Editor:

I am troubled by the Harwich Chamber of Commerce’s endorsement of the Snow Inn redevelopment which appeared on your opinion page (“Supports New Snow Inn Plan,” Sept. 24). Executive Director Cyndi Williams has publicly supported demolishing the historic 1892 inn and replacing it with a much larger 72-room hotel at Wychmere Harbor. 

Chambers exist to promote local business, and members pay dues for that advocacy. Yet this support comes at a moment when many in Harwich are deeply concerned about carrying capacity and the gradual loss of the village character that draws visitors and sustains our tourism economy in the first place. A chamber letter that emphasizes jobs and tax revenue while downplaying the historic structure and neighborhood impacts feels one-sided. The endorsement also ignores our sole-source aquifer. Building a fancy wastewater treatment plant does not address that reality. Keep in mind that the Cape Cod Commission is not currently held in high esteem by many for its evaluation of developments of regional impact. The very qualities that make Harwich Port appealing — its scale, history and sense of place — are not just sentimental; they are economic assets. When the organization that represents local businesses appears to prioritize expansion over those assets, residents are right to question the balance.

Sally Urbano
West Harwich

Editor:

Picture this. Quintessential small town, great local movie theater. You buy your tickets, get some popcorn and head into the theater. Big decision time — where to sit. I like it here, she likes it there, lady with a large hat, guy sneezing. So, you settle on the perfect seats to enjoy your movie.

But no! Our beloved Orpheum makes you choose your seats before you even get popcorn! How do you know (see above)? OK, so you like a certain seat? Go early! That's part of the experience! Been that way forever.

C'mon Orpheum. Rethink this policy. Let's keep the small town charm alive. And lady — take your hat off!

Rick Wallerstein
Chatham

Editor:

Last week's Chronicle presented an extremely biased three-pronged character assassination attack on an honest dedicated Chatham citizen, David Nixon, who along with the majority of zoning board of appeals voting members disagreed with proponents' wishes. American democratic principles include respectful discussion of the facts and issues and acceptance that reasonable citizens can reach different conclusions.

This may remind folks of the extreme partisanship battles nationally where not only do opponents disagree but also passionately feel their opponents are evil people. There are many Chatham citizens who strongly support the ZBA's decision on the Meetinghouse Road project. The main article oversimplified very complex issues. Accusations of the opposition's "dramatic, highly emotional" arguments are justifiably viewed by opponents as very reasonable concerns. Those of us who have served with Karolyn McClelland on town boards or committees recognize her extraordinary passionate commitment to 40B affordable housing, but this may also impact her objectivity on these complex issues. 

The third prong of the attack came from the You Guest It columns. The accusations about minority rule are ironic considering the people who were involved in choosing Pennrose — four people with six votes in the selection process. The bullying attacks in last week's paper are bad for Chatham's democracy and democratic process.

Lou Hieb
Chatham

Editor:

A recent Chatham Airport Commission meeting highlighted the insanity at the airport. Commissioner Eldredge, whom I believe was a manager for the FAA, and seems familiar with design standards, stated that “when the PC-12 numbers exceeded 500, it would then become the airport’s critical aircraft.” 

The airport manager suggested that “you need to be egregiously above the number of 500.” This is ridiculous and is not supported in any FAA advisory. He went on to say that “they’d” looked at it in detail with the airport consultants and “to accommodate the charter jet aircraft, the airport would have to be expanded in all directions.” Commissioner Eldredge confirmed that “CQX existed in a situation where geometric constraints limit our ability to meet a standard for these aircraft.” 

The airport manager is totally aware of FAA safety standards being violated for the last five years by jet charter aircraft, and also that no changes at the airport are possible to accommodate these aircraft. He was supported by Commissioner Eldredge, but the airport commission is actually about to cut down trees for new approach surfaces for the benefit of these aircraft.

When the town manager signed grant assurance C2.5, she promised multiple times that “the town as town, shall not give up its rights, powers and authority to own and operate the airport, and operate the airport for safe operations.” Here it is on a plate. It is time for the select board and the town manager to use their authority for the safety of the community and realize that the charter jet aircraft cannot be accepted safely without increasing the size of the airport, which is both unacceptable and impossible.

Margaret Tompsett, MD
West Chatham

Editor:

Re: the proposed Stage Harbor Marina building. 

If you find old Chatham with its fishermen's shacks and shanties embarrassing, I can understand your discomfiture. On the other hand, If you find the "Hamptonization" of Chatham embarrassing, prepare to be even more embarrassed!

