Editor:

Our October Sacrifice Art Sale was particularly special this year in that we earmarked the proceeds from it to help an art center in Asheville, N.C. Thanks to those who participated, worked and shopped the sale, we were able to raise $5,000 to help the Penland School of Craft in their rebuilding and reopening efforts.The Penland School of Craft is a wonderful center that, like most of that area, suffered significant damage from Hurricane Helene. They have been closed since the storm and hope to reopen in the spring. We know the powerful impact that the arts has on the lives of those engaged in it. We are proud to help a fellow art center in need and to serve as an example of artists helping artists!

Amy Middleton, executive director
Creative Arts Center

Editor:

Since Christmas decorations come out in stores before Halloween and many houses do their outdoor Christmas decorations before Thanksgiving, I wonder if we are forgetting what our Thanksgiving holiday stands for.

Records on file at the Plimoth Plantation shed some light on what the first Thanksgiving was like and why it was a celebration. “Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that’s so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much, with a little help besides, served the company almost a week. At which time among other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians among us, and among the rest, their greatest king Massasoit, with some 90 men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer which they brought to the plantation and bestowed upon our governor, and upon the captain, and others.”

This was recorded by Edward Winslow, on Dec. 11, 1621, in a journal of the Pilgrims at Plimoth. They were thankful for the simpler things of life, “the fruit of our labors.” How did we get so far away from what Thanksgiving is supposed to be? How did Thanksgiving get to be the jump off point for a shopping frenzy? Yes, I’m delusional in thinking that families and people should come before commerce, that the economy of the country isn't going to collapse if we take time for a real Thanksgiving holiday, and that how successful our holiday is shouldn’t be judged by the level of retail sales.

Maybe Wilford Peterson was delusional when he wrote the “Art of Thanksgiving,” which said, “The art of Thanksgiving is thanksgiving. It is gratitude.”

Alice C. Stelzer
Brewster

Editor:

The town has now hired consultants to provide recommendations for affordable housing in the West Chatham Neighborhood. The BSC Group’s proposal appears not only to populate explicitly unsafe runway protection zones with high-density affordable housing, but proposes such housing close to the end of the runway. This is contrary to the many promises made by the town under grant assurance 21, whenever it received FAA funds. 

That these promises have all been broken in the past is no reason to continue that practice.

Grant assurance 21 requires that “the airport sponsor, (i.e. the town,) takes reasonable actions to restrict land use near the airport to activities that are compatible with normal airport operations.” Residential use at the end of the runway is not compatible with the noise of normal operations, for example. The end of the runway is just behind Ocean State Job Lot, and will become visible when all the trees are cut down as planned. This proposal therefore is totally incompatible with the existence of the airport, so let’s get real! Put all the tree cutting on hold, and review all the options, consider grant assurance 21 and the town’s very significant legal rights to control the use of airport/town land.

Margaret Tompsett
West Chatham

Editor:

The Chatham Conservation Commission granted variances for massive tree removal, in wetland and vernal pool areas on airport/town land under proposed widened approach surfaces, based on misinformation that these surfaces already existed. This proposed widening, based on the same misinformation, had already been rejected by an overwhelming majority at town meeting in May.

The airport only has so-called visual approach surfaces. There is no record of wider approach surfaces, despite misinformation to the contrary. Wider approach surfaces have not been published by the FAA, cited anywhere, or designated in runway markings. They are contradicted by both the airport master plan and the airport layout plan, which also contradicts a contrived letter from an FAA customer planner. This information was presented to the conservation commission and ignored.

The airport wants wider approach surfaces to allow new services, but it is the intent of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act to disallow activity in wetlands at an airport in order to provide new services, and there is no exclusion for the type of wider surfaces being proposed. 

There have been disingenuous statements and obfuscation related to removing trees for reasons of safety. However, a safety argument can only be applied to the existing visual approach surfaces and not a wider proposed one. It was ignored that the FAA has recently raised just the visual surfaces by 10 feet, eliminating most existing tree penetrations as safety hazards. Therefore the real reason for the proposed tree removal is not for existing visual approach safety, but for adding wider approach surfaces to provide new services, including instrument landings and straight-in landings, primarily for the benefit of commercial turbine aircraft. However, the airport does not and cannot for physical reasons meet mandatory FAA safety standards for these aircraft, so they should not even be using the airport. This undermines any argument to widen the cleared areas by removing 60 acres of trees.

Before issuing variances the conservation commission is required to do an analysis of viable alternatives, which exist.

Michael Tompsett
West Chatham

Editor:

As a resident of Chatham and a U.S. Air Force veteran who served from 1968 to 1983, I would like to share my concern regarding a matter that, while national in scope, deeply resonates with me here in our small-town community. The American flag, a powerful symbol of our country's values and ideals as well as power and strength, has been ordered to half-staff with increasing frequency in recent years. As someone who has sworn to uphold the values that the flag represents, I believe that lowering it should be a solemn and rare gesture reserved for truly significant moments of national mourning or remembrance.

