Letters To The Editor: Aug. 1, 2024

Airport Measurements Needed

Editor:

I spent 42 years, in my career, applying measurements to decision-making. Without measurements, decisions are just a guess. Without measurements, statements are just unsubstantiated rhetoric. So, here we are locked in a war of words. The pros and cons of the airport. All dated references are from The Cape Cod Chronicle.

After reading Huntley Harrison’s “You Guest It” (April 4), I’m amused by his statement about a small group of people who “spread incorrect and misleading information.”

On May 30, Leo Eldredge wrote “…ignoring the higher taxes that we all would pay to offset a loss of $14 million in annual economic benefit…”

On June 6, I asked for the number to be substantiated, no response was received.

On June 20, Rene Hass again quotes the 2019 MassDot report, which MassDot can’t find the backup information for.

Funny how on April 25, Huntley Harrison wrote, “the commission is committed to openness and transparency…” Perhaps the “small group of people” Huntley speaks of is the airport commission.

I think the airport commission with the help of their high-priced consultants are pushing the misinformation via fear and loathing of higher property taxes.

It’s time for the airport commission to provide hard measurements to the town that owns the airport and validate their claims. Otherwise, it just unsubstantiated rhetoric.

I lived in Kennebunkport for many years. The tax base of Kennebunkport is similar to Chatham. That tax base is enjoyed because of tourism just like Chatham. The tourists sometimes choke the streets with vehicle traffic, just like Chatham. Kennebunkport doesn’t have an airport. I have to ask, how is that possible? Perhaps it’s good town management and not an airport?

Bob Nelson

Chatham

A Fresh Breeze Blows Through

Editor:

A whoosh of fresh, salty, sea air blew through Chatham this week on its way across the country. Did you feel it? It brought such hope for the return of respect and dignity and decency of ethical values.

I was never so grateful to be alive during these historic times being able to appreciate the beauty of living in Chatham and at the same time looking forward to a better world I can envision for my grandchildren, a return to the values of protecting our planet, protecting our children, protecting our freedoms and protecting each other. Hoping you got a whiff of this invigorating breeze as well....so refreshing!

Gail Tilton

North Chatham

Attainable Housing Lacking In Pennrose Plan

Editor:

In his recent You Guest It piece, Michael Schell, chair of the select board and affordable housing trust board, seeks “togetherness” in the selection of Pennrose for development of 1533 Main St. for all affordable housing and no attainable housing. This, despite the town’s 32 percent ownership of the property and voters’ expectation at the 2021 annual town meeting that half the Main Street units would be attainable homes for households earning up to twice the area median income, for Chatham teachers, firefighters, police and others who don’t qualify for affordable housing.

Mr. Schell says that Pennrose’s 48 Main Street units are “affordable and attainable homes.” He is wrong. There is no attainable housing in any Pennrose proposal. He says the HAC proposal with affordable housing, attainable housing up to twice the area income, and home ownership, a combination desired by most Chatham citizens, would cost too much. He says there are “two very ripe opportunities” for home ownership, presumably the town-owned Stepping Stones and Old Harbor properties. But a commitment of home ownership without a commitment of attainable housing is unacceptable for those properties.

As to Main Street, town counsel noted that changes could be negotiated with Pennrose. Even Mr. Schell concedes there is “extensive opportunity for continued public participation and input into the ongoing process.” If so, why not negotiate with Pennrose to construct 32 percent, just 15, of those 48 homes as attainable homes as voters approved and expected?

As to cost, the $2 million purchase price and the $2-plus million that will be in the town’s new attainable housing reserve fund before shovels are in the ground in 2026 provide $4-plus million in hand to negotiate with Pennrose to construct those 15 attainable ownership homes out of Pennrose’s 90 total homes.

Togetherness works both ways.

George Myers

Venice, Fla.

Questions About Airport Income

Editor:

I appreciate Mr. Hass’ recent follow-up Letter to the Editor regarding the airport manager’s current contract with the town of Chatham. He stated that “The goal of any such contract should be to foster success of the airport and minimize the cost to the town.” The current contract does not seem to adhere to that standard.

As can be seen in “Chatham Municipal Airport Governance Overview,” which covers the town’s history and policies regarding the airport, there appears to be an issue. Under the portion of “Funding Overview,” the second bullet point reads “AMSA, Fisherman’s Storage Area, and Hanger payments fund the Airport Revolving Fund (ARF) operational expenses.”

There are currently four buildings located at the CQX which have airplane hangars. The current “Airport Manager Service Agreement” only allows the hangar lease revenue from one hanger building (Building #2) located at the airport to be credited to the airport revolving fund. That building has 12 hangers, and, since 2020, has been generating $58,800 annually to the ARF.

