not even legal for Corum to attend and speak on this particular issue in this venue because of the minimum $5 required for attendance, not to mention the age limitation which will additionally exclude some legal voters.
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 11:52 AM GMT+4
Let me just add that Windham Wines could do this with someone outside of the Selectboard appearing as the "pro" but no member of the Selectboard should be appearing in this venue either pro or con. As I said before this is really highly inappropriate and likely not legal.
Authored by: JefferyAnderson on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 12:54 PM GMT+4
How in good politics does this event even make sense. $5 to be part of a discussion about an item of great local interest. Even if they think that's not a lot to ask for, it just sends a really poor message. Is that really in the spirit of free and direct democracy that Town Meeting is all about? How about they start charging a cover every time Sen. Sanders wants to come to Brattleboro and host a forum at the high school. Don't invite the public, have a standing Selectboard member present, and expect us to think that it will be anything but a reason to tell us what we should do.
Authored by: tomaidh on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 02:04 AM GMT+4
I don't think you get it This is a private event open to the public. The public event held last Saturday in the Muni Bldg. was one sided. I don't see a public two sided event scheduled before Town Meeting day. There's a month to go. Why don't you organize one that's free, public and unbiased. We can all benefit !
Authored by: cgrotke on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 01:17 PM GMT+4
This is a special extra event put on by Windham Wines as part of their
ongoing series of local issues. It's more of a debate than a public
forum. Nothing official comes of this, other than hearing more
arguments in favor and against, and learning more about the issues
involved.
They do this the way other bars have musical entertainment and cover
charges - part public service and partly to get people in the door. We
were down there for a night on local media last fall. Regular debates
and discussions are a nice twist, in my view, and offer a different
reason for people to go out in town if they can afford to go out at all.
The public forum is on Saturday at the Municipal Center and is free.
Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 01:25 PM GMT+4
I agree with you; i think the debate at the wine bar is a fine idea. But I don't think a Selectboard member should participate. That makes it seem like it should be a public forum even though it isn't.
And we have also been told that the public "forum" will not be a venue for people to voice complaints about PAYT. I guess I can see where they're coming from - they don't just want it to be a rant-fest, because it's already pretty clear where public opinion is on this issue - but as this is the only public "forum" being offered, that rule doesn't really seem fair to me.
---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 01:25 PM GMT+4
Don't get me wrong, I love Windham Wines but my point Chris is that this is not a debate about local media.
it's a debate about a specific proposal that Jesse voted for as a member of the Selectboard.
If they want to do this I'm fine with it as I'm not being forced to go or not go HOWEVER, no one from the Selectboard should be on the panel and thatincludes Jesse Corum. Get someone who was not involved in voting this in and let Selectboard members come if they want but they should not be participating. This is quite different from a conversation between Dan DeWalt and Jesse about local media or politics.
Authored by: annikee on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 01:35 PM GMT+4
Bingo, you guys. Jesse Corum shouldn't be in this. He's an elected official, running again, whose bias toward PAYT (clear in the flyer from him and John Allen that they're 100% behind it, damn the public who'll pay) would be fine in a debate. But not while he's an SB member.
---
".. failure of an ideal..is harder for the world to forgive and forget than.. the grand swindles of corrupt politicians" LM Alcott
Authored by: tiny on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 02:44 PM GMT+4
The invitation does not say Jesse Corum is appearing as a selectboard member. He is appearing as a private citizen. It is a evening of debate/discussion that is not a public meeting as SBK talks about here at iBratt. It's an event put on by Windham Wine, a private entity.
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 02:57 PM GMT+4
If they were talking about local media or the ski jump I would agree with you. Jesse has a right to do those sorts of talks as a private citizen but to repeat myself this is about a particular issue that has come before the Selectboard, is still an actionable item as it is not finalized and could still be removed. Because he is a Selectboard member and this is still a "live vote" and not decided definitively it is irrelevant whether he says he is appearing as a private citizen or not. It is inappropriate.
Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 03:03 PM GMT+4
Yes, and when Barack Obama went to Indiana to talk about the stimulus package, he was not appearing AS the president! He was just a guy like any other who also just happens to be in favor of the bill, right?
