At the onset, I naively thought that a proposal to build a mega dock for huge boats and jets skis, on wetlands property with shallow water was DOA. In CT, an environmentally sensitive state, where resiliency and sustainability serve as the cornerstone of all legitimate pursuits, I assumed that even the suggestion of a project like this dock would result in a replay of the Quasimodo tiki-torch scene only with "more torch." My main concern was to avoid becoming collateral damage as legions of environmentalists converged on Masons Island. So that turned out to be rather wishful thinking.

It turns out that many citizens care deeply about the environment. This translates into nifty campaign slogans and occasionally laws and regulations. Unfortunately that is about as far as it gets. Budgets, jurisdiction, busy schedules, and political realities prevail. Enforcement isn't funded and is crippled by absurdities. For the law provides that Offenders of CT environmental law can be fined a max of $1,000/day. However..........the violator must agree to the fine and sign a consent order. All they have to do is refuse. Unless DEEP can hold up a permit that the offender is applying for, the state is stuck. Arrrrggghhh! Drats! Imagine if you get stopped for speeding and all you have to do is refuse to sign the ticket and drive off. This is crazy beyond comprehension. Local planning and zoning is not much better. They have jurisdiction over inland wetlands not tidal wetlands. violations of the former are monitored while violations of the latter are essential ignored, perhaps because they realize that the chances of enforcement are about the same as CT addressing its pension obligations sometime soon. Despite the hoopla it is "open season" on tidal wetlands. Sloppy laws and regulations provide plenty of loopholes, but a bigger issue is money. 

Residents who are wealthy, also tend to be well connected; they know other "important" people and they can afford a team of lawyers and consultants. To date, without even having the proposal successfully discussed at a Commission, our group has spent close to $20,000. This does not include the time spent doing massive amounts of research, building and publishing a website, and writing hundreds of Emails. We are lucky to have been able to do a great deal of this "in-house," otherwise we would probably be looking at $30,000 at this point. To most folks, this is a huge amount of money, usually stored in a retirement account. To somebody who paid $250,000 cash for the 28 Schoolhouse Rd, the legal fees may amount to a so-called "rounding error." To be clear, I like Capitalism and I wouldn't mind having money like this laying around like loose change in a sofa. The point is this. The project as proposed is an environmental monstrosity. If it was nowhere near my house it would still  be an atrocity against nature and I would fight it. However. without our financial ability to mount a resistance, I believe the project would be would be well on its way to being built. Drive around the area and you will see some hideous docks that clearly should not have been built. Many of these were the result of neighbors being blindsided and not having the money to fight. This isn't right, but it happens all the time. Unlike buying expensive art or going on lavish tips, spending to bend or break environmental laws takes something away from everybody else. Views are blocked, ecosystems ruined, fishing locations spoiled. Crimes against the environment are even viewed as status symbols; boats and jets that consume enormous amounts of fossil fuels are an example

This will continue until residents find a common voice and stand up against the greed and self adoration that characterizes financial bullies. It is a terrible ting to pass a damaged environment on to our children. Perhaps it is worse yet to fail to teach them how it can be protected.

"Oh when will we ever learn, when will we ever learn" Pete Seeger