Tuesday, February 19, 2002

Hatfield v. McCoy

Today's News Journal reports on a feud between Department of Transportation Secretary Nathan Hayward III and developer Frank Acierno. If you would believe Frank Acierno, he knowingly put up a 45 foot high lighted sign on state property because he thought he could work out a deal with the state. And you would also believe that Frank doesn't understand the two lighted signs that the state put up in its place that said "scofflaws note", after the state ordered Acierno's illegal sign removed.

If you believe Hayward, the scofflaw signs were in the public interest, not a personal attack from him on Acierno. If I hadn't seen the sign being removed in the middle of the night (knowing that you don't hire that many people and a crane to work late at night unless there is a problem), I wouldn't have understood the two portable "Scofflaws Note" signs that endangered our safety at that intersection for a week or so later. If the signs were in the public interest, shouldn't the public have been able to understand what they meant? Clearly, it was only the people who were privy to the problem that were the intended audience (or target?).

I don't believe either of these fellows. And without getting into a chicken or the egg analysis, I think they deserve each other. But lets try to keep it from costing the taxpayers and endangering our safety, eh?

The Hatfield Clan