I'm sorry, but when you are a Selectman who is partially responsible for one of the most controversial budget decisions of the decade, and you are running for re-election to boot, you do not have the luxury of appearing in a public place and arguing in favor of the controversial budget decision as a "private citizen"! That's absurd. Now, if the debate were about anything at all besides a current and highly controversial Selectboard ruling, you might have something there. But it isn't.
If members of the government are going to speak publicly about their policy decisions, they should do it in open, public venues. As I've said, I have no beef with the wine bar. I do think this particular elected official has made a very poor decision, though.
---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR
Authored by: Mosski on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 02:55 PM GMT+4
Keep in mind that Jesse is on record of voting both against and, then later, for PAYT. In the parlance of national politics he is a "flip flopper"!
As for the "public" forum on Saturday I suggest you all go and "rant" anyway. Maybe they will have you arrested for disturbing the peace . Then that would be the story, not how wonderful PAYT will be.
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 03:02 PM GMT+4
Well that's a bit of a tacky comment isn't it.
It's totally legitimate to point out that this is not the way Selectboard members should be conducting their business, particularly on votes that aren't totally finalized.
I find it odd that you don't see the logic of questioning this venue.
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 03:22 PM GMT+4
"Maybe they will have you arrested for disturbing the peace . Then that would be the story, not how wonderful PAYT will be."
Well perhaps I misunderstood if so apologies but it's not nice to be arrested anywhere whether at a public forum or a wine bar but perhaps it wasn't said hopefully as I took it.....
Actually maybe it's worse to be arrested at a wine bar if they don't let you finish your drink but that's just a personal take.
Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 03:42 PM GMT+4
I took it as an appeal to those who are into civil disobedience. I know a lot of people who get themselves arrested on purpose; it's a very popular way, as Mosski points out, to make a point and even win a news cycle. Not my thing, but some people do it almost as a hobby. And I'm glad there are people like that, who are willing to make a difference in that way. I didn't think Mosski was trying to insult anyone.
---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR
Authored by: cgrotke on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 04:30 PM GMT+4
The Saturday forum seems to be to answer questions about the system
being proposed. Representative Town Meeting is where PAYT will be
decided. I'd suggest gathering info on Saturday, then talking to Town
Meeting Reps about whether PAYT should happen here now.
Disrupting people trying to explain how it is designed to work seems off
the mark to me. They won't be voting on it. Asking every question,
however, seems smart. It will make for better discussions with Town
Meeting Reps.
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 04:35 PM GMT+4
Yeah I'm kind of with you on that one. In fact disrupting the meeting could have a negative effect for those on the "con" side...I don't think it's such a great idea. In fact it obviously didn't cross my mind when reading the post that someone would be suggesting that as a good thing for those opposed to do...it could really backfire.
Authored by: Mosski on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 06:09 PM GMT+4
I am really learning about how and how not to use i-Brattleboro!
By "rant" I simply meant that anyone should feel free to point out the shortcomings of PAYT at the public forum on Saturday (at the municipal center, NOT at Windham Wines). By being told that this Saturday's forum is only for the Waste Committee to disseminate information about how PAYT will work and how wonderful and equitable it will be, BUT not allow the public to disseminate the other side (burden on renters and low income, sneaky and illegal dumping, lack of composting opportunities, and other less punitive measures that can be taken to increase recycling, etc.) is simply wrong.
By getting arrested I was simply posting my tongue in my cheek, thinking back to Ian's taking trash bags to the SB meeting. I DO NOT think it would be smart AT ALL to make any kind of display or "rant" in the express effort to get arrested. However, if the forum leaders in trying to stifle the public's comments overreacted and called in the men/women in blue that would be THEIR mistake.
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 10:54 PM GMT+4
Yeah, I"m just a little hypersensitive and cranky these last few days...I kinda started seeing that after PJMelton pointed it out so just chalk my post up to a general state of annoyance.
