"Unearthed" is hardly the right word. I got a copy simply by emailing the town clerk, who sent it two days later. Anyone who took a brief look at the Conditional User Permit governing Canada Corners would have discovered this immediately, as we did months and months ago.

It's a shame the Measure A originators didn't bother to do any of this simple research before foisting the time and money-wasting Measure on the town.

It's further embarrassing that the originator continues with the lie that "we needed to win the election to be able to discuss it." Town citizens have been discussing how to preserve outdoor dining, and the existence of this easement, for months, including with town officials.

The Roberts admit here they are motivated by a huge increase in parking for business expansion, and they say nothing about outdoor dining, which was the false bait used to sell the Measure to unsuspecting citizens. This was a point we opponents made over and over. This is about business expansion in our congested and noisy town center by bulldozing open space, not about outdoor dining. It's a real shame the Roberts don't feel the need to honor the deal they made with the town 40 years ago to preserve our last little bit of open space. So much dishonesty and bad faith.

Mr. Watkins:

Forgive me, but couldn't it be argued that YOU were acting in bad faith by not mentioning the easement either? When exactly did your organization find out about it? Just asking for the 1100+ voters who favored Measure A.

Anyway, the easement is another scare tactic and red herring. As noted in the article, the Town Council, Planning Commission, and ASRB are now free to do what they were elected and appointed to do: have a dialogue with residents, respond to proposed projects, and enforce our rigorous and thoughtful town codes. Personally, I fully trust them as stewards of our town. It's a shame that you don't.

I’m sorry you are surprised Matt [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language] You could have done the same research I did and the originators should have. It was not difficult. It was all in the Canada Corners CUP #80-81, which is the first stop any honest person would make before going on a campaign to affect how a restaurant operates.

Once again you repeat the big lie behind Measure A, that a “dialogue” and “proposed projects” could not be responded to. Everything about outdoor dining is governed by conditional use permits and none of it ever had anything to do with zoning or easements. You are still chasing the red herring that the Measure A people threw out to deceive you into voting for rezoning that was not needed for that purpose, bit which they apparently want for other reasons. I’m sorry you were suckered. I tried to tell you on NextDoor and here in the Almanac but you continue not to listen. You own that, not me.

Mr. Watkins,

This is the first time I’ve ever commented on your efforts, and I’m not on NextDoor, so I have no idea who you’re referring to when you say you tried to tell me in the past.

Here’s what I do know: Calling people who disagree with you “ignorant” and “suckers” is probably not the best way to persuade them to join your cause, whatever that is. And I suspect that your withering, angry, condescending tone probably turned off many voters who otherwise might have been sympathetic - and ultimately cost you the election.

Congratulations on cutting off your nose to spite your face!

If I actually had called you either name your complaint might have some merit. You however were happy to read my mind in your first post by asserting that I don’t trust town government, which is a flagrantly false statement for which you could not possibly have any evidence. Perhaps you should follow your own rules. In any event your attempt to distract from the real issues failed.

Elections Matter