Chris Craven 
Chatham

Editor:

The Harwich Chamber of Commerce's support for the Wychmere redevelopment is understandable. A larger hotel can generate additional lodging revenue, employment, visitor spending and business for local establishments. But economic benefit alone does not establish that a project is appropriate for Harwich.

The more important question is: How significant are the incremental economic benefits compared with the incremental environmental and infrastructure costs?

Wychmere has retained a Boston public relations/lobbying firm, and supporters — including business interests — were highly organized and visible at public meetings. That demonstrates organized advocacy and strong support among participants. It should not be characterized as evidence of broad community consensus.

The Cape Cod Commission approved the 72-room project, but that decision has been challenged in Barnstable Superior Court, including claims that the commission failed to adequately evaluate the project's regional impacts. Those allegations will ultimately be addressed through the judicial process.

There is also important historical context. In 2018, the Conservation Law Foundation brought federal litigation concerning nitrogen discharges from Wychmere's wastewater system. The court record documented treated wastewater entering groundwater that flowed toward Wychmere Harbor. Wychmere subsequently agreed to wastewater improvements and nitrogen-reduction measures.

Harwich is also approaching a critical point in balancing additional growth against the capacity and long-term sustainability of its drinking-water resources. Water, groundwater and coastal environmental capacity are not unlimited.

The question should therefore not simply be, “Will Wychmere create economic benefits?” Of course it will. The question is are those incremental benefits sufficient to justify the incremental demands placed on Harwich's finite water resources, wastewater infrastructure and coastal environment?

Peter Cholakis
Harwich Port

Editor:

Disturbing. Karolyn McClelland's filing of a complaint against Chatham Zoning Board of Appeals Chair David Nixon is a convenient way for her to serve her agenda. While she may be the chair of Chatham's community housing partnership today, for her to file a formal complaint against Mr. Nixon because she is unhappy with the 3-2 vote on Sept. 9 is unfair and unacceptable not only to David Nixon and the ZBA, but to the residents of Chatham. Pennrose's quest was to overdevelop a 40B, 42-unit affordable housing complex of rental units on Meetinghouse Road nearly at the intersection of Routes 28 and Routes 137. These towering structures were densely packed together on a largely unbuildable site in an unsafe location. 

I attended every one of these ZBA meetings, mostly in person. Mr. Nixon and the ZBA gave the developer dozens of opportunities for Pennrose to put their square peg in a round hole. The developer refused. 

Every claim in her letter to the editor dated Sept. 23 against Mr. Nixon is untrue. The Chronicle allowing her letter to be published creates an extremely false sense of reality during these ZBA meetings and undermines the democratic process this ZBA board conducted. Her comments are her emotions. 

I stand by the ZBA's decision to reject this 42-unit, partly Section 8, 40B, dense mess.

Laurie Nolan McCann
Chatham

Editor: 

We support the recent decision of the Chatham Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the Meetinghouse Road property. The board members should be thanked for their thoughtful approach which should result in an improved project…for safer affordable housing.

Tom and Merry Dahms
South Chatham

Editor:

Because we head south for the winter, we will now pay more Chatham property taxes through the residential tax exemption (RTE). One justification for the RTE is that other Cape towns are doing it. But should Chatham be a follower rather than a leader?

Let’s look at the numbers. Nonresidents currently pay almost two-thirds of Chatham’s residential property taxes, while owning only about 12 percent more properties than residents. They therefore pay nearly twice as much tax as residents. Yet nonresidents, except for fire and police, generally use town services less than half the year and do not use the schools.

The stated purpose of the RTE is to help residents who have difficulty paying their property taxes. I am sure there are residents who need help. But does it make sense for this help to apply to homes valued up to $12 million?

We are told that residents deserve this benefit because they create the wonderful community environment we all value. I would ask Chatham’s businesses how they would feel if the local economy operated every month like it does in February. Nonresidents make a significant contribution to Chatham’s economy and community.

Last week’s Chronicle included a request from two select board members for contributions “to a fund specifically designed to help elderly and disabled residents struggling with their property taxes.” That seems like a much more focused solution.

The select board must vote again next year to continue the RTE. if there is clear, public data showing it is achieving its stated goal, continue it. If it isn’t, reconsider it. If nonresidents are still paying extra property taxes, they can consider making their other charitable giving revenue-neutral like the RTE, by contributing less elsewhere.

Richard Pears
West Chatham

Editor:

I was shocked to read two articles in The Chronicle dated Sept. 24 regarding affordable housing. This topic has become extremely divisive for Chatham.

