Vote yes on most, no on some and whatever on one

The majority of proposals on Tuesday's referendum deserve to pass and will be good for the people of Lebanon.

But we think there are a couple that you should really think about.

And one you shouldn't think about at all.

Here we go.

First, Referendum 1 on Shoreland Zoning needs to pass to clarify shoreland zones within the town and define flood hazard areas in a more uniform fashion. Pretty straightforward. Vote yes.

Next, referendum questions 2-8 should all pass, thus shifting the cost of various town services like authorizing building permits and loose dog pickup costs onto those using the services rather than putting it on the vast majority of taxpayers who don't.

The selectmen, code enforcement officer and other department heads are much better informed and able to determine a fair fee amount in relation to the cost of providing those services than we as townspeople outside the loop.

In the past, selectmen made some crazy rules like giving full-time benefits to town workers who only put in 25 hours a week.

Here we have selectmen being totally open and trying to address the problem of outdated fees that have been on the books for decades and need to be updated, when necessary, to help cover the costs so they don't fall on us.

Let's not try to micromanage and knitpick them to the point they can't do their job. Vote yes on the fee questions.

Question 9 enacts an ordinance titled Lebanon Events and Outdoor Festivals that puts forth many of the same requirements as the town's Mass Gathering Permit, except it applies to crowds of 250-500. However, it actually overreaches the Mass Gathering Permit in that is has tougher restrictions and guidelines, many of which that were in the Mass Gathering Referendum that was handily defeated a couple of years ago.

So if Question 9 is approved it will be more restrictive for people having events with crowds of 250-500 than it is for those having more than 500.

That makes no sense at all. Question 9 may be well intentioned, but it overreaches the Mass Gathering Permit and burdens smaller gatherings more than their larger counterparts.

Secondly it it's a safety, health and security issue, why would you exempt the town? Do you not want folks that go to town events to be as safe and secure as at for-profit events? Needs some work. Vote no on 9.

Question 10 is irrelevant. The state building codes mandate studs spacing of nonload-bearing walls. You can vote "No" or you can vote "Yes" or you can write in your favorite spacing lengths. It doesn't matter. It's a moot point. Vote however you want.
Question 11 will make any building permit void after one year. This will help the CEO keep active track of building permits in progress. It doesn't hurt the home builder, because he or she can renew if after a year. Vote yes on 11.

Question 12, which requires electrical inspections for major remodeling and new construction, should be approved. It doesn't restrict homeowners from doing their own electrical handiman projects. It's a matter of safety. Vote yes on 12.

Question 13 amends the Mass Gathering Ordinance to include a 30-day mandatory notice. This makes sense because it's not fair to spring something like this on town officials who have their hands full with running the town. Vote yes on 13.

Lastly, Question 14 asks for $6,000 to be spent on tearing down the wall between the CEO and selectmen's office to make a larger selectmen's meeting room to accommodate more people.

We agree the selectmen's current room is cramped, but we think this is an extravagance for the eight or so hours a week they meet.

Remember Town Offices close at 5 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Friday, so at 5 p.m. on those days they can adjourn to the main room and meet the way old boards did at evening meetings. Additionally, they can meet anytime on Wednesday if they can do business that doesn't require the presence of town hall personnel.

We're sure that if selectmen can put their heads together they'll find a way to carry on. As one of the few referendum items all three agreed on, we'd say that, in and of itself, is a reason to be skeptical. So we are. Vote no on Question 14.