Editor:

The most recent Orleans Special Town Meeting was a reminder how lucky we are to have direct and open democracy in Massachusetts. I appreciate every resident who took the time to learn, came prepared to debate and vote. Year-round housing, a new fire-rescue station and a renovated recreation area are in our future.

That said, the debate on the Specialized Energy Code revealed how important it is to rely on good information and how quickly misinformation can sway an outcome. A speaker from the floor read from a section of the Stretch Energy Code that is in place today and is applicable to all new and major renovations, to urge a vote against the article. The state energy office, town staff and the energy committee had done the work to make clear the Specialized Energy Code only applied to new construction, but one speaker swayed the crowd and voters rejected not only the adoption of improved efficiency of new buildings but up to a $1 million grant.

Town meeting is meant to be about thoughtful collective decision-making. Theatrics are better enjoyed at the Academy Playhouse.

Kevin Galligan
Orleans

Editor:

An entire National Football League football field is 160 feet wide and 360 feet long, covering a total of 57,600 square feet.

President Donald Trump's new White House ballroom will cover 90,000 square feet. The next time you're watching a televised NFL game imagine the football field extends an additional 202.5 feet. That represents 90,000 square feet.

Trump declared that his new ballroom won't cost taxpayers a dime because several corporations and wealthy donors are funding the $300 million cost. Or is it $350 million?

I wonder how much a glitzy, black-tie White House dinner for 1,000 guests, with an orchestra, will cost "We the People" in the future? Taxpayers will also be on the hook for the astronomic energy and maintenance costs for that gigantic, beyond ostentatious ballroom.

The US national debt has reportedly jetted past the incomprehensible figure of $38 trillion and increases at a rate of about $70,000 every second.

Anyone feel like dancing?

Mike Rice
South Wellfleet

Editor:

Every American military officer swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Why aren't they speaking out about the abuses of it by the Trump administration? Are they aware of what is going on? Of course they are!

Are they in favor of attacking a sovereign country because Trump claims without proof of drug smuggling?

Are they in favor of people being denied food stamps, some of which are related to the men they lead?

Are they in favor of a $20 billion bailout of Argentina when their own fellow countrymen are going hungry?

We need more generals such as Mark Milley, James Mattis and John Kelly to question their loyalty to Trump or the Constitution before it's too late. Is it time for action?

Edward Fried
West Chatham

Editor:

One might think that the Brewster Civics Academy is something for only government wonks. After attending the 11 two-hour sessions on all aspects of Brewster town government, I can attest that is not the case. Twenty-five participants were treated to informative sessions from various town departments and committees such as water, fire, police, natural resources, and schools. Other subjects such as budgeting, finance and town meeting were covered. We learned a lot of fun facts in each session and even got to tour SEMASS, where our trash waste is converted to electricity. As a newly elected recreation commissioner, the information on programs, funding and processes will greatly help me to serve our town better. My greatest take away is that Brewster is run by a small team of highly qualified, experienced and dedicated people. If the Civics Academy is offered again I highly recommend signing up. Where else can you get to play finance bingo?

Peter Jelinek
Brewster

Editor:

Density seems to be the word spoken when Pennrose and the Buckley property is mentioned. When the town residents voted for the town to buy the property, the word was thankful. Chatham was going to provide some affordable housing. Somehow as the project moved along the town government process, the word thankful turned into density. Why? 

The Buckley property could house as many as 172 people. The Meetinghouse property could be 150 people. The Buckley and Meetinghouse projects together could total 322 people.

Now, let’s look at parking. Buckley has 72 parking spaces. If 2/3 people had cars, that’s 113 vehicles. If half the people had vehicles, that’s 86 vehicles. Where are they going to park – Dunkin Donuts? Larry’s PX? The same is true on Meetinghouse Road.

These projects will increase the density in an area of town already described with the word density.

Harriet Prout
Chatham

Editor:

The recent letter makes some excellent points and proposes a moratorium on the airport commission’s imminent implementation of plans to massively change Chatham Airport which conflict with the community’s expressed wishes regarding the airport and long-range plans for West Chatham.

Article 40 at town meeting in 2024 proposed approach changes to the airport, but disingenuously did not indicate the extensive tree cutting which these would require. In addition, to meet FAA standards for the over 500 annual operations of charter jet aircraft would require additional tree removal. The citizens clearly voted against the article. 

Notwithstanding the citizens’ disapproval, the airport commission is now implementing those changes and planning to clear all the trees around Ocean State Job Lot, the vernal pool, and a 500-foot-wide swath along and 300 feet beyond each end of the runway, up to 60 acres in total. The bike path is also subject to clearance under FAA standards.

The insidious oxymoron here is that the demand for instrument landings is mostly by the charter jet aircraft. The airport commission is deliberately acting contrary to citizens’ wishes. It is pursuing a nonsensical goal with great destruction and expense to allow instrument landings for the charter jet aircraft, which should be banned anyway, because the airport does not and cannot meet FAA safety standards for them and the protection of residents and visitors in West Chatham. Enabling instrument landings would be unconscionable and likely expose the town to lawsuits. Hence, the select board needs to act upon the citizens’ town meetings’ decisions with an immediate moratorium on airport plans starting with the planned irreversible clear cutting of 60 acres of trees.