Michael Schell’s “You Guest It” couldn’t be any more off base. He’s having a difficult time being unable to accept the fact the Meetinghouse Road project was rejected by the zoning board of appeals for legitimate reasons. Schell is unable to acknowledge countless emails written about this poorly designed project that he had a major hand in selecting. There was another motor vehicle accident just last week at Meetinghouse and Route 28 which totals more than three in that area in the past few months. He also fails to accept the fact he was removed from office in a landslide because of his support for these poorly designed housing developments. He also fails to understand folks don’t want any development that is poorly and selfishly designed to make a profit for Pennrose. Once again, kudos to the zoning board members that voted this monstrosity down.

I had a hard time comprehending the letter from Karolyn McLelland, who’s a member of the affordable housing trust and chair of the community housing partnership at the same time. She attacked the chair of the zoning board in public — both in meetings and in The Chronicle, along with other ZBA members. Her incessant rants are tiresome and unhinged with her constant insults and whining. To personally attack a long-standing member who has freely given his time for many years to this committee is unacceptable. Chair Nixon said nothing Pennrose hasn’t said themselves. There’s a committee handbook she’s supposed to adhere to, which she apparently hasn’t even read. She’s not allowed to attack any member — whether or not she disagrees with them. I ask the select board to review the rules of the committee’s handbook and replace her on both committees for her behavior. 

Judy Patterson
West Chatham

Editor:

Who among us has not at some point marveled at what we would do, or could do, with a sudden gift of $5,000? What if a husband and wife each got $5,000, and what if their adult children each got $5,000?

President Donald Trump has promised every adult U.S. citizen a gift of $5,000, a “Trump Dividend,” if Republicans hold the House and the Senate in the mid-term elections.

Political leaders and pundits laugh at the offer. They say it is probably illegal. They say Donald Trump never pays his debts anyway. They remind us that he survives on grift and corruption.

But $5,000 for each adult in every household is appealing. It would open a lot of doors. It would help with medical bills and insurance; it would help pay for gas, maybe a down payment on a new car; it would help at the grocery store; it would help pay for daycare, new shoes and a backpack, and Christmas gifts.

Despite one’s political orientation, the prospect of five, ten, fifteen or twenty thousand dollars per family, would make it easy in the privacy of a mail ballot or voting booth to vote for a Trump Dividend at the midterms. “Why should I be a loser? Let somebody else worry about the politics. Money talks!”

Beware the bribe! Our free and fair elections demand that we remain true to our convictions. Donald Trump’s promise to pay for our votes cannot be allowed to influence our intellectual, emotional and actionable honesty in the mid-term elections. We the people have the power to preserve our Democracy.

Sean O’Neil
Brewster

Editor:

Thank you to Mr. Nixon, Ms. Fenwick and Ms. Hovey of the Chatham Zoning Board of Appeals for voting against the for-profit Pennrose affordable housing project on Route 137/Meetinghouse Road. I have three children and six grandchildren and I would not want any of them to live in such a poorly designed apartment complex on such a busy and dangerous road and without safe access to public transportation. Chatham can and should do better for people who need housing. It is time to slow this process down. Let's see what the other ill-advised Main Street/West Chatham Pennrose project brings first…if it happens. Thank you for your courage and service to the townspeople of Chatham. 

Cheryl Nelson
Chatham and Carlsbad, Calif.

Editor:

Parking is a Chatham challenge. But I wonder why is it that when the town invests in building projects, like the fish pier and upweller, parking availability isn’t addressed? While when a small business, like Hey Joe and Jam, wants to expand the owner is required “to solve its parking needs?” The former parking needs are often much greater, causing serious safety issues. This different treatment seems both puzzling and unfair. 

Tina Mead
Chatham, Washington, D.C.

Editor:

How fortunate are Chatham residents to live in a town where each week we can open The Chronicle and read competing opinions on how to solve the problems that face our town. The intelligent rebuttals made by Carol Gordon and Michelle Kleinkauf to the criticism of ZBA members who denied the permit to proceed with the current plan for affordable housing on Meetinghouse Road were an invaluable guide on how to proceed.

At first my belief in the need for affordable housing blinded me to the many flaws in the plan that was presented. The persistence of the brave members of the zoning board of appeals and of the many concerned members of the community were absolutely needed to point the way toward better solutions for the housing crisis in Chatham. I hope that I am just one of many citizens who have been enlightened.

Carol Kolb
South Chatham

Editor:

Another season has gone by without signs warning airport visitors (parents, children) of the dangers of exposure to lead emissions. Airport officials place profits ahead of health as the board of health dithers. Wow! No profiles in courage awards for these officials.

Meanwhile the airport commission is about to embark on a campaign to “selectively” remove mature trees on airport and private property covering nearly 60 acres, easing the way for more and larger aircraft to land in Chatham. Not good for the West Chatham neighborhood center envisioned by town and regional planners. Unbelievably, Chatham’s comprehensive land use plan doesn’t even mention the airport. Oops!

