Letters To The Editor: Aug. 8, 2024

Voters Will Decide Airport’s Future

Editor:

First, I would like to express my profound thanks to Editor Tim Wood and Executive Editor Alan Pollock for their editorial and article in last week’s Chronicle. The editorial was like a breath of fresh air in an otherwise polluted discourse about Chatham Airport (CQX). And Alan Pollock’s article about the history of CQX celebrating its 75th anniversary as a municipal airport was a heartwarming reminder of how the airport makes a unique contribution to the character and spirit of our town.

Wilfred Berube’s passion for aviation and entrepreneurial drive embody qualities that we admire as Americans and should never forget. As children, who among us has not been in awe of the wonderful machines that allow us to fly through the air just like the seagulls on the beach? And here in Chatham, we uniquely have a small airport with a playground that allows children to get up close to these magnificent flying machines and watch them as they land and take off to places unknown.

We know that some of these children have grown up and gone off to successful aviation careers, and the airport continues to offer education and training to aspiring aviators. And over these many years, despite ongoing predictions of doom and gloom, no one on the ground living in Chatham has ever been hurt, never mind killed, by an aircraft flying to or from CQX.

So, it is indeed sad to see a small group of airport neighbors question and try to block any safety initiatives that the airport commission puts forward. The reality is that anyone who studies the issues impartially and without an agenda comes to the same conclusion of supporting the airport commission. Ultimately the future of our historic airport will be in the hands of the voters in town. They will decide: will Chatham become an old-age home for those who value quiet above all else, or a vibrant, diverse community with families of all ages continuing to cherish our heritage and traditions?

Rene Haas

Chatham

Airport Is Behind Misinformation

Editor:

Airport advocates continue to complain of a “misinformation” campaign by a “small” group of airport critics. I’m reminded of former President Trump’s complaints of fake news and a stolen election. In a recent letter Rene Haas is yet again guilty of revisionist history. He said the current airport manager’s contract was approved by the “entire” airport commission. As a former (one term) commissioner one might think he could get his facts right. Concerned over a rigged process and unaddressed conflicts of interest, two commissioners refused to sign the agreement. Misinformation? (Footnote 1 – This letter is necessary because The Chronicle refused to issue a correction when asked.)

He went on to say that Mr. Bixby (me) authored “literally” thousands of letters, etc. with no success of showing airport impropriety. First, Mr. Haas should look up the definition of “literally.” Second, to name just one such impropriety, as a result of my inquiries, an FAA audit found the town and airport had illegally diverted tens of thousands of dollars over many years of airport rent for storage of fisherman gear on airport property. Airport advocates do not appreciate a spotlight on airport mis-management practices. Better to just shout “misinformation.” (Footnote 2 – The Chronicle has refused to report other findings of impropriety.)

Of far greater importance, the airport commission’s own campaign of misinformation has led to the approval by the Cape Cod Commission and conservation commission of selective tree removal on 60 acres of airport property including within protected wetlands buffers and in West Chatham. It’s sad that our public officials cannot see the forest for the trees, or what is left of them.

David Bixby

West Chatham

Editor’s note: The conservation commission and Cape Cod Commission’s recent approval only includes less than two acres of land that falls under the jurisdiction of wetlands regulations. It does not cover tree removal in upland areas.

Reconsider Airport Letters Policy

Editor:

I was happy to see the editorial in the Aug. 1 edition of The Chronicle entitled “Time To Move On From Airport.” I am a long-time subscriber of The Cape Cod Chronicle and have grown tired of the endless letters to the editor from some of the airport abutters who moved into their properties knowing full well they were in the path of the airport but nevertheless continue with their relentless griping about the airport operations. It is an editorial decision whether or not to publish a letter to the editor, so I humbly request that you institute a policy to not publish letters to the editor with false or misleading information or specious arguments about the airport.

Stephen Furlong

Harwich

Commission Criticism Unwarranted

Editor:

I totally agree with your statement in last week’s editorial that “it’s time to move on” from the continuing dissension about the airport’s plan to remove trees. However, a response to Michael Thompsett’s letter of last week is required. His claim that the conservation commission’s decision somehow ignored and violated the Wetlands Protection Act shows a surprising disregard about the Act from a former conservation commission member (and long-serving chair). Dr. Thompsett is either deliberately misreading the Act or just wasn’t listening when the explanation was repeatedly provided, and apparently he hasn’t read the order.