In Chatham, a town that cherishes its rich history and community values, we understand the importance of maintaining the dignity of symbols like the American flag. However, I worry that the frequent lowering of the U.S. flag — sometimes ordered for reasons that may appear politically motivated — risks diluting the impact of this gesture. While some may be indifferent to the flag's position, I believe that many of us, especially veterans and those who value its meaning, feel the weight of these decisions.

Under the United States Code, guidelines for lowering the flag generally apply to instances of national mourning, the passing of specific officials, or other notable events, i.e., Memorial Day. Additionally, governors and the president hold the authority to order the flag’s lowering for other reasons of their discretion. However, I believe these rules could be refined to ensure a consistent standard between state and federal practices. We could urge our representatives to consider establishing a national committee responsible for defining clear guidelines on when the flag should be lowered. By setting consistent and meaningful criteria, we can ensure that this act remains a profound expression of honor, free from political undertones, and upholds the unity and strength represented by “Old Glory.” This committee could propose alternative methods to honor individuals or events, such as issuing public statements or observing moments of silence, rather than frequently lowering our national flag. This would help maintain the symbolic importance of flag lowering as a rare and meaningful tribute to lives and events that warrant national recognition. Where suitable, lowering a state’s flag instead of the U.S. flag could also be an option.

In a town where community, respect, and heritage run deep, let us advocate for a return to the meaningfulness and respect that the American flag deserves.

Thomas W. Hamilton
Chatham

Editor:

A recent writer to these pages has cited the presumably amoral V.I. Lenin to explain how the recent presidential election turned out so wrong. No source and thus no context is provided. May I suggest that the Bolshevik leader has been misunderstood and misjudged?

Following the October 1917 revolution, Lenin was seeking a practical solution to an immediate and urgent problem. In a country as vast as Russia, former supporters of the overthrown Tsar, because of their knowledge and skills, were needed as functionaries in the new socialist republic and even as officers in the Red Army. There was no other choice. When his more left-wing comrades criticized this compromise, Lenin may well have replied, “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience.” It is an opinion he expressed many times in articles and speeches.

Lenin, then, was not spouting some political axiom that can explain the disappointments of the American 2024 presidential election. Placing expediency above morality has long been the standard in our country’s politics. Blame the Democrats who denied and hid the infirmity of their first candidate and whose second choice won no primaries, and blame also the Republicans who cheered the moral and intellectual failures of their own candidate.

Joseph Auciello
South Chatham

Editor:

A fourth round of an effort to make Beach Road safe for all has encountered a lot of resistance. After this year’s town meeting on May 15, my wife and I were encouraged. But again, there is strong opposition. A “Save Beach Road” alliance has been in the news and on the street discouraging the idea of a shared use pathway.

We moved here in 2008 because we love Orleans and enjoy all it has to offer. We are within walking distance of the village and the beach. Our kids/grandkids like to walk, run and bike. But this road is not safe. We are always on the defensive.

In reviewing some history of Beach Road, I note the following:

2011- Abbreviated $6,000 feasibility study, objections and threats of lengthy legal battles from Beach Road residents halted the project. The project would have cost less than $1 million.

2015 - A serious accident injured six pedestrians walking inside the shoulder towards Nauset Beach.

2016- School parents attempted a sidewalk project, again Beach Road residents objections and petitions halted the project.

2018- A widening of the shoulder was voted down by the town. 

2020 - Orleans adopted the Complete Streets program which prioritized the number one safety issue for improvement in Orleans as Beach Road and Main Street.

2024 - Orleans voters overwhelmingly (332-69) approved a feasibility study to propose four design options that would improve safety for all Beach Road users.

The town recognizes the problems: Daily volume of 7,000 vehicles, heavy, oversized construction vehicles, inattentive drivers, bikers and walkers all sharing 26 feet of pavement. Additionally, there are several curves with poor sight lines and a blinding sun for motorists leaving Nauset at the end of the day. The road is a major connector to/from East Orleans to Orleans center and Route 6. From our home, we witness the traffic and experience the danger whether driving, walking or biking.

Something must be done to slow down motorists. Signage has not changed behaviors. If there aren’t enough police, then speed cameras might help. Bikes are considered vehicles by DOT and regulations are in place. I think bikers should continue to “share the road.” Nothing is going to protect pedestrians but a separate and distinct area and ideally on both sides of the road. Design options have yet to be revealed, but I cannot envision a pathway shared by bikers and walkers traveling in both directions.

The “Save Beach Road Alliance” has expressed many concerns: tearing up properties, eliminating trees, ruining the aesthetics of a country road. Clearly these residents are anxious and concerned about the impact on their properties. Landscaping, irrigation, paved driveway aprons have been added as improvements. There is a cost to restoration. I wonder why only residents on the South side must bear the burden of this improvement. I think a more modest, balanced option should be considered which includes both sides of the street. Let’s learn from the history of previous failed attempts that divide residents.

Bill Callahan
Orleans