Airport officials plan to install more fuel tanks, more airplane hangars and pursue more growth. Flight schools, tours, charters limited only by demand, not a thoughtful analysis of how much air traffic and noise West Chatham residents can bear. Will we be a community dominated by relentless noisy airport operations? We want this?

Of course, it doesn’t have to be this way. The town’s elected officials, the select board, could put a pause on these efforts to grow the airport with no consideration to its residential neighbors who will bear the brunt of this growth. A good start would be to delay the tree cutting pending an independent planning study of where the community wants to be in the next 10 or 20 years. Of course that takes foresight and spine. Can the board stand up to reign in an out of control airport commission? Will they?

David Bixby
West Chatham 

Editor: 

Dan Gessen is no longer only Falmouth’s Assembly delegate. Your Sept. 2 report made that plain: he defeated Chatham’s Ron Bergstrom in the Democratic primary for county commissioner and is on the Nov. 3 ballot. The housing levies he has been advancing would now sit closer to county power, not farther from it.

One is a home rule transfer fee of 0.5 to 4 percent on the portion of a sale above at least $1 million, towns opting in, most of the money going back to town housing trusts. He has said that could raise about $56 million a year Capewide if widely used. The other is an annual surcharge of $2.50 per $500 of assessed value above $1 million on homes that are not primary residences and sit empty more than 183 days — half of 1 percent a year on the excess. A $2 million seasonal house would owe about $5,000 extra; a $3 million house about $10,000.

In Chatham, Harwich, Orleans and Brewster, a million-dollar assessment is ordinary. Those houses already pay full property tax. Visitors and short-term rentals already pay a 2.75 percent excise into the Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund. Stacking a vacancy surcharge and a high-end transfer fee on the same base is not a free lunch.

The transfer fee went to Beacon Hill and was not enacted before the last formal session ended. Both tools still need the state and then a town vote. Harwich’s select board has already said it did not ask for the county petition. Year-round taxpayers on the Lower Cape should not be told the only path to housing is a new county role as collector of second-home levies.

Ronald Beaty
West Barnstable

Editor:

Bravo! The Cape Cod Symphony's opening performance last Sunday was superlative! Music director and conductor Alyssa Wang mesmerized the audience with her choice of music, “The Planets” by Gustav Holst, while pulling exceptional performances from her oversized symphony. In addition, guest violinist Nathan Olson performed the extraordinarily difficult works by Saariaho and Prokofiev. The packed house audience sat spellbound during the entire concert. And this is just the beginning of what is planned by Alyssa Wang. This symphony is blessed to have her leading artistic talent for its classical and POPs series performances.

Ellen Briggs
Chatham

Editor:

It is difficult to choose the most unqualified member of President Trump's cabinet, but I submit that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth leads the pack. A man of questionable moral character with multiple allegations of extramarital affairs, alcohol and sexual abuse, financial misdeeds and inexperience which nearly derailed his Senate confirmation.

In the midst of an unauthorized war in Iran he has gutted senior military leadership by firing or requiring resignation by dozens of highly experienced admirals, generals and service secretaries for no stated reason other than their perceived disapproval of his actions. He has made clear his dislike of women, persons of color and transgendered persons. He has overseen the overuse of missiles, drones and artillery ammunition to the point that senior officials, both military and political, have expressed concern about the remaining stockpile of munitions and our ability to defend our country if attacked. 

He has almost certainly committed war crimes in ordering strikes on multiple small boats in the Caribbean claimed to be carrying drugs and the killing of their crews including two survivors in the water by a second strike. He has either not conducted or refused to release results of an investigation into a strike on a school killing 156 children and teachers in the early days of the Iran war. He showed an irresponsible use of tax dollars by convening a meeting of 800 generals and admirals from all over the world within weeks of his swearing-in at huge expense. He chastised beardos, fat officers and those with woke leanings and made it clear that the laws of war no longer apply. Many attendees felt insulted.

My message is direct. To have this preening arrogant Fox News host together with the spur-heeled draft-dodging commander-in-chief responsible for the defense of our country is truly frightening.

Ralph Smith
Harwich Port 

Editor:

AI? Any concerns? Yes?

Well, what can we do? Hard to know right now (besides taking good care of ourselves)?

Oh…there is one thing we can do. 

Find and support political candidates up and down the ballot who commit to national stringent AI safety standards, corporate liability and reducing data center infrastructure strain. The self-policing model won’t work!

Priscilla J. Smith
Chatham