The charge of “dishonesty” is offensive, particularly in the context of claiming that the commission “disregarded … the will of the people.” The Wetlands Protection Act requires that decisions are made on the basis of specific, enumerated standards. Unfortunately “the will of the people” is not one of them. To have given preference to the results of the town meeting vote would have been a blatant violation of the Act. Surely Dr. Thompsett knows that.

As Chair Karen Lattin noted in her remarks, making this decision was the culmination of a long, complex and difficult process and the citizens who sit on the conservation commission devoted countless hours to reviewing all the materials submitted. Dr. Thompsett was provided multiple opportunities to publicly assert his objections. He was heard, but much of what he complained about was just not relevant to the standards that the commission is required to follow in making its decisions. It is unfair to try to cast blame on those who merely performed their duty and followed the law and balanced the interests in protecting public safety as well as doing everything possible under the circumstances to protect the wetlands impacted by the project.

Janet Williams

Chatham

Editor’s note: The writer is a member of the Chatham Conservation Commission.

Commissions Applied The Facts

Editor:

Thankfully, the Cape Cod Commission and Chatham Conservation Commission found a pathway forward that protects the environment and sustains safety for aircraft and people on the ground at Chatham Airport. Yet the misinformation campaign continues with Mr. Thompsett’s quote: "This will be followed by removing trees on a total of 61.43 acres." It sounds like all trees will be clear-cut from 61.43 acres of airport property. The full truth is 61.43 acres of forested airport property will be surveyed to identify trees that penetrate the obstacle clearance surfaces and need to be trimmed and/or cut down. Most of the trees on that land will continue to stand, but where trees need to be removed or trimmed, they will be removed or trimmed and new vegetation will be allowed to regenerate. There will be no increase in impervious coverage on those acres, and the tree profile will be restored to where it was 20 years ago. Tree cutting is needed to maintain obstacle clearance to comply with safety standards dictated by Mass DOT and the FAA. Turboprop operations are declining and represent approximately 2 percent of operations per year, and the Runway Safety Areas at CQX are compliant with applicable regulations.

The misinformation campaign fostered by those who want the airport closed shows how half-truth statements attempt to make it sound like sustaining the safety of current operations is destroying the environment. Fortunately, the Cape Cod Commission and Chatham Conservation Commissions applied facts and science in making their determinations.

Leo Eldredge

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

Special License For Pickup Drivers?

Editor:

I recently was halfway down the eastbound exit ramp for Harwich off Route 6 when a pickup truck used the shoulder to pass me on the right. I was not totally surprised as I have been cut off and tailgated by pickups more times than I can count. And I am not a slow driver. Just today I saw a pickup roar across the rail trail crossing in South Chatham on Route 137, almost hitting a bicyclist even though there were flashing warning lights, and the bicyclist was clearly starting across. Also, I wonder if pickup trucks even are equipped with turn signals. So, I have a suggestion: There should be a special license required to drive a pickup truck, and there should be a required yearly, or perhaps even twice yearly, renewal that includes a road test which would pay special attention to the use of turn signals, safe following distances, and how to safely merge into traffic.

David McElroy

South Chatham

Spent Fuel A Bigger Problem

Editor:

Your article concerning Pilgrim plant wastewater safety was focused on a relatively small problem. The problem that should be addressed is the long term disposal of spent fuel. When nuclear plants began construction in the ‘60s and ‘80s utilities were required to develop methods to place spent fuel in dry casts and ship to the federal storage facility (which was being funded by the utilities). The utilities developed the method for storing in dry casts and shipping to the storage site. The federal government was to establish the site. Yucca Mountain in Nevada was selected and the site developed. Then about 10 years ago (after millions was spent building the facility) the NIMBY kicked in and Senator Reid stopped the plan. As a result, hundreds of spent fuel is sitting in storage at active and decommissioned plants throughout the U.S. Plants in New England like Connecticut Yankee and Vermont Yankee that have been closed but still contain spent fuel from their years of operation sitting at the facility waiting to be shipped to the long-term storage facility.

This presents a far more significant risk to our environment. Spent fuel was not intended to be stored at reactor sites. Sites cannot be fully decommissioned as a result. We should be working toward getting a long-term storage facility operational and getting all the spent fuel from inactive and active plants properly stored at the long term facility, not the plants (active and inactive) throughout the country.

Dave Schumacher

East Orleans