Also I did mention that my beef is not with the Windham Wine owners either...I also think they are very nice people and they recommended the best bottle of wine I've had in years awhile back and it wasn't even expensive. It's a lovely relaxing space and they are very good-hearted. I just think none of the Selectboard members should be involved for reasons I've already stated ad naseum.
Authored by: Mosski on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 06:22 PM GMT+4
By the way of full disclosure:
I am a builder and have done work for the owners of Windham Wines. They are both wonderful people and I am sure have no hidden agenda or devious plan. They are business owners (I suppose that is where the $5 minimum comes from) and have a civic interest in Brattleboro.
I did not think about the appropriateness of Jesse Corum's participation. I am not reading as much into it as other commenters to i-Bratt. I am hoping that 10 or twenty interested people attend and, fingers crossed, leave Windham Wines next Wednesday evening solidly against PAYT.
More disclosure: Jesse Corum and I are both members of Brattleboro RacquetSports and he is a good guy. I fully agreed with and supported his FIRST vote of PAYT.
Authored by: annikee on Friday, February 20 2009 @ 07:59 PM GMT+4
What concerns me is that when they push it thru, they'll point back at this "public forum" (Saturday at the MunCent) and say nobody argued against it. Hopefully, this time people would shut that down by remembering that no input was allowed. But in the past, the Powers That Be have used this. The current SB is not hearing their constituents, or this wouldn't be going this far. They didn't want to hear about anything concerning the Loop, either. And VY? Fahgeddaboutit.
It's time we had SB members that actually listen and respond to the citizenry without rancor.
---
".. failure of an ideal..is harder for the world to forgive and forget than.. the grand swindles of corrupt politicians" LM Alcott
Authored by: tomaidh on Sunday, February 22 2009 @ 09:18 PM GMT+4
Good explanation, Chris. It's a private event open to the public. Nobody's forced to drink wine. The Minimum can be considered an admission charge like going to the Latchis. If you don't want to pay, stay away.
Authored by: tomaidh on Sunday, February 22 2009 @ 09:11 PM GMT+4
I attended the "public forum" (Saturday at the MunCent) and it was definitely not a debate. The "Panel" consisted of members of the Solid Waste Committee who explained to us how it WILL work. The audience had the opportunity to comment, but there was no discussion of IF, only WHEN !!!
Authored by: csimmons on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 06:15 PM GMT+4
Comment below was first posted in "Agree To Disagree," but content
is most relevant to this thread. Part 2 to follow.
Chad Simmons
------
Chad Simmons
----
(part 1)
This thread of comments highlights why I’ve stayed far away from
ibratt…with the exception of a few and the tail end of the ‘dialogue,’
so many of the comments were smug, baseless, hypocritical and
frankly… ignorant. It’s a shame that such a potentially great
community resource is squandered by users clinging to exclusivity.
I’ll try to make this short...ish. The owners of Windham Wines are
doing a remarkable thing…A throwback to when communities really
were communal and a model for moving forward…beyond the smug,
anti-community building cyber walls. They offered their place of
business to have a discussion…have been doing so since this past fall.
They are genuinely interested in providing a space for people in the
community to meet their neighbors and discuss things that matter…
learn, share, debate… Previous discussions have been lively, vibrant
and inclusive to diverse opinions.
Authored by: csimmons on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 06:16 PM GMT+4
(part 2)
I should reiterate that they are a business. I find it silly and sad that
in other discussions, the same people bemoaned the corporate tyrants
and exclaimed the need to support local biz and then trounce a local,
small business that opens its doors to community. Nice.
Judging from a few baseless comments and the relative few that
participate (relative to the potential of an inclusive forum) my sense
is some of the ibratts need to peel themselves away from the glow of
the computer and get out…learn a little about your community kids.
Instead of pontificating about your perceived knowledge of bratt, I’d
spend a little more time engaging in the plethora of community
activities it has to offer. Then comment on it.
Chad Simmons
(speaking of inclusivity, it may help if people added their name…not
very “communal” blurting things out then hiding behind your cable
modem)
“So all the trusties and rich can go and knock back a few and have a
meaningless talk about PAYT.” …seriously?
