Editor:

 Like many of us, we put a lot of thought into our legacy. No doubt Mrs. Ellis was no exception when she gifted her property at 127 Old Harbor Rd. to the town and specified in her will that said property be used to benefit the children.

 I am writing to urge the select board to respect Mrs. Ellis’ wishes. 

 Mrs. Ellis’ wish was to preserve her house and use it to benefit the children. An affordable home for a single family - close to the playground and school. All of a sudden, the majority of the select board is working towards even more affordable housing squished as close as possible (20 feet from each building) on an undersized lot for the density of the units proposed.

 Again there is no doubt that we need reasoned affordable/attainable housing, but do we have to do it all at once? We now have two major developments which when completed will give us 90 units, plus we have Stepping Stones Road which will give us approximately four to six buildings. Let’s slow down and be sure what we are pursuing is done right.

 Above all, honor Mrs. Ellis. By circumventing her will, they are sending the message to the rest of the community that if you donate your property or home to the town, the town just may take it into their own hands and do what they will with it. Why then, would anyone donate their property to Chatham?

Carol Gordon
South Chatham

Editor:

 On Wednesday, April 22, at Chase Library in West Harwich, 24 very engaged people attended John Carey’s presentation on the status of the West Harwich Baptist Church restoration project that he and his wife have undertaken. John’s video presentation included other historical images from Harwich, photos of the restoration process of the former schoolhouse behind the cemetery, video of both the exterior and interior of the Baptist Church as it is now, and his proposed budget and timeline to complete the historically-accurate restoration of the exterior of the church. Attendees asked numerous questions, provided feedback and suggestions, and asked how to support this project going forward. 

 Chase Library is grateful to John and his wife Piper for their vision, hard work and perseverance in the village of West Harwich by restoring our treasured historical landmarks.

Jeanne Rudzinski, president
Chase Library 

Editor:

For more than a century, the Marconi-RCA latticework towers have stood as symbols of Chatham’s role in global communications history. Today, they need our help.
 Several of Chatham's historic properties have suffered from deferred care and maintenance. Now the original 1914 Marconi latticework towers, located within the Marconi-RCA National Register District, face similar risk. Stewardship of municipally owned historic assets includes the understanding that the town will preserve and maintain them. That responsibility does not diminish over time, and postponing essential work only increases the eventual cost.

At a rescheduled meeting held on Feb. 25 during the Blizzard of 2026, the select board voted 0-5 to not recommend Article 44, Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding for structural repairs to two towers. The town’s principal projects administrator requested $530,400 for this work. Recognizing both the need and limited resources, the community preservation committee (CPC) recommended $200,000 to restore one tower and voted 8-0-1 in support. The finance committee was also supportive with a 5-0 vote.

During the Feb. 25 SB discussion, it was suggested that CPA funds would be better directed toward “people.” Housing is unquestionably a critical need. However, the CPA was designed to support multiple community priorities — housing, open space, recreation and historic preservation. Advancing one does not require abandoning another.

CPC and fincom have endorsed Article 44; the select board has not. On May 11, town meeting will decide whether these towers remain part of Chatham’s living history. A yes vote on Article 44 affirms Chatham’s commitment to responsible historic stewardship and helps to ensure we save the towers.

Jan Whittaker
Chatham

Editor:

There are two important practical issues with Article 60 restricting the use of private wells in Chatham during water emergencies.

Many important businesses in town rely on large volumes of fresh water for their operations. CBI’s beautiful gardens and lawns rely on private well water. Chatham Seaside Links and Eastward Ho! golf courses need daily water to maintain greens and tees. And marine businesses and fishermen need water for boat washing, etc. Are these businesses going to be restricted to two days a week of water, as we’ve seen in recent water restrictions? 

Secondly, residential private well users invested in their own supply for irrigation with the benefit that they are exempt from town restrictions which are not impacted by private wells (e.g., insufficient town pumping capacity for peaks in town demand). Are we going to take away those rights and benefits based on simplistic arguments that all wells draw from the same aquifer? The hydrology is more complicated than that.

Let’s not rush into adding new restrictions on town residents.

Jay Hunt
North Chatham

Editor:

The airport commission continues to expect taxpayers to pay for its needs and ambitions through Articles 28 and 29. Although the commission claims it is striving for self‑sufficiency, it still refuses to charge landing fees to local pilots, so long as the town continues to contribute to the airport’s revolving fund and then also cover periodic expenses.

 Article 28 was rejected by town meeting last year, yet it appears again, despite the fact that the airport could easily pay for these maintenance costs from its growing income stream.

