Bristol Questions ALF's Lighthouse Lease of Permaquid

Sounds like echoes of Currituck...

Article in the Lincoln County News:
Lighthouse Lease Raises Questions in Bristol

Judy

Judy,

Based on the information in the article including the quotes from both sides there is very little in this situation that relates to the Currituck fiasco.

In that situation the "injured" party- or the one who lost in an open and equal opportunity to gain control of the Lighthouse- decided to play the dirty trick card after losing the competitiuon.

In this case it seems- I emphasize seems- that the process was not quite as open and aboveboard and not all parties were treated equally.

I will agree that the important thing is that the Lighthouse be restored and maintained but we really don't need the endless turf wars that get us just bad publicity and make it harder to raise the money needed to save the lighthouses.

This type of thing has turned off a good number of people to being involved in lighthouse restoration- I know a few that fit that bill.

Dennis

Dennis, if you read the article, there should not be a need to explain my comment/ generalization.

While I appreciate your comments, please don't shoot the messenger.

Judy

Judy,

I don't believe I shot anybody. I just posted my thoughts based on your comment and the article I read. I thought that's why you posted the article.

I addressed it to you only because you initiated the subject.

IMHO the two situations only have a lighthouse in the middle in common. The situations bear no other resemblence to each other IMHO. In the case of Currituck the complaining party had no long standing interest in taking care of the property whereas in the case of Pemaquid Bristol has a long standing involvement with the property if not the Lighthouse tower itself.

Sorry if you misunderstood my intent. No personal message was being sent to you or anybody else at this point. I believe I emphasised by reapeating that it seems to be not it's a fact.

Dennis

However, according to the article the town manager (or former town manager) stated the CG offered them the tower and they passed on it.

The article points out some other issues that seem to indicate otherwise, but it is interesting that the town administrator stated publicly that they passed. Could this be a case of left hand and right hand of the town are not in sync?