Whose rights?

To the Editor:

The question currently facing the Paris Selectboard, ATV use of Parsons Road to connect two sections of ATV trails, is a matter of citizen's rights.

The question is, whose rights? Who decides that? And, is that answer absolute?

At stake is recreational use of land for citizens. This needs to be defined, and then protected. At stake, as well, are home- and land-owner rights. These rights need to be recognized, and also protected.

At the Feb. 14th meeting, the board was hesitant to take yet one more vote sought by the side that lost to the other side in the previous vote. The board agreed to ask for legal input from MMA to guide their decision, and to work together during the Feb. 28th meeting to fashion the specific questions to send MMA.

The framing of the questions asked for this legal input will, in itself, be telling.

If application of a specific law is sought, or a question of which laws are relevant, then legal input might guide the selectboard in bringing both sides together temporarily until a land use ordinance provides a longer term solution.

If, however, one selectman - particularly one who wishes the law to be the absolute end-all, and whose experience in the law affords him the skill to craft questions, even arguments, toward a certain conclusion - plays a singular role in drafting the questions, how can anyone be certain the questions will be fair and impartial, simply asked for the purpose of information to facilitate the board's decision? And not in hopes of gaining a judgment in a case built to favor one side or the other? The latter would put the board in a precarious place.

The dilemma at hand relates to a specific situation, but the solution must work for an entire town. A precedent will be set, no matter what, and it must involve more than just a narrow view of the law.

Whose rights? Citizens on both sides of the question. Who decides? At the very least, both sides of the question should be part of the solution. Is that answer absolute? Only until one side or the other is dissatisfied and seeks resolution, again.

Kathleen Richardson

Paris