For some reason, the same AMSA contract allows the hangar lease income from Building #1 (which has been town-owned since 2/1/95) to be credited to the airport manager. The agreement also allows the airport manager to collect the monthly rental income from Hanger B, LLC, the restaurant located at the airport. (“Lease/rental monies on airport property of non-aviation business or land use.

It is concerning to note that the AMSA does not address the future hangar lease income from Building #3 which should begin to be credited to the ARF sometime in 2027.

How could the airport commission consider this contract to be beneficial to the town of Chatham when almost all the income generated at CQX goes to the airport manager?

It would be my hope that first and most importantly, the airport commission does not allow the airport manager to “extend the contract for at least five years.” And, in 2026, when the “new” contract is being prepared, Mr. Geylin (and/or whoever else might be on the airport commission) will skew the negotiations much more in favor of the town of Chatham’s financial benefit than that of the airport manager.

Susan N. Wilcox

West Chatham

Parking Lot Cost Same As Housing

Editor:

Regarding the July 25 issue of The Chronicle, I am responding to the You Guest It column erroneously attributed to “Peter Gerstberger” but authored by Michael Schell, chair of both the Chatham Select board and the affordable housing trust. Mr. Schell’s main argument in favor of the Pennrose proposal for affordable housing in both South Chatham and West Chatham is the $5 to $6 million needed to get the alternative HAC proposal funded. The HAC proposal offered more attractive affordable housing in South Chatham as well as attainable housing in West Chatham for people working in Chatham. I guess it all comes down to the select board’s priorities. The same issue of The Chronicle features the opening of the “Visitors’ Center and Parking Lot” at the former Eldredge Garage property. The cost of that is comparable to the $5 to 6 million that was needed for the HAC housing proposal, not even including the $2.5 million paid for the Eldredge property seven years ago ($3.2 million today). Visitors’ booth and bathrooms vs. affordable and attainable housing for our workers; you decide which would better serve the working people living or trying to live in our town.

John Sweeney

South Chatham

Editor’s note: As noted elsewhere, attribution of the column references above to Peter Gerstberger was an error on our part. Michael Schell was the author, and the column is being reprinted in this edition with the correct attribution.

Commissions Neglect Their Charge

Editor:

Last week two commissions responsible for protecting our environment both approved applications by the airport to clear cut approximately 250 trees in protected wetlands and a vernal pool resource area. This will be followed by removing trees on a total of 61.43 acres. The commissions were influenced by misleading statements that the FAA required this proposal, but the FAA has no legal authority to insist on changes on the ground such as ordering the removal of trees. The proposal was instead generated by the airport commission in order to expand services at the airport. It was argued that widened approach surfaces already existed and had to be cleared, but this was not true, since they were not published by the FAA, marked on the runway as would be required, or included in FAA approved documents such as the airport management plan or the airport layout plan.

The same argument was used at town meeting to support widening the current 1958 visual approach surfaces in bylaw chapter 100, but the article was overwhelmingly rejected.

Approving this application also violates both the Chatham Wetlands Protection Bylaw and the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. The latter disallows any adverse activity at airports when the activity is to enable new services, which in this case include the introduction of straight-in and instrument landings. These would primarily benefit the turboprops, but the airport does not and cannot even meet the mandatory FAA runway safety area sizes for the turboprops, so the object of this application is unsafe, disallowed and nonsensical.

It was dishonest for each commission to disregard the existing bylaw contrary to the will of the people of Chatham This very costly, ecologically and socially harmful proposal will be very negative for public opinion and the future of the airport.

Michael Tompsett

Chatham

Chatham Airport Could Save Your Life

Editor:

The recent boating accident off Monomoy required one of the critically injured fishermen to be medevaced to Mass General Hospital by a Boston MedFlight helicopter flying from Chatham Airport. This life-saving rescue is yet another example of the public benefit to the community of a well-maintained airport.

Chatham Airport saved a life. Might it someday save yours?

Hart Fessenden

Chatham

Stick To Local Commentary

Editor:

I am often impressed by the quality of the product issued each week by The Chronicle staff. The exceptions are typically when The Chronicle editorial page weighs in on national political affairs, for example last week’s “A Lighter Heart” item.

It is regrettable that the editorial page found it “impossible to restrain” itself. The editorial weighed in on the recently revised pair of leading candidates for U.S. president after the incumbent suddenly withdrew. As the editorial noted, the electoral outcome in Massachusetts is likely a foregone conclusion. It is not clear what The Chronicle hoped to achieve with its pointed editorial focused on personality instead of policy differences.

My friendly advice is to stick to editorials on local matters where The Chronicle has strong knowledge and potential influence. Your readership is already awash in alternative commentary on the national political scene.

Jeff Palmer

Chatham