Editor:

Pennrose and Chatham concluded the land disposition agreement (LDA) for the Meetinghouse Road affordable housing project at the end of February 2025 – nearly 18 months ago. 

Among several other off-site improvements for the project, Pennrose agreed to construct a sidewalk on the east side of Route 137 south from the bike path crosswalk connecting to the crosswalk over Route 28. This was first requested by the South Chatham Village Association at their 2024 annual meeting. Pennrose committed to it in the LDA, subject to conditions.

There is no other sidewalk on either side of Route 137 from Route 28 to the four-way stop at the intersection of Old Queen Anne Road, some 1.3 miles. Moreover, no Chatham representative ever mentioned a sidewalk on either side of Route 137 north of the rail trail parking lot. In the last ZBA meeting, however, board members appear to be heading toward requiring construction of a sidewalk along the west side of Route 137 running north from the bike path crosswalk to the project entrance.

This sidewalk would be immediately adjacent to the roadway — separated only by a six-inch curb. It is not associated with any zoning waiver request by Pennrose, and it is not required by any applicable zoning regulation. It would be much less safe than the Pennrose proposed walkway connecting to the rail trail. It would be an engineering disaster. It would also be a needless waste of financial, construction and planning resources.

The Pennrose plan addresses the question of safe pedestrian access with a pedestrian walkway set back from the roadway, connecting with the bike path and continuing to the traffic-controlled crossing over Route 137. This is the plan recommended by Pennrose’s traffic engineer and accepted by the ZBA’s peer review engineer.

The Pennrose plan provides pedestrian and non-vehicular access to the project that is fully legally compliant, safety conscious and the most environmentally friendly alternative. 

It is time for the ZBA to stop looking for ways to frustrate the completion of this needed project. It is time for the ZBA to act in the best interests of Chatham, consistent with our desperate need for affordable housing, and grant the permit.

Mike Schell
Chatham

Editor:

The Chatham Select Board voted on the residential tax exemption before it had the analysis now available. The finance committee's RTE working group has since done the homework, and it gives board members good reason to reconsider before the Sept. 1 tax classification hearing.

The RTE is a blunt tax shift that gives the same break to a comfortable homeowner as to a neighbor who's actually struggling. It does nothing for renters, builds no housing, and skips over some residents whose homes are held in LLCs or certain trusts. And after roughly 40 years of use in Massachusetts, no state, academic or municipal study has ever measured whether it actually keeps people rooted in their communities. We'd be adopting it on faith.

Our problem isn't only property taxes. It's everything else people have to pay to stay here: childcare, rent, fuel, food, elder care, insurance. Chatham already has at least 28 assistance programs, but they're scattered and hard to navigate. The biggest gaps are renters and working people without children who may earn too much for traditional assistance but still can't keep up with the cost of living here.

The working group recommends something the town doesn’t have: a year-round community stability package that reaches people the RTE leaves out, funded primarily by revenue the seasonal economy already generates, including room-occupancy and short-term-rental-related revenue. If the seasonal economy contributes to the pressures facing year-round residents, some of the revenue it generates should help keep them here.

Before we lock in a permanent tax shift, the board should be able to answer two basic questions: who exactly are we trying to help, and how would we know if it worked? The working group's report gives the select board better options. They help the people who actually need it without raising the bill on renters and neighbors who don't qualify.

Ann P. Ryan 
Chatham

Editor:

Based on his years of experience, his knowledge of the county issues, his commitment to public service, his wisdom, and intelligence, I am excited to endorse Ron Bergstrom to continue as our Barnstable County Commissioner.

I would like to encourage voters to vote in the Sept. 1 Democratic primary to reelect Ron Bergstrom as Barnstable County Commissioner so he can continue his work on so many important issues in our region.

Dan Wolf
Harwich

Editor:

At last Tuesday ’s summer residents meeting we were able to see that the select board and town manager are using what so many of us parents use when our children ask questions we don’t want to answer, the proverbial “because I said so.” Instead of that response we got “it’s a tool in our toolbox.” Same premise, it doesn’t answer the question I’ve raised over and over which is why was now the time to use the RTE? What evidence did the town manager or assessor present to the select board that warranted reaching into the “toolbox” to pull out the most divisive tool to use? Not one select person addressed the question, nor did the town manager, as to why now was the time when this has been an option for 12 years? The summer residents will be caught carrying the burden for a reason that is clearly unexplainable other than “it was a tool in our toolbox.”