 Article 29 proposes a questionable study intended to justify an increase in Pilatus turboprop jet traffic, aircraft for which the airport is not designed. The select board urged that the study acknowledge public opposition to expanded charter service so the FAA could consider neighborhood impacts. However, the airport commission chair once again ignored that request.

 This so‑called “study” is simply a revision by the same consultant who authored the original plan encouraging Pilatus flights in the first place. Even more concerning, the warrant notes that the study could lead to airport expansion, potentially including land acquisition. Such expansion would almost certainly require cutting down even more trees.

 Chatham’s free cash should be used for projects that benefit residents and protect the environment, not to subsidize a small number of individuals with private planes or those who can afford luxury charter flights. These users do not need a public handout to the detriment of the broader community.

Gerry Stahl
West Chatham

Editor:

The laws governing and affecting finance committees are in Massachusetts General Laws. The most significant defines the duty of a finance committee: to review and evaluate the annual comprehensive budget of the select board and to designate the amounts, which in the finance committee’s opinion, should be appropriated for the ensuing fiscal year and to make a report for the recommended appropriations in order to properly inform the voters of the town.

 Until this year, Chatham Finance Committees have functioned in accordance with statute as outlined above. This year the finance committee has assumed the role of political activist. Included in the 2026 annual town meeting warrant are two Articles (56 and 57) which stray well beyond the purview of the finance committee, and, on their face, represent an intrusion into affairs reserved to the select board by law. 

 Article 56 inserts the finance committee into a matter that, according to statute, is the sole purview of the select board — determining and setting tax rates. Further, the finance committee’s unanimous vote in favor of recommending approval of the article by voters betrays its obligation to the voters and to the select board. The utter disregard for the statutory legal divisions within local government is tantamount to usurping the select board’s autonomy and statutory role and sets a dangerous precedent. Article 56 should be uniformly rejected by voters on principle alone, but its utter audacity all but demands unanimous condemnation. 

 Article 57, although brought as a petition article, received nearly the full support of the finance committee (7-2 in favor). Article 57 is a bald attempt to contravene the statutory authority of the select board. Article 57 would add a costly and burdensome process that would subject our government to non-stop political activist assaults on the orderly operation and function of government. Imagine a public hearing as a requirement for every policy action or consideration of the select board! Redress for dissatisfaction with the performance of our select board, as with any of our elected representatives at any level of government, is at the ballot box. This is a fact that both the petitioner and the finance committee seem to have forgotten. Ironically, the constraints Article 57 would place on town government, if it were approved by voters, comes with the overwhelming recommendation of the finance committee, whose members are not only unelected, but whose appointments come from a single individual — the moderator.

Elizabeth Hutchison Taylor
Chatham

Editor:

The Chatham Select Board needs new direction from its members excepting Mr. Metters and Mr. Nicastro. The others have lost their way and are proposing a residential tax exemption that they say will help alleviate the high cost of living in Chatham, for some. What is clear is that the idea of nonresidential, nonvoting taxpayers providing a subsidy to the residential tax payers is extraordinarily divisive. The exemption should fail further passage on this alone. Beyond this, the exemption is masking an even greater problem. I received from the prior town finance officer an estimate that the nonresident, nonvoting taxpayers provide over 70 percent of the property tax revenue. What has this given us? Let’s start with our AAA bond rating. How about our fire station, police annex, administration annex, fish pier renovations, Bridge Street upweller, transfer station renovations, etc. Could we have undertaken these expenditures without the nonresident, nonvoting tax payers? Chatham is a small town with financial commitments not found with a town of 6,400 residences. Based on town information, the annual exemption benefit for the average residential homeowner of $719 will be less than the price of a small daily Dunkin Donuts coffee ($1.97 a day). Is this the most demanding issue confronting the select board? Instead of asking the nonresident taxpayers to do more, the select board’s attention should be focused on reducing the bond debt. Add to this the fiscal 2027 budget increase of 4.8 percent, which is well above the inflation rate and moves us further in the wrong direction. This is not sound fiscal management.

Paul Peterson
Chatham

Editor:

I am voting in favor of Article 56 at the Chatham annual town meeting, because I believe, as do all members of the finance committee, that the select board should not adopt a residential tax exemption at this time. Actually, in my view, the goals sought to be achieved by the proposed tax exemption for a taxpayer’s principal residence are outweighed by my strong belief that the best method of taxation is to treat all fairly and equitably, and by the same rules. Those of us whose principal residences are in Chatham benefit hugely from the schools, roads, municipal services, all of which appear to me to be carried out with great diligence and at a very reasonable cost. I would prefer to leave things as they are.

