Editor:

Immigrants?

Were the folks who came here on the Mayflower labeled as immigrants? They came from another country to escape a tyrannical government. Weren’t they “aliens?”

How do you suppose that those “Puritans,” consorting with the Natives who taught them how to live off the land, would have made out today?

Do you suppose that ICE was formed to prevent further “invasions” by such “aliens?” Explain the difference between then and now.

Isn’t the basic thought processes of our present administration simply an extension of policies of the Southern slaveholders? (If we can’t own them, we should get rid of them.) When did the U.S. Constitution get amended to bar anyone who is not white from emigrating to our country legally? When did Congress opt out of enforcing the Constitution…or even abiding by it?

The Trump administration seems determined that an honest (no criminal record) individual (who is not white, works hard, raises a family, and pays taxes just like the white folks) cannot remain in this country. 

Instead, by arresting, incarcerating, and/or deporting these individuals (including children) they have chosen to eliminate the folks who are the laborers who maintain their MacMansions, grow their vegetables, cook their food, empty their garbage, and keep them from getting their hands dirty. 

Perhaps someone can give a legal understanding of how a legally admitted individual, holding a “Green Card” can be arrested and deported? What about being arrested while complying with regulations, which, like goalposts, seem to change daily?

Just curious; are they arresting, jailing and deporting any white immigrants? Aren’t they encouraging white South Africans to emigrate here? Does that bother anyone else? 

Vote on Nov. 3. Let’s fix this!

Pete Norgeot 
Orleans

Editor:

As you know, we can vote on nine ballot questions in the upcoming election. For the first eight questions, a no vote makes no changes.

However for Question 9, the firearms law, it is opposite — a yes vote makes no changes, a no vote repeals current law. Keep that in mind when going to the polls.

Jonas Robinson
Harwich

Editor:

I keep seeing signs for No on 9. It should be Yes on 9. Massachusetts has some of the best gun safety in the nation, the second lowest in gun deaths. Nonetheless, we have had 33 mass shootings since 2020. If you want more gun shootings, vote no. If you want to keep us safe from gun violence, and keep red flag laws which help us to do so, vote yes. Yes will keep our stringent gun laws in place. No will allow them to be defenestrated for the sake of some who prefer to be "free" to load up on banned weaponry, such as ghost guns, triggers which allow weapons to become more lethal — and there would be the potential to allow people to carry guns into public buildings.

Lee Roscoe
Brewster

Editor:

Harwich has seen plenty of debate over development. Concerns about village character, historic properties, traffic, groundwater and the cost of growth come up repeatedly. Many residents have strong opinions about where the town is heading, but fewer have an opportunity to influence the rules that shape those decisions.

The new Harwich Zoning Bylaw Task Force offers that opportunity.

The task force will review the bylaws that govern development in Harwich. Its work could have a lasting effect on how the town grows and what makes our communities distinctive.

One concern is that people who might consider serving will rule themselves out because they don't know zoning law. That shouldn't be a barrier. The task force needs technical knowledge, but it also needs residents who bring different experiences, ask questions and see things from a different perspective.

In particular, people who have been unhappy with the direction of development should consider applying. Their perspective deserves to be part of the discussion, alongside those with different views. A meaningful review depends on having a range of voices at the table, not simply those who are already familiar with the process.

This isn't about opposing every development. It's about examining whether the rules we have are right for Harwich and whether they adequately account for the town's character, resources and long-term needs.

The task force is now being formed, making this a timely opportunity for residents to step forward. Information about applying is available through the town of Harwich.

Harwich has no shortage of opinions about development. The zoning bylaw task force offers a chance to bring those different perspectives together and influence the rules that will shape our town's future. If you've considered serving but assumed you needed zoning experience, think again. Harwich needs a range of voices at the table.

Lou Urbano
Harwich

Editor:

The Chatham Airport Commission is planning to start removing trees at the airport on Nov 30. It claims that this is for the safety of the existing visual approach surfaces, which is true in part. However, much of the tree removal is to create new approach surfaces, which are 150 feet wider than the existing visual approach surfaces, and therefore lead to additional acres of tree destruction. I regard these new surfaces as unnecessary, because FAA “circling” approaches were approved years ago. FAA standards allow horizontal guidance with GPS 600 feet above ground level, but below 600 feet the standards for landing require visual approaches and these have always existed at Chatham Airport. The FAA has not required a change in this situation for many years, as indicated by the runway markings and statements in airport commission documents approved by the FAA.

The airport commission’s expressed goal is to use these new surfaces to allow instrument landings in poor visibility. This is impossible, because such landings would require a 3,200 feet runway and the size of the “overshoot danger runway protection zones” would be increased to an impossible 49 acres and would include at least 80 homes, i.e. these new approach surfaces have no benefit over the present visual approaches. This proposed tree cutting will cost the town $82,365 for only 1/10th of the area required to be removed to meet FAA standards for the charter jets. Outrageous efforts will be made to try to force owners to remove trees on their private property, since the FAA claims that trimming kills the trees anyway. Since the airport cannot be expanded, another solution would be to conceptually contract it by “displacing” the runway as detailed in the FAA airport design advisory.

The creation of these new approaches was proposed in article 40 at town meeting in 2024 and overwhelmingly rejected by the community. This has been totally ignored by the airport commission, which has proceