Licensed to non-actual locations

[Dan.Strassberg]

How does that square with the recent situation in a couple of towns in
the north-central part of the state (Shirly and Ayer, maybe)? There
was a move to take land from these towns to create a new town that
would have been named Devens and would have encompassed much of what
used to be Fort Devens. Didn't happen because the the citizens of the
affected communities voted against it in a referendum (by a narrow
margin, I believe). I don't think the referendum was in any way
optional. It had to pass with the voters in the towns that would lose
the land before the territory could be annexed to form the new town.

-----
Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
eFax 1-707-215-6367

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org>
To: "A. Joseph Ross" <joe@attorneyross.com>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: Licensed to non-actual locations


> (In
> Massachusetts, the General Court can still abolish a town at will,
> if
> I read the Home Rule Amendment correctly; in many other states, this
> can only be done with the consent of the voters.)
>
> -GAWollman