Peter Farber
Chatham

Editor:

The upcoming election for a new Chatham Select Board member features four able candidates. Beyond a casual glance at these candidates a concerned citizen ought to consider qualities other than popularity, rhetoric or connectedness to small local groups. For me, the qualities that stand out for a candidate are a willingness to consider and weigh all available information; experience on other town boards; the capability to work with and respect fellow board members; a fearless approach to gather facts; adaptability; open-mindedness; and thoughtfulness. These qualities combined with a tireless work ethic would be a gift to Chatham. I believe the candidate possessing all these qualities is Randi Potash.

Julie Eldredge-Dykens
West Chatham

Editor:

Undeniable commitment to community. Productive and proven collaboration with committees and organizations. Honorable, ethical, inclusive. This is Carol Gordon. Moreover, there is one qualification for select board that sets her apart from the others.

She is the only candidate that has pledged to be available with open office hours to meet with residents to hear their concerns and listen to their ideas and perspective on the issues that affect our lives every day. Face to face, one on one. Access not distanced by impersonal emails or comments from the imposing podium at a select board meeting. Person to person. Thoughtful, caring and respectful.

Paula Lofgren 
Chatham

Editor:

The South Chatham Public Library knocked it out of the park again with a fundraiser and cool movie night at the Orpheum.

And we have you and the local community to thank! Patrons and friends of the library came in droves to watch and sing along to the music of “Grease.” Members of the audience won 18 terrific raffle prizes from businesses and shops in Chatham, Harwich and Orleans, and we ate delicious pizza provided by Pizza Shark.

We owe many thanks to the Orpheum management team and house staff for helping us out on this wonderful event, and we are extremely grateful to the Chatham Candy Manor for sponsoring our event.

Stay tuned for more fun with our ice cream social in July, our story hours for the little ones through the summer months, and our annual book and bake sale in August. Keep a lookout for the summer re-stocking of the little libraries at nearby beaches. Get your summer reading fix at the SCPL!

We’re open Tuesdays and Saturdays from 1 to 4 p.m.

Lynn Wright
Fundraising committee chair
South Chatham Public Library

Editor:

Best wishes to the candidates for the open seat on the Chatham Select Board. They should be commended for offering their time and service to the town. As I read their stated purposes for running and letters of support, they each seem to have many qualities that would make them worthy candidates. One characteristic that I've not seen mentioned, and maybe I've missed it, pertains to their qualifications, background, and/or credentials in municipal finance, or finance of any kind. 

I bring this up because recent comments by the board with respect to the proposed residential tax exemption (RTE) and other town issues raise some questions. For instance, "The RTE exemption does not reduce revenue or fund new spending.” The Chronicle reports that the town's own finance director says it will cost $1.5 million in the first year, and the finance committee wants to learn more about the RTE's finance and legal costs.

There does seem to be recognition by at least one board member that the town's treasury benefits from the fact that non-resident taxpayers pay real estate tax on a level basis with resident payers, but utilize less town services (and the related cost) which helps subsidize the town's budget. But others express opinions urging us nonresidents to "stand up and do the right thing" since "Let's face it, if they can afford a second home here, it's probably not a huge financial impact." Really? If making arguments in the absence of data, please explain how a tax cut to someone owning a $3 million home in Chatham supports tax fairness and affordability.

When the finance committee votes unanimously to put the brakes on an important initiative, as they have with the RTE, and most of the board ignores them, that indicates some level of dysfunction in the organization and leadership of the town.

Stephen O'Grady
Chatham

Editor:

We wish to express our sincere appreciation to all our collaborators and contributors for the most successful Earth Week ever!

Throughout town, in a multitude of venues from the UU Meeting House to the Orpheum to the community center and every sidewalk in between, over 500 participants were engaged, entertained and enlightened by films, forums and a free tree giveaway. Overall, our community hosted 20 events during the week celebrating Arbor Day, Earth Day and Dark Sky Week!

Our success is due to the collaborative nature of all the wonderful organizations in Chatham and to our community newspaper, The Cape Cod Chronicle, who shared our many events so there was no chance of missing out.

Thank you to the recycling committee, all our Friends groups...of Chatham Waterways, of Trees, Monomoy and of Sylvan Gardens, the Eldredge Public Library, Cape Cod 5, Creative Arts Center, our DPW, Watermark, Dennis Conservation Land Trust, Chatham Paint and Hardware, and especially Ellen and Elizabeth at the Chatham Conservation Foundation for organizing these diverse groups and herding all the volunteers.

We look forward to an even bigger and better fifth annual Earth Week in April 2027.

Lauren Arcomano, Chatham Conservation Foundation
Sue Machie and Sherrie Burson, Friends of Chatham Waterways
Dann Jung and DeeDee Holt, Friends of Trees
Laurie Campbell, Friends of Monomoy
Dawn Dinnan, Watermark

Editor:

I will vote for Bruce Semple for Brewster Select Board because he has excellent qualifications. There are many reasons to support Bruce, but few to support the other candidate. I was at the Select Board debate in 2024 when Laurel Labdon was asked what she would cut from our budget to spend less. She did not answer. This year she seems to only want to cut improvements at the Sea Camps that town meeting already voted for. She has a poor attendance record for the CPC committee she was appointed to. Showing up for meetings is the duty of elected officials. 

We need select board members who show up, follow the rules, have integrity and are honest with residents. That’s why I support Bruce Semple. I trust him to provide considerate leadership on the Brewster select board. 

Annie Campbell Dugan
Brewster

Editor:

Carol Gordon, a longtime Chatham resident, business owner and a newer member to the board of health is a candidate for the select board. Carol has begun to bring change to the board of health, is an advocate for year-round residents of Chatham and appropriate attainable housing. Carol, while concerned about the overdevelopment in our community and the best ways to address these issues fairly and equitably, is respectful of taxpayer property rights. Carol has been an outspoken opponent of the so-called for-profit taxpayer-subsidized private corporation planned housing projects for West Chatham and Meetinghouse Road in South Chatham. Carol Gordon is an honest person and critical thinker who is an unaffiliated, independent, thoughtful, public servant. Demonstrating Carol’s integrity, she has been a clear advocate for honoring Ms. Ellis’s gift to the town at 127 Old Harbor Rd.

Stuart F.X. Smith
South Chatham

Editor:

The Chatham Airport Commission will be looking for your support at town meeting for the local share of funding for two safety-related projects as outlined in this year’s capital improvement plan. 

Article 28 is requesting $17,500 for the improvement and upgrade of the visual navigation lighting system that guides pilots on a safe path to the runway. Simply put, this project replaces old incandescent light bulbs with brighter, longer lasting LEDs along with new weather-tight enclosures and new wiring in buried conduit. Restoring this lighting system to full operational status is long overdue and will provide an increased level of safety for all. The local share leverages the total project cost of $682,500 with federal and state funding covering 97.5 percent of the total cost. 

Article 29 requests $7,500 as the local share of $142,500, with federal and state funding covering approximately 95 percent of the total cost. This project is required because larger charter aircraft are now conducting more than 500 operations or 250 flights per year. The study will determine if design changes or implementation of procedural restrictions are needed to ensure continued safe operations for all aircraft. The study will look at all facets of airport operations and recommend mitigations that will be submitted to the FAA and MassDOT Aeronautics for a determination. The airport commission felt that it was time to determine if these operations require any mitigations to ensure safety.

Huntley Harrison, chair
Chatham Airport Commission

Editor:

There is no doubt that some of our fellow Chatham residents are financially challenged. Part-time residents, like year-round residents, want to help those in need. However, the residential tax exemption as proposed to be implemented by the select board is not the right tool. Unfortunately, the population of those who need this assistance has not yet been identified. 

If implemented as proposed, the RTE will provide a 20 percent exemption of the average Chatham property value, about $330,000, to most full-time residents regardless of their financial means. The RTE will also provide aid to full-time residents who are not in need of assistance. The exemption cost will be borne by full-time residents who will not qualify for the exemption due to the ownership structure of their home, and all part-time residents. 

The summer residents advisory committee supports town meeting Article 56 proposed by the finance committee to delay implementation of the RTE (1) until the population that needs assistance is identified, (2) to allow time for residents to learn about the financial and legal costs involved with RTE implementation, (3) to evaluate more targeted means of providing tax relief to full-time resident taxpayers in need.

Our updated position paper on the RTE is posted on the town’s SRAC website. We hope those who are permitted to vote at town meeting will review our position and consider our perspective in your decision on Article 56.

Jeff Spalter, chair
Chatham Summer Residents Advisory Committee

Editor:

Carol Gordon has served the community of South Chatham for 26 years. During this time she has always been available to the people and has created a real feeling of community here in South Chatham. Carol is always open and receptive to the people of Chatham and follows through on any issue.

If she does not have an answer immediately, she will research and get back to you quickly. Carol has an unique ability to bring people together. She is concerned about town issues because she cares about and is dedicated to the town of Chatham.

Marylou O’Neill 
Claire McIntire
South Chatham 

Editor:

Why doesn't fiscal responsibility get more attention?

I watched Candidates Night on April 30. Two hundred million dollars was proposed as what climate and erosion issues are going to cost us. Now, let's be realistic, "grants" are not going to cover that. Let's prepare to deal with challenges like this, let's fix Chatham's out-of-control spending.

Chatham's payroll is a good place to start.

Chatham has 161 employees (ref. Chatham Town Warrant May 2026). Chatham added 38 positions since 2014. The current town manager recommended every one of these hires. They represent a 31 percent increase to the town workforce, and that is reflected in our budget and our debt.

No new positions are requested this year, but let's pay attention to be certain that every hour of "consultant" time is necessary. We spend a tremendous amount of money for "consultants" for our projects. If our new employees don't have the skills we need, let's examine our leadership's hiring practices.

Not surprisingly, our tax bills have gone up 10.24 percent over the past seven years. To add insult to injury, the majority of our select board recently voted to give our town manager a 14.7 percent increase over the next five years. This was done before they conducted her performance evaluation. Yes, that's backwards.

Chatham ranks #8 in Massachusetts for level of debt service as a percentage of budget, 12.01 percent.

I'm voting for Carol Gordon because she endorses solutions that are fiscally responsible.

Janine Scott 
Chatham

Editor:

Article 29 in the town warrant is requesting town funds to pay for a portion of a design aircraft study of the Chatham Municipal Airport. One of the issues this study will evaluate is whether currently arriving large aircraft, design 2 category, can safely land at today’s Chatham Airport. The current airport safety design only supports safe landings for planes of design 1 category (small aircraft) and not large design 2 aircraft. Safety requirements for design 2 category aircraft far exceed those requirements for design 1 aircraft. Why are we paying for a study when the FAA’s Bulletin 150/5000-17 already clearly spells out safety parameters that an airport must meet in order for a large plane to have a safe landing? It seems as if the design study the airport commission wants is to examine whether they can justify somehow that existing airport safety conditions already align with FAA safety requirements for safe landing of large aircraft.

A select board member recently said that his concern was that Article 29 might read as if the town was endorsing the increased use by larger aircraft. And that’s exactly what concerns town citizens when they say that the airport is expanding their operations, not by making any physical changes to the airport, but by increasing the volume of large plane operations.

Article 29 needs a no vote until the airport commission reads and evaluates the FAA Bulletin, to see what really needs to be done.

Juris Ukstins
Chatham

Editor:

I just learned that the for-profit Pennrose Company is seeking to purchase a home adjacent to the Meetinghouse Road affordable housing project. What was a 3.75-acre development may now become a 4.25-acre development on one small corner of South Chatham.

The ZBA was forceful and clear about what it would take to get a yes vote for this project. Density and safety were paramount issues. The Pennrose purchase will not address these issues. The public has been consistent in expressing its concerns about this project. These concerns are not being addressed.

We need affordable and attainable housing. Is it too much to ask that the impact on the community and those who will move in be considered when a development of this proportion and poor design is proposed?

Carol Gordon wants affordable and attainable housing in Chatham, but she wants it done right. She has been consistent in her positions and has expressed them clearly and openly. This is why she has my vote in the select board election.

This election is about integrity, honesty, respect, transparency and the representation of all Chatham citizens as we work together shaping Chatham's future. Please attend the ZBA meeting May 7 at the annex when the Meetinghouse Road project will again be discussed. Please also think long and hard about your vote for select board on May 14. Decisions made on these two days will have a lasting impact on Chatham.

Barbara Boro
South Chatham

Editor:

Saturday, April 18 was a significant day at the Congregational Church of Chatham, saying goodbye to two extraordinary women who probably never met but were both a significant force in our community. One I knew for years and the other I never met but everyone who knew her sang her praises.

Donna Jordan was talented and loving and Bette Hahner was amazingly gifted with many fans. Donna had three children and a devoted husband beyond any record. And Bette managed to participate in everything possible with great enthusiasm and dutiful perfection. If they set goals for us they were so high almost unachievable but nonetheless a guide to all.

They are truly missed and left a road map on how to reach accomplishments. Thank you both.

Fleur Jones
Chatham

Editor:

Dear Secretary of State Galvin:

I have been registered as an independent voter in other states where I have lived in the past. In Massachusetts, however, I am listed as “unenrolled.” Voting in the United States is an important and invaluable right that is more important than ever. 

While I recognize that there is no Independent Party enrollment in Massachusetts, I respectfully suggest that the use of “unenrolled” as designated on voter registration in the state leaves one to believe the enrolled person is disinterested in the voting process. May I appeal to you for a change in this designation to “unspecified?” 

Barbara A .Goldrick
Chatham