Editor:

I am writing to express my concern about the current policy exempting electric car owners from paying road tax. As a driver of a gasoline-powered vehicle, I pay road tax regularly, which contributes to the maintenance and repair of our roads.

Electric vehicles, while beneficial for the environment, still use our roads and infrastructure. It seems only fair that all drivers contribute to their upkeep, regardless of the vehicle’s fuel type. Without contributions from electric car owners, the burden falls disproportionately on those of us with traditional vehicles.

I believe a more equitable system should be considered to ensure that road maintenance is fairly funded by all who use the roads.

John Harris

Brewster

Editor:

Once more, Mary Richmond hits the mark! Parents should tape her column “Paying Attention” (July 17) to their refrigerator to remind family members as to what is truly important to daily life on Cape Cod, including clean water and fresh air. After reading this superb column, I am eager to re-read Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” (1962) where the dangers of pesticides (DDT) to our waters and food bases were documented. Ms. Richmond also warns us of the distractions caused by computers and cell phones and how our attention is frequently stolen by the busy world. Moreover, our minds are grabbed by an onslaught of divisive politics and so-called “breaking news” stories, 24/7.

She reminds us that little things like a walk in the forest or on a beach, a swim in the ocean or lake must be protected and valued by all of us to sustain the beauty and majesty of our treasured Cape Cod.

In the words of the iconic singer Kitty Carlisle, “Little things mean a lot.

Joseph Coffey

East Orleans

Editor:

The oft-repeated, ignorant remarks about climate, like the latest in last week’s letter to the editor, are exhausting. There is no debate in the scientific community about the fact that humans are changing the climate. The evidence is overwhelming. The only “debate” is in the media. Rather than re-spouting the talking head stories from Fox and only searching for the story that you like, how about taking some classes on climate? The computer models aren’t perfect; that’s why they are called models. The climate is complex, and science is constantly adjusting by gathering more data and following where it leads, not starting at a desired conclusion then hand-picking only the data points that support a particular narrative. 

Remember the “debate” about whether cigarette smoking was deleterious to health? The tobacco industry spent huge amounts of money distorting the facts, putting out bogus “studies” and lobbying officials. We all know how that ended up. In 1998, in the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, 46 state attorneys general obtained $206 billion dollars over 25 years from the tobacco industry for its culpability in creating a public health crisis. This is what the fossil fuel industry is doing now, but the stakes of believing their misinformation are much higher. If you don’t have a lot of time to study, check out this excellent science-based program, “The Biggest Myth About Climate Change,” debunking the climate denial arguments. It's a PBS podcast called Be Smart, found on YouTube at .

Jeff Schwartz

West Harwich

Editor:

The town’s push for paid and time-restricted parking near Main Street is bad for local businesses. Instead of encouraging visitors to relax, explore and maybe get an ice cream, look at some art, or stay for a second drink or dessert, it pressures them to leave early to avoid tickets or fees.

It’s not just bad for business — it creates more congestion. Instead of simply hopping in their car and freeing up a spot, people will fumble with apps, meters and time limits, clogging up Main Street even more.

This may bring in parking revenue, but it costs us in lost sales, frustrated visitors and a diminished downtown experience. Main Street thrives when people linger — not when they’re watching the clock.

Let’s prioritize access, not punishment.

Nick Heaney, Artnova Gallery

Chatham

Editor:

Circus Smirkus came to town last week bringing family entertainment to Cape Cod. The circus brought smiles and laughter to so many young children and their families.

This fundraiser supports the work of supporting families within our community and is a perfect fit for the Harwich Children's Fund mission. So many people made this happen and it would be impossible to thank them all, but hopefully you saw many of them on the grounds of Circus Smirkus wearing our bright neon green shirts!

A heartfelt thanks to our incredible community for helping the Harwich Children's Fund make this year's Circus Smirkus event such a tremendous success. We truly could not have done it without you. A big shout out goes to The Cape Cod Chronicle, Monomoy Regional School District, Harwich Community Center, Harwich Chamber of Commerce, Harwich Recreation Department, Barrows Waste Management, Harwich Port Heating and Cooling, Cape Cod Central Railroad, Robert B. Our, S&J Exco, Inc, Dig It Construction, NEPR Northeast, Barley Neck Inn, BTone Fitness, Dennis Cycle Center, Speakman Excavating, LLC, Wychmere Beach Club, Robert Childs Co., and numerous donations from the community. Thank you to the Harwich Police, Harwich Fire, Chatham Fire and the Harwich Water Department for helping us keep everyone safe.

A special thank you also goes out to our amazing volunteers who helped us make everything run so smoothly and the generous homestay families who opened up their homes to host 30 young circus performers. Your hospitality made a lasting difference.

And finally, a big shout-out to the members of the Harwich Children's Fund for your tireless work ethic, commitment, energy and your everlasting smiles and spirit.

If you missed the show this year, we hope that you can join us next summer!

Angelina Chilaka

The Harwich Children's Fund Team

Editor:

Last week’s letter questioning climate change science asked for an honest, open, civil debate on the topic, and I’m happy to offer just that, using accurate information. The letter contained two factual errors. First, it claimed that there is no scientific consensus on climate change. Based on surveys of 18 American scientific societies, NASA reports that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activities that increase methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

Second, it claimed that climate models are not based on empirical evidence. This is false; climate scientists who publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals must base their models on the available data. Anyone can see the findings reviewing the accuracy of the various models that have been used between 1970 and 2016 in “Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?” by Zeke Hausfather in Carbon Brief. He concluded that “Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming.” The accuracy of climate model predictions has been borne out repeatedly.

As if these errors of fact were not enough, the letter claimed that since the earth has warmed “only” one degree Celsius “with mostly positive effects,” trying to reduce carbon output is a waste of taxpayer money. In fact, one degree Celsius in the context of the entire global surface is a dramatic change, and it has resulted in negative effects that the writer tellingly omits, notably changes in the home insurance market. According to the Brookings Institute, insurance losses are increasing as catastrophic weather events increase in frequency. Insurers are investing in climate prediction models to inform their risk calculations, so they can customize pricing. The Congressional Budget Office notes that “Climate change heightens the risks of wildfires and other natural disasters.”

Climate scientists have their professional reputations at stake, and insurance companies have billions of dollars at stake. Their careful preparation for the future must be based on scientific evidence, not specious arguments and erroneous “facts.” I agree with the importance of civil debate, but the facts of climate change are not up for debate. 

Matthew Brown

Harwich

Editor:

I was quickly drawn to your front-page article in the July 17 edition highlighting the parking situation in downtown Chatham. It is a topic that my wife and I have commented on many times as we have walked from our house onto Main Street. All of the options noted in the article have been the topic of our discussions. But I want to raise another issue which I haven't seen considered or at least not covered in the article.

During the busy season we frequently see two trucks, obviously too wide to comfortably pass each other, blocking traffic on the street while they figure a way to squeeze beyond each other. We have also seen full-size trailer trucks stopped in the middle of the road to unload their delivery for a restaurant or store. Similarly, we see the UPS, FedEx, and Amazon trucks making deliveries and holding up traffic because they are unable to find a logical place to stop and not disrupt traffic. Has anyone considered prohibiting trucks, with and without trailers, on Main Street between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m.? I would suggest it be all year, but even if it is only between Memorial Day and Labor Day, it would go a long way toward smoothing out the traffic flow.

I understand that this suggestion is not without its difficulties for deliveries, but it is not without precedent. We have visited a number of places where just such a ban is in place, and it seems to be the accepted norm by everyone once the initial disruption of routine is accepted.

Richard Lynch

Wellesley and Chatham

Editor:

Here we go again! Chatham property owners should be paying attention to water rates and the inequitable and unfair practice that has been occurring for three-plus years. We ask the select board members to take action now and not put it off any longer.

Irrigation systems that use town water have been required to have a second meter since Jan. 1, 2022. Town officials and staff have not been able to track down the "freeloaders," or most of them, who have not done so. We have heard that more than 700 properties have irrigation systems without registering with the town, installing the second meter and paying the mandated "irrigation rate." Some have reported a number much higher. 

Meanwhile, those of us who did the right thing and registered our systems and installed the second meter have been paying the highest water rate and subsidizing those who did not install the second meter. The recently changed water rates have increased that rate by more than 80 percent. It is time for the select board to take immediate action. The "scofflaws" have had more than three-and-a-half years notice! No more excuses, no more hesitating and no more graduated fines. Give the offenders 30 days notice and then implement fines on a daily basis to the full extent of the law until a second meter or a well is installed. That's getting serious! That's showing the town means business!

Nicole Stern

Chatham

Editor:

Please join other concerned residents on Wednesday, Aug. 6 at 6:30 p.m. at the community center, as the Harwich Zoning Board of Appeals continues to consider safety and traffic problems that would certainly be greatly worsened by the Pine Oaks Village 4 (POV4) housing project that’s proposed for Queen Anne Road in North Harwich. 

The 242 rental units would lie among three bustling industrial zones and would add 2,000 vehicle trips to a road that already carries 7,000 trips a day. Closely bordered by utility poles, the road allows no room for sidewalks or bike trails. Families living in the project would likely walk and bicycle on the main road, and school buses would have to pull out into fast, streaming traffic, a mixture of passenger cars, 18-wheelers, delivery vans, motorcycles and pickups with trailers all rushing, and 85 percent of them documented over the speed limit. Despite these facts, the developers’ traffic experts say they foresee no extreme danger. 

Harwich Police Chief Kevin Considine disagrees. In a report to the board, he wrote that the additional traffic would exacerbate the speeding issues that police already experience.

Please urge friends and family to attend this hearing. By showing up in numbers and speaking out, community members can demonstrate our strong conviction that POV4 would present extreme danger to the safety of all those who'd live in the proposed project and of all those driving on surrounding overburdened roads. 

Paula Myles

North Harwich

Editor:

North Harwich is having a “Boy Who Cried Wolf” moment. For decades on the Cape, neighbors and residents have fought to keep multi-family housing out of their back yards. Developments of less than 100 units have been challenged and litigated, but none as big or problematic as the 242 units and 2,000 additional passenger vehicles the proposed Pine Oaks Village 4 (POV4) would bring to the area.

According to Harwich Chief of Police, Kevin M. Considine, “both Queen Anne and Main Street are located on the town’s high-injury network and listed as high-risk roadways for potential roadway departure crashes.”

POV4 would be situated on the dangerous Queen Anne Road, in the center of three industrial/commercial zones, surrounded by six failing intersections. It would add cars, pedestrians and bicyclists to an area that is traveled predominantly by large commercial and industrial vehicles with no room for sidewalks or bike lanes. The residents of North Harwich have been sounding the alarm. Queen Anne is a dangerous road, and this is a dangerous proposition. The wolf is here. Hopefully the rest of the town will realize it before it is too late and more people end up hurt or dead.

Sherri Stockdale

Harwich

Editor:

The July 10 letter (“Questions Climate Change Science”) reflects some familiar misunderstandings about climate change. As a Chatham group working in this area, we’d like to share a few facts — especially because this issue hits close to home here on Cape Cod.

First, the writer claims that climate models aren’t trustworthy. But current models are evidence-based, built using real-world data — like ocean temperatures, wind patterns, and carbon dioxide levels — and they’re tested by comparing their predictions to what’s already happened. Studies have shown that they have performed quite reliably. In fact, many climate models from 10 or 20 years ago have done an excellent job projecting the warming we’re seeing today.

Second, he suggests that today’s extreme weather is just natural variation. But scientists tracking patterns over time have found clear changes. Warming atmospheric and ocean temperatures are fueling impacts that are only accelerating. On Cape Cod, we’re already experiencing more intense rainstorms, more frequent high-tide flooding and warmer ocean temperatures. Sea level at Woods Hole has risen nearly a foot since the early 20th century, and that rate is accelerating. Warmer waters are also affecting fisheries. Lobsters are moving north. Black sea bass — once rare — are now common in our waters. These shifts may not grab headlines like wildfires or hurricanes, but for local fishermen and coastal businesses, they matter. These aren’t random events — they’re part of long-term trends driven by a warming climate.

Third, the writer argues that the U.S. shouldn’t act unless the rest of the world does. But the U.S. has contributed more carbon pollution to the atmosphere than any other country, and we’re still one of the top emitters today. That gives us both a responsibility and an opportunity. Cape Codders know the power of local leadership — we see it in conservation efforts, clean water projects, and renewable energy initiatives like Vineyard Wind. Climate action is no different.

We agree that the community would benefit from a robust conservation on climate change, but it must be grounded in science-based facts. It’s ironic that the writer declined the opportunity some time ago to engage in a debate over these matters with the chair of the energy and climate action committee. But we’re planning a community information event in September and hope he attends and joins the conversation. 

The changes we’re seeing around us aren’t theoretical. They’re happening here, and we have a chance to respond with clarity and purpose.

Sarah Griscom

Jane Harris

DeeDee Holt

Janet Willliams

Chatham Climate Action Network