Michael Tompsett
West Chatham

Editor:

So much to be thankful for… including my summers in Chatham starting in 1942! We continue to be summer residents, with concerns about how Chatham changes to meet housing needs. The proposed plans for “affordable housing” by Pennrose on Meetinghouse Road need some modifications to meet the everyday needs of tenants before they are finalized. A few of these concerns are: Why so many units squeezed on so little land? Where is play space for children? Will there be sidewalks to enable residents to walk to bus service on Route 28 or to shopping in East Harwich? What are plans for residents’ pets? What is traffic access to Meetinghouse Road? Is there adequate car parking allowed for each unit plus guests? What is the maintenance plan for these buildings and grounds? Given concerns for water use and environmental impact, will each unit be separately metered for utilities… including water and sewer? BTW, will these units all be served by the new sewer system? 

It is so important that this project be done correctly, both for the new residents as well as the community of current residents. Failure to adequately address these needs of residents led to the classic failure of similar housing in St. Louis 50 years ago! Please take time to address all concerns.

Merry Dahms 
South Chatham and St. Louis

Editor:

We all agree that Chatham needs affordable housing, but let’s do it right! If you haven’t already, please contact the town and familiarize yourself with the proposed plan for affordable housing at Meetinghouse Road.

Ask yourself would I, or would I want my children or grandchildren, to live there? Probably not. In this plan, there are no sidewalks down Route 137 to Route 28, a dangerous ravine which will be a “temptation” to kids, a very small playground, too much density (42 units on only a buildable two-and-a-quarter acres), limited parking, little storage space and among so many other problems, and a dumpster smack in the middle of the parking area. Is this what we want for our Chatham residents? 

Bring your concerns to the Dec. 10 ZBA meeting at 2 p.m. at the annex. We can do better!

Carol Gordon
South Chatham

Editor:

I am proud to share with Arizona Senator Mark Kelly the fact that we both retired from Navy aviation service with the four stripes and silver eagles of the rank of captain, I after 26 years and he after 20 years of service. My service predated his by several years.

The resemblance between us ends sharply there. While my crew and I lumbered around the Pacific in our four-engine propeller plane as part of the effort during the Cold War to protect our country from invading Russian aircraft and ships and later circumnavigated the globe several times on a special mission, I did not fly 39 combat missions over enemy territory during the Gulf War. I did not earn 19 service medals including two prestigious Distinguished Flying Crosses. I did not fly 5,000 hours, survive 375 carrier landings or qualify as a test pilot. I did not make four space flights to the International Space Station, two as spacecraft commander. I do not serve with distinction as the senior senator from Arizona serving on, among others, the Armed Services Committee.

I also have not found myself threatened by the purportedly bone spur-afflicted, draft-dodging commander-in-chief with sedition and referred to the Pentagon and FBI for investigation including a court martial and the threat of the death penalty if convicted. This threat results from Kelly's participation in a video along with five other congressional military and intelligence service veterans reinforcing the obvious and long-established concept that military members must not obey illegal orders, a concept which is part of every service member's training under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This referral has been carried forward by the known-to-be-grossly-unqualified, "whatever-you-say-sir" secretary of defense who has directed the murder of at least 83 small boat crew members claimed, without a showing of evidence, to be transporting drugs to the United States. Indeed, it has just been revealed that Secretary Hegseth ordered the killing of two survivors in the water after the first attack on one such boat which resulted in a second strike, unquestionably a war crime and cold-blooded murder. 

Clearly the wrong person is being investigated. This is aside from the questionably legal order by Trump to members of the military to invade U.S. cities which has led to assaults on American citizens in violation of the federal Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

To require a man of Senator/Captain Kelly's stature and accomplishment to undergo a sham investigation by two featherweights who aren't qualified to shine his shoes is deplorable and must be stopped by Congress or the courts.

Ralph Smith
Harwich Port 

Editor:

By an undemocratic and possibly rigged autocratic process, the Chatham citizens of South Chatham will suffer the egregiously deleterious consequences of the atrociously ill-conceived housing project on Meetinghouse Road. We greatly appreciate the zoning board of appeals member who courageously called out the many flaws in these processes and the boards and some of the individuals responsible. There are more than enough problems with this project to fill a book, including overcrowded density, public safety, and an aesthetic impact at the entrance to South Chatham that will permanently negatively transform the character of South Chatham. We understand that the ZBA is in an untenable position, hemmed in by these processes and individuals. That makes it difficult to know what to ask for from the ZBA. Perhaps asking them to do what in the future they will feel most proud of doing.

Lou Hieb
Chatham

Editor:

My family and I vacationed on Cape Cod for 60 years. In 1992 we bought a small three-bedroom house on Stony Hill Road in North Chatham which we lovingly renovated. We all enjoyed the house for 30 years, traveling hundreds of miles for summer, holidays, and a family wedding.

I recently learned a new house was built on Old Mail Road. We often walked that residential street of small houses and cottages. One of those small houses was torn down and replaced with a $4 million “McMansion” on a half acre. It’s not near water and there are no special views. It must tower over the other houses on that quiet road.

Most likely it will be bought by an absentee owner. How are they contributing to the community except to the tax base? Where is the affordable housing? Where is the zoning? Who is allowing these building permits?

My family misses the old Chatham…not the new one.

Carolyn Atkins Lathey
Arlington, Va.

Editor:

We are writing in regard to the proposed affordable housing development on Meetinghouse Road in South Chatham. Without a doubt, Chatham needs additional affordable housing, and the land that this project would use is designated for that purpose. However, there are multiple problems with the proposed project. First, the building design is completely out of character with the community. Multiple story apartment buildings simply don't fit in well with a neighborhood of single-family homes and would appear to be too dense for the size of the plot of land. A cottage community would be a much more appropriate approach. There are other issues as well, but we'll only mention the safety issue.

There is no sidewalk planned to stretch from the development to Route 28, and without question there will be foot traffic going to Route 28 along Meetinghouse Road. Failure to provide a sidewalk is not merely inconvenient for future residents but is unconscionable on the part of the developer, as failure to provide one will almost certainly lead to injuries, perhaps even deaths, of folks walking along the road. There are other concerns as well, but these two are in and of themselves reasons to pull back and re-evaluate the development proposal.

David and Linda McElroy
South Chatham

Editor:

It is time for the public to wake up and speak out. It is not too late to stop the Pennrose plan for Meeting House Road. At present. It represents a threat to public safety. However, with less density, safe sidewalks and crosswalks, fenced protection from deep ravine, and realistic outdoor recreation space, it can be saved. 

Pennrose representatives did not want this secondary project and only signed a contract with the understanding they would be given the Buckley Main Street property as well. Based on Pennrose public statements, it appears that for this private, for-profit company, financial return is the single goal, not housing for local police, fire, rescue, teachers, and town employees in all fields. Pennrose depends on state tax benefits and subsidies for 40B affordable housing. The public was not informed when we voted for affordable housing approvals. We thought our taxpayer funds were supporting those who worked in Chatham or had children attending our schools. Unfortunately, we were not told that local preference must be garnered from the state by our town officials, not through the efforts of Pennrose. And it is not a sure thing. At best it will cover only 70 percent of the available units. 

According to available government charts, Pennrose one-bedroom units will be priced at three AMI levels. A yearly salary of $30,000 will pay an estimated $832 a month, $80,000 will pay $2,400 and $110,000 will pay $3,000 monthly. Who would choose to forgo homeownership in another town to spend all their equity on a rental they will never own? 

As for our majority senior population, with no elevators and neither assigned nor adequate parking, they are unlikely to secure a new home at Meetinghouse. Please write to the zoning board of appeals and ask for essential changes to the Pennrose plan before it is too late. 

Anne Timpson 
Chatham 

Editor: 

I would like to add my two cents to the discussion about the Pennrose proposal for affordable housing on Meetinghouse Road. I object to the current plan for the following reasons:

Scale: This project has too many buildings that are too big for the 2.5 buildable acres; the size is more appropriate for the exurbs of Boston than this semi-rural location in Chatham.

Safety: Current plans show two buildings that are right against a ravine, a tiny playground for children, and no sidewalks on busy Route 137. Will the town be liable for accidents that happen when children inevitably play in the ravine or when a resident gets hurt walking on 137?

Design: The buildings are simply not in keeping with the rest of Chatham's residential architecture. Our neighborhoods have houses that are one to two stories high, weathered shingles, pleasing door and window trim, multi-paned glass. The proposed three-story buildings have all the charm of family housing at a military base. They provide the basic necessities of shelter but they look nothing like the rest of the village.

I hope the zoning board of appeals rejects the current design. I believe we can provide warm and welcoming affordable housing if we scale down the project and consider what it takes to create a safe and attractive neighborhood in keeping with the local residential architecture. 

Pat McClure
South Chatham

Editor:

Last Thursday’s paper carried eight letters (half the letters that week) responding to a Nov. 13 missive demanding that attendees “Clarify Reasons for Protest.”

They ranged from Kathy Miller’s intelligent and concise response to at least one that smacked suspiciously of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).

But my sympathy for the protesters’ cause is tempered by a suspicion that many of their ilk have worked very hard to get a government very much like the one they now protest. That is, I catch a faint odor of hypocrisy.

Full disclosure: I’m a life-long, small-government Republican. I first worked door-to-door for Eisenhower. And I was probably most sympatico with Ronald Reagan.

I suspect beneficent government is an oxymoron; it is essentially impossible to get and harder to sustain. I suspect that the bigger and more powerful a government is, the greater the likelihood that the rights of we common citizens will get trampled.

My guess is that Donald Trump is a bad man who is bringing about some good things. Perhaps tempering my progressive friends’ fondness for unbridled big government will be among his accomplishments.

Fred Anderson
Chatham and Pittsburgh, Pa.