Summer residents have contributed in tax dollars to allow for the excessive spending and debt incurred by Chatham including the problems with the fish pier build, a $11 million clam upweller (now $7 million with a grant), the new senior facility, town buildings, redone transfer station, but that is not enough. Now we have to accept even more of the tax burden? We are the silent members of town who have no vote or say in the running of the town so why not reach in that toolbox and take advantage of this population seems to be the only reason for this decision.

What happens when this economic upward trend in real estate stalls or falls, is Chatham prepared for what might lie ahead? Are we ready for the stress all these affordable and attainable units will add to our already stressed water system and honestly for a longer period then just blaming the summer people? 

It’s easy to blame and tax those who can’t vote. It would have been nice to hear the data and facts that are driving this decision which appears will be passed on Sept. 1, but instead we got “it was a tool in the toolbox,” which now leads one to question what else that is in that toolbox that might affect the summer residents going forward? Maybe it’s time for a list of what that “toolbox” holds?

Chatham might be up for merriest town, but this entire RTE situation has left many feeling used not merry. 

Suzanne Miska
Chatham

Editor:

The voters in the Democratic Sept. 1 primary have an extraordinary opportunity to send an extraordinary Democrat, Steve Leibowitz, to Boston to be our State Rep in First Barnstable (Brewster, Dennis, and half of Yarmouth). 

As members of the Brewster Democratic Town Committee, Steve and I have spent more than 25 years working collaboratively on many issues as we've turned our Democratic priorities into realities. For example, we're both concerned about hunger in our country, and especially on the Cape. Steve is the only Cape member of Project Bread’s Make Hunger History Advisory Board while I've concentrated on working with Lower Cape Outreach Council's food pantries. Through our encouragement, Brewster DTC members bring donations of non-perishable items for LCOC to our monthly meeting. 

We share a commitment to excellence in education as demonstrated by Steve's currently serving on the Brewster School Committee and previously on the Nauset Regional School Committee as well as my years teaching second language students at Cape Cod Community College. Steve represents us on the Massachusetts State Democratic Committee, making sure that the values expressed in our platform become reality in our government. We need him to represent us in the state legislature as well. 

Betsy Smith
Brewster

Editor:

A year ago at town meeting, Brewster voters approved almost unanimously a proposal supporting Medicare for All. Had this bill passed in the state legislature, the town wouldn’t have needed three overrides this year since we would have saved more on health insurance (over $2 million) than the cost of the overrides.

Steve Leibowitz is the only candidate in the Democratic primary to represent First Barnstable in the state legislature who has signed on with Mass-Care to support single-payer health care. 

Madeline Zevon
Brewster

Editor:

At the summer residents meeting last Tuesday the discussion of the residential tax exemption was the hot topic. As a long-time summer resident, I am so discouraged that the town has chosen to possibly use this terribly thought-out tax “plan” against the summer residents.

Speaking for myself, I wholly support any plan that will help our younger working families or any Chatham resident that is struggling to live in our postcard town. We summer residents use less than half the town resources yet we are paying the same tax as a fulltime resident. We donate to the food pantry, we volunteer our time, our talents and our treasures to support the town and the people we love and yet now we are faced with a tax on us that will go to qualifying full-time residents. The qualifications of which have nothing to do with financial means. Basically my tax hit could and probably will subsidize a full-time resident’s Eastward Ho dues! 

In the winter we live in South Carolina where the part-time residents pay a larger tax, the tax collected goes to support roads, schools and police. This Massachusetts money grab does none of that. I am discouraged that a plan can not be laid out to show us how this extra tax will help those most in need instead of lining the pockets of those who are clearly not.

Noreen Powell
Bluffton, S.C.

Editor:

I attended the Orleans Zoning Board of Appeals meeting last week when the Governor Prence proposed plan was discussed. The chair of the board made clear their frustration and the fact that the ZBA purview is narrow — the town officials have already determined that the site will be used for affordable housing, it will house 78 units, etc. But it seems people are still attempting to derail the plan. (Another traffic review was approved. To what end? Of course there will be more traffic, but it won’t hold a candle to the summer traffic when our population triples).

