Your report on the Pine Point Pier raises some telling questions: If the co-op and town agreed to a one-year deal in 1991 regarding use of the parking lot, was the ordinance requiring restaurants to “own” (or lease?) 25 spaces in existence then? If it was, obviously the town waived or ignored it. If it wasn’t, the town is now making what had subsequently been passed a new requirement. But the town could have done that any year as the agreement was renewed each year. Whether or not the ordinance was in existence, the town chose to waive or overlook this requirement in the annual review and renewal. Why has this “violation” become a critical matter to the town now, incapable of being worked out?
Likewise, the existence of the restaurant on land without owning access to King Street, each year under an agreement with the town to operate the restaurant, also raises the question why this matter now becomes one of critical importance to the town?
Obviously the town has fixed on both matters as a way to coerce agreement from the co-op. In some circles this sort of leverage would be called sleazy, and if not illegal, unethical. The town’s “plan” should respect the lobstermen, their co-op and their history, rather than arrogantly saying the town knows best.
I think the Town’s handling of this matter is outrageous, and to the lobstermen, insulting and disrespectful. This doesn’t build bridges with an important economic and voting group.
John A. Scully