(23rd in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)
Gadfly believes that we can consider the testimony of Kori Lannon and the many witnesses that supported 2 W.’s petition all together.
And fairly quickly.
Frankly, though it pains Gadfly to say this, and though he very much appreciated the sincere positive unanimity, he thinks that testimony off-point in this context.
This testimony was in the nature of character witness, both to the owners themselves as well as the quality of workmanship performed on the house.
But these things were, frankly, as much off-point as they were never in doubt.
The 2 W. Market people are good people. Granted. Never in doubt. God be praised.
The 2 W. Market house is a great house. Granted. Never in doubt. God be praised.
But the issue here is not a popularity one nor a referendum on workmanship.
It’s a knotty legal issue.
And that’s where the focus must be.
And, truth be told, Gadfly feels that almost no light was shed on the important legal issue by Kori and the other supporters.
It pains Gadfly to say that because this meeting was much a page out of his Norman Rockwell fantasy of small-town life in which respected citizens turn out to resolve an issue in a civil manner.
But the love of the owners for the house and Bethlehem and the love of others for them and the house are not primarily pertinent here.
Of course, the neighbors opposed to 2 W. are good people too, though they were out in smaller numbers.
Gadfly notes that he shares this feeling with Planning Commission member Malozzi, who gave the most detailed statement at voting time.
The closest pertinence to the central issues here that Gadfly found were the protestations that 2 W. would have no residential buyers, a claim effectively answered, Gadfly thought, by testimony of the Real Estate agent, who had no discernible stake in the controversy.
So when it comes to making a decision, Gadfly feels that we must be thankful for it but put this loving testimony on the side.