As I listened to the chair’s explanation of the purview of the ZBA, it seems that it is possible for them to squelch this plan. One item particularly struck me. The board can determine that the plan “is not in keeping with the character of the town.”

 So I ask, what is the “character” of Orleans? Is our character determined by heights of buildings (two stories OK, three stories not)? Is our character determined by type of clapboards, amount of green space, number of parking spots? Or is our character more of the stuff that makes us a community? Is our character based on being a supportive, open-minded population? A vibrant, economically viable town? An environmentally aware and proactive people? A town that looks ahead with wisdom and foresight, not nostalgically back to a past that is just that – past)?

 A wise person once said, “Perfect is the enemy of the good.” This is a good plan. ZBA — approve these waivers and let our town show its character.

Carol Baffi-Dugan
Orleans

Editor:

I am responding to the lead story in the Aug. 20 edition entitled “FinCom: Hold Off On RTE.” If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my over 40 years in Chatham, it’s the propensity to delay actions at the first sign of resistance. This tactic includes naming a committee to study the issue, a small segment of eligible voters forming a block at town meetings to kill an article or arguing that, while “good,” a proposal isn’t perfect in addressing all the issues. 

 The fincom’s working group argues that the RTE (residential tax exemption) won’t solve all the problems of affordability and sustainability for year-round residents. Of course, it won’t solve all the problems, but it’s important to begin working on them. The designation of Chatham as a “seasonal community” by the state was intended to allow the town to pass local property tax exemptions (not to solve all the housing problems). According to the town’s website, roughly 35 percent of year-round households qualify for state or federal affordable housing programs. Many of them end up paying ever-increasing rent. The median home sale price of $1 million is driven by the seasonal and vacation home market, including corporate-owned rental properties. The additional town services to support nonresidents is a tax burden carried by only about 50 percent of residents, the year-round ones. Many elderly year-round residents are living in larger homes than they need. They’re in a double bind — increasing real estate taxes on their homes if they keep them or 20 percent capital gains taxes on much of that $1 million home if they sell it, depleting their retirement assets. The RTE is a first step in addressing some elements of the crisis in housing.

John Sweeney
South Chatham

Editor:

At a recent Chatham Select Board meeting, Public Works Director Rob Faley discussed troubles with our wells and a 10-inch drop in our aquifer level. The Level 2 Significant drought persists. WCAI's Weekly News Report of Aug. 14 reported that (Democratic candidate) Eric Schwaab, because of these and other countywide concerns/frustrations, supported a temporary pause halting large-scale residential developments until the county completes a "carrying capacity study" of Cape Cod's water resources. They reported that (Democratic candidate) Ron Bergstrom said that while there was concern about these issues, his approach was still to reach the 10 percent of town housing being the affordable goal. This full-steam ahead approach would most certainly include more large developments like the Pennrose projects with no concern for the effects on our natural resources, water or sewer capacity. Mr. Bergstrom disagrees with Mr. Schwaab's pause proposal.

 There are no financial, legal, or state funding consequences for towns not reaching the 10 percent goal. There's no rush. A temporary pause on these large development projects in order to develop a coordinated overall regional plan is very reasonable.

Lou Hieb
Chatham

Editor:

The Democratic primary race for Barnstable county commissioner has never been more important. I am supporting Ron Bergstrom, a tireless leader who previously served as county commissioner, assembly of delegates representative, and Chatham Select Board member. Bergstrom, a shellfisher by trade, knows this community as well as anyone. His lifelong devotion to Cape Cod and his political experience will ensure sound county policies, especially for desperately needed affordable and workforce housing.

 A second Democratic candidate is Dan Gessen, a knowledgeable, smart progressive Democrat. While my support is for Bergstrom, Gessen would also serve as commissioner admirably.

 The third challenger is wrong for Cape Cod. Eric Schwaab has led a campaign of manipulation and disinformation. He has booted people off “public” chat groups that he administers and has questionable Barnstable county residency. Despite claiming in this paper that he is the target of a “smear campaign,” he "doxxed" an individual with whom he disagreed by revealing their home address and contact information online. He is opposed to more affordable and workforce housing, something this county desperately needs. I urge people to steer away from Schwaab. He should not represent us.

