Editor:

What we have here is the late winter snowstorm blues. 
When you turn on your radio
It's on all the news.

People have had it 
And are turning to booze.
The ponds are frozen
And the peepers just snooze.

A foot or more is in the offing. 
The cats are P.O.’d
And the kids are coughing.

And as for groundhogs, it's open season.
People are shooting them
With pretty good reason.

When Spring will arrive we
Don't get to choose.
The weather computers are 
Blowing a fuse.

It's those late winter snowstorm blues.

John Kraus
Chatham

Editor:

Massachusetts Chapter 40B imposes a uniform 10 percent affordable housing threshold on every community, regardless of local growth trends. Harwich’s comprehensive plan projects little population growth, yet the state mandate continues to drive large-scale development — without adequate regard for the long-term tax burden on residents or the strain on our fragile coastal environment.

Affordable housing is often presented as a widely accepted goal, but the financial structure deserves closer scrutiny. In a market-rate project, a developer borrows the full construction cost, and rents cover expenses and debt service — much like paying a mortgage.

When local funds from Harwich’s community preservation committee or housing trust are applied, part of the construction cost is paid upfront with money that carries no repayment obligation. For example, in a 250-unit project, rents from the 125 affordable units funded with local grants flow almost entirely as net cash because there is little or no debt. Over decades, the developer can earn more per affordable unit than per market-rate unit — like renting a house that’s already paid for.

Could taxpayers share in the long-term return when public funds reduce or eliminate a developer’s debt? Once private loans are repaid, the public contribution could convert into a repayment obligation — similar to a reverse mortgage — allowing the town to recapture a portion of ongoing rental revenue or equity. This would preserve affordability while generating a public return.

A reverse-mortgage–style repayment structure would also not eliminate the broader unintended consequences of large developments. Municipal service demands and long-term costs can create a new affordability crisis for existing homeowners who are asked to subsidize growth. Developers, responding rationally to state incentives, continue to pursue large projects.

Harwich taxpayers deserve transparency about total CPC and housing trust funds committed, long-term obligations and whether growth aligns with the comprehensive plan. Before approving additional funding, we should ask: Who carries the long-term cost, and who captures the long-term value? 

Lou Urbano 
Harwich

Editor:

The Pine Oaks IV project moved forward despite sustained opposition, with the board of appeals approving the comprehensive permit, and the affordable housing trust contributing $1 million towards the first phase. The project's overall impact on the town – increased traffic, infrastructure costs, and changes in neighborhood character – now proceed largely as planned. The sense of the community was heard and documented, but ultimately was not respected. 

Harwich boards and committees operate with a mandate to advance affordable housing projects. Affordable housing is treated as inherently beneficial. Adjustments, phasing and partial funding may occur during the process. Yet, outright rejection of a project has never happened. Any concern about finances, the town's infrastructure, open space and other potential impacts (the consequences) take a secondary role. The system prioritizes moving projects forward and achieving results over objections that may hinder HAHT's sense of progress. 

Citizens in Harwich want affordable housing. As evidenced by the polling of Harwich residents in the recent local comprehensive plan, local committees and boards should follow the plan's guidance when decisions need to be made. Throughout the POV IV process, residents raised strong objections about density, traffic, environmental impacts, neighborhood character and financial consequences. Potential town expenditures for infrastructure in support of development were proffered. Public hearings were packed, and letters to the editor criticized the plan. Nearly all comments at the affordable housing trust meetings opposed funding the project.

Significant citizen input recognized and notwithstanding, Harwich has consistently shown that the town's committees move forward implementing affordable housing projects. That precedence, the work product of their tables, only ensures the ensuing results. 

Matt Sutphin
Harwich 

Editor: 

Our February 12 edition of the CCC arrived today and I just finished reading the article about the wonderful Yelles and how they honored their son, Jackson, by playing catch for a year to memorialize his tragic passing. What a beautiful, bittersweet way to remember him and benefit the inner-city baseball programs. And kudos to Erez Ben-Akiva, who captured the heartache and joy as they brought their son back to them, if only fleetingly, by the simple gesture of playing baseball catch. 

Martin Berliner
Greenwood Village, CO

Editor:

This is a correction to my “You Guest It” column published on Feb. 5, entitled “A Way Out of Our Health Care Crisis: Medicare for All in Massachusetts”. Sen. Cyr’s staff informed me that although the committee did vote to send the act to study (which essentially kills it in the Senate for this legislative session), Sen. Cyr did dissent. The vote was part of an omnibus bill including many other bills, and the names of dissenters on a specific bill are only published in the Senate Journal for that day; this information was not easy to find! To correct the record, Sen. Cyr is an official supporter of the “Act Establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts” (S.860).

Madeline Zevon
Brewster

Editor:

The state-mandated $250,000 local comprehensive plan (LCP) and housing production plan (HPP), to which an unprecedented number of over 1,000 Harwich residents gave input, named overdevelopment, water quality and traffic as the three main concerns of residents. The Pine Oaks Village 4 megadevelopment (POV4) flies in the face of all three of those concerns. The conclusion of the years long LCP/HPP process was that "housing production should promote smart growth principles to the greatest extent feasible including redeveloping existing properties, guiding growth in line with the availability of infrastructure (e.g. sewer, roads), and revitalizing villages which are more conducive to somewhat greater density, walkability, less reliance on cars, and access to goods and services." Again, POV4 strikes out on all of those metrics.

In addition to the LCP/HPP survey, over 500 signatures were collected from those opposed to POV4’s location and size. Also, there were over 100 letters sent to the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) in opposition to POV4. There have been two different select boards during the time POV4 has been advancing, and neither one has supported POV4. The police chief has also strongly voiced his concerns:

According to Harwich Chief of Police Kevin M. Considine: “Both Queen Anne and Main St. are located on the Town’s High-Injury Network and are listed as High-Risk roadways for potential roadway departure crashes.…This is already an area of concern and adding any additional amount of traffic from this project will only lead to more issues.” 

 “This project will lead to more pedestrians walking, jogging or biking on Queen Anne… Without sidewalks and given the heavy vehicle and truck traffic here, I have concerns for the safety of these activities…We routinely get complaints and stop speeding vehicles particularly in the area of this project.”

On top of the environmental, traffic and safety concerns, there are overwhelming repercussions for the North Harwich community. POV4 will fracture the existing historic neighborhood and exacerbate the socioeconomic divide in town for decades to come. While the responsibility for this pending debacle sits firmly at the state’s feet, many members of town boards and some town employees have given the project their full support. The affordable housing trust (AHT) recently awarded a million dollars of taxpayer funds to support the developers of POV4. This is just the first installment of many that the developers will be seeking. On top of everything, this is fiscally irresponsible. By funding this, the trust is investing in a site that will require millions more in town tax dollars to build sidewalks, fix drainage and improve intersections, because the site is dangerous and isolated.

To know what the residents think and want, and then to turn around and support the opposite because you feel that you know better than the public is a patriarchal form of government and democracy in name only. The AHT was never set up so that a board of 5 people could decide it's ok to override the wishes of the residents and spend their money on a project that the majority opposes. The petitions being brought forth to town meeting by the Harwich 7 group aim to put the decision about taxpayer funds back into the hands of the tax-paying voters.

Sherri Stockdale
Harwich