Editor:

Safe, clean, affordable housing is a natural right for all people. Catholic social justice teaching holds people are good and the need to update inadequate infrastructure cannot be placed above the dignity of the human person. In the July 31 letter "Pine Oaks A Traffic Hazard," the writer uses concerns regarding a lack of sidewalks and other deficiencies along Queen Anne Road in Harwich as a reason to deny the Pine Oaks Village affordable housing development. If improvements are needed to accommodate increased traffic along the road, the town of Harwich needs to plan for them and fund them.

 NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) is at its most benign, elitist; and at its most sinister, racist.

Rev. John M. Sullivan, pastor
Holy Redeemer Catholic Church
Chatham

Editor:

President Trump has proposed to build a big, beautiful ballroom at the White House with contributions from him and his wealthy friends. How about he instead uses this $200 million to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis which threatens life on planet earth?

Robert Del Vecchio
Chatham

Editor: 

Well, it appears I've been caught, attending a (gasp) civic event. The author of the letter to the editor last week, “Why Were Board Members Missing?” forgot to mention that the “party” in question was actually an evening with Governor Maura Healey. Not exactly a rager, unless you count discussing Chatham’s pressing issues as partying. Next time, I’ll try to tone down the policy talk and bring confetti, just to really live up to the hype. 

Shareen Davis 
Chatham Select Board

Editor:

I recently needed the services of the town of Harwich ambulance and Cape Cod Hospital. I was treated expertly, quickly and with compassion by the many professionals on my ride to the hospital and at the emergency room, surgical services and nursing care during my hospital stay. 

I believe we are extremely fortunate on Cape Cod to have the expert emergency and medical services available to us at a moment's notice. One’s life can change in an instant. Many thanks to our wonderful support services.

Gwen Buswell
South Harwich

Editor:

I love this time of year on the Cape. Everywhere I go it's like Christmas Eve at the mall and everyone is so pleasant and courteous. Especially on the roadways. 

Oh, how I yearn for an endless summer.

Mike Rice
South Wellfleet

Editor:

Thanks to all who came out to support the South Chatham Public Library at our annual Book and Bake Sale. We are especially grateful to Pisces Restaurant, Drifters, The Dive, and Branches for their generous donations of gift cards for our exciting raffle. This was our 50th year holding this event! Imagine what it looked like in 1975? 

Thanks to you, our patrons and friends. South Chatham Public Library rocks it again!

Peggy Holland, president
Board of Directors
South Chatham Public Library

Editor:

One of my favorite things to do on the Cape is to step outside at night and look up at the stars. Growing up in cities, I never saw a truly dark sky, so the Cape’s nighttime view felt almost surreal, even more vivid than any planetarium I’d visited as a child. 

But in the past five years, that experience has changed. It’s become harder to see the same sky I once marveled at. Light pollution has crept in as more houses now leave lights on overnight or have added extensive landscape lighting, dimming the brilliance of the stars above.

This isn’t just about stargazing. I recently read that fireflies have experienced a sharp population drop because they struggle to find each other to mate because of our increasingly illuminated nights. Other species, including sea turtles and migrating birds, are also affected by our light habits. Certain towns in other states have introduced dimming policies or light curfews to reduce the ecological impact and help wildlife survive.

I’m not suggesting we go to extremes. But maybe it’s time we all gave a little more thought to how much light we really need after dark. Is that landscape lighting truly necessary all night? Could porch lights be put on timers or motion sensors?

I’d love to see the stars with the same wonder I did five years ago. With just a bit more mindfulness, I believe we can bring back the night sky for all. 

Lindsey Valente
Chatham

Editor:

A public hearing before the Orleans Conservation Commission is scheduled for Aug. 27 at 5 p.m. at Orleans Town Hall regarding imposition of a year-round sticker requirement at Kent’s Point. This would exclude most nonresidents from the area.

This effort springs from a process which climaxed in February with the presentation of an environmental report by LEC Consultants, findable on the Kent’s Point Documents page of the Orleans town website. LEC’s recommendations are pages 18-22. Access restrictions are not among them, and in my judgment the factual record, especially as to erosion, does not support the proposal at all.

Further, as an attorney (retired), I’m concerned that Article XLIX of the Massachusetts Constitution, and the 2017 state supreme court case of Smith v. City of Westfield, 478 Mass. 49, seem clearly to prohibit imposition of access restrictions by the town. I read these as giving all Massachusetts citizens rights to access Kent’s, curtailable only by the state. Additionally, I read the case of Leydon v. Town of Greenwich, 777 A.2d 552 (Conn., 2001) as persuasively striking down identical restrictions in an identical setting (town park with a beachfront) on First Amendment grounds.

I urge attorneys and citizens concerned about civil rights and the rule of law to do their own assessments regarding these matters, and, if so moved, to communicate with the conservation commission by the Aug. 21 public comment deadline, at ksmith@town.orleans.ma.us. You may also contact the town manager and request distribution to the select board at knewman@town.orleans.ma.us.

Karl Oakes
Orleans

Editor:

At the Aug. 6 ZBA Pine Oaks Village 4 hearing, I sat close enough to hear and appreciate how carefully the board oversaw attempts of the developers’ consultants to manipulate the process. I felt you understood that when townspeople attend a hearing, they expect major participants to be present in person where they can be heard, and we are frustrated when presenters on small screens drone on repeating what’s been already said. Thank you for calling them out on tactics which felt like purposeful attempts to discourage our future attendance. 

I want to focus on a few things that passed without comment or made no sense to me at the hearing. 

1) I don’t understand Vanasse’s claim that by restricting the daycare to just residents’ children, they could eliminate 40 percent of POV’s 2,000 daily road-trips. That would mean they’re somehow eliminating 800 daily road-trips. If the center would provide daycare for only 60 children, and presumably some of them would be residents, how would eliminating the children from the community somehow produce 40 percent less of the road-trips emanating from well over 500 parking spaces at the project? 

2) Neither Vanasse nor VHB seems sure of our local speed limits. The Vanasse consultant says they’ll expand the traffic study to include Main Street, which it says has a posted speed limit of 35 mph, with 80 percent traveling at 40 mph. I’ve driven slowly along both Main and Depot Streets and seen speed limit signs only for 30 mph, as is appropriate for thickly-settled residential areas.

3) I don’t understand why there’s been no attention to the very dangerous intersection where Depot Street enters and crosses Great Western Road. I hope the expanded traffic study will focus on this roadway, which is heavily traveled by industrial and commercial vehicles and which connects a constant traffic flow through North Harwich toward Routes 6A, 134 and 28.

I suspect the zoning board of appeals sees the issue as we do and as it has been presented by Police Chief Kevin Considine: the Queen Anne Road/Main Street corridor is an extremely dangerous place to drive, let alone to walk or bicycle. It’s a place where people have died and been severely injured. No amount of street-marking or lighting will change that fact.

Furthermore, it’s geographically and financially impossible to build safe sidewalks and bike trails on these roads to accommodate the needs of a densely populated housing project.

The conclusion is clear: this massive housing project simply does not belong in that extremely treacherous location. Knowing that its chosen site presents unavoidable dangers, how can the town grant permission? If deaths or injuries were to result from that thoughtless decision, the town risks being judged morally negligent and very likely criminally negligent.

Paula Myles
North Harwich