John Lipman
Orleans

Editor: 

 As co-chair of the Cape Cod Young Professionals Community and Civic Engagement Committee and a third-generation builder who attends zoning hearings Capewide, I write with serious concerns about the Orleans Zoning Board of Appeals' Aug. 18 hearing on the Governor Prence comprehensive permit.

 To start, chair Mulligan announced comments about the need for affordable housing would no longer be heard, calling his prior allowance of them "negligence.” However, that limit was applied inconsistently and inappropriately.

 Chapter 40B exists to expand housing for low- and moderate-income residents; housing need is expressly part of the board's standard of review. With the Cape's year-round rental inventory falling from 20 to 12 percent in a decade, such testimony is central, not incidental.

 When a young woman rose to speak, the chair interrupted with rapid-fire questions, telling her she "might as well go down the street and talk to somebody on a bench." Minutes later, board member Wilkinson repeatedly questioned her about how many of her friends and co-workers had obtained housing in town — the subject the chair had just ruled out-of-scope. While the chair later apologized, his beg-pardon cannot erase the broader message that public comment may come at the price of public embarrassment.

 Speaking at a hearing is difficult enough without speakers being interrupted, challenged, or intimidated. Such conduct discourages productive civic engagement. We urge the board to affirm that housing-need testimony is relevant and that residents may speak without interruption or interrogation. Town and state officials should review whether these proceedings meet open-meeting and fair-hearing standards.

Samantha Nikula Aronne, co-chair
CCYP Community and Civic Engagement Committee

Editor:

Attempting to understand the residential tax exemption, I decided to Google it. When Google offered me AI, I accepted (knowing it can make mistakes). Here is what I asked: “What happens when wealth overwhelms an historic fishing town?” My take away from AI’s very long list of the largely negative effects is that the proposed residential tax exemption is not a cure-all but is at its very least a gesture, an acknowledgement that there have been drastic structural and cultural changes to our town and its local year-round residents and that the RTE is one means to start to address them.

Julie Eldredge-Dykens
West Chatham

Editor:

Respectfully, I encourage the select board of Chatham to honor the will of the people as expressed at the well-attended annual town meeting in May by a majority vote of full-time residents to delay the implementation of the so-called real estate exemption (RTE).

It is hard to imagine a cleaner or more clear view of the majority opinion than an actual vote as took place in May. To not honor such a vote does make a mockery of the concept of democracy. 

Michael Young
Chatham

Editor:

 A heartfelt thank-you to our generous sponsors: Cranberry Valley Golf Course, Wequassett Resort, The Seal, The Lanyard, Ring Brothers, Cape Sea Grille, Milano’s, Hot Stove Saloon and Roots for our recent Closest to the Pin event. Your contributions with the help of the golfers allow our independent historic library to continue to foster a love of reading. Onto year 102!

Janice Ronalter, president
Harwich Port Library Association

Editor:

Aviation gasoline is now the largest source of lead emissions in the United States. Studies have found increased levels of lead in the blood of children living near airports. The CDC says there is no safe level of lead in the blood of children. Even low levels have been associated with developmental delays, learning difficulties, and behavioral problems.

 The FAA has long advised airports to minimize the public's outdoor exposure to lead emissions and recommends signs discouraging people from remaining in areas where there may be unnecessary exposure.

 And what have Chatham Airport officials done? Nothing. Visitors, including young children, congregate at picnic tables mere feet from aircraft operations. The airport restaurant offers outdoor dining. Yet there are no signs informing parents of potential lead exposure.

 When airport officials recently met with the Chatham Board of Health, concerns were expressed that warning signs might create "a panic" and result in lost business. That gets the issue backwards. Airport officials may believe the risk is minimal. But they should not make that decision for parents by withholding information. A warning sign doesn't close the airport or restaurant. It simply gives parents information and allows them to decide whether their children should remain close to aircraft operations.

 Inform the public. Let parents decide what is best for their children. Withholding that information to avoid alarming visitors or harming business is unconscionable.

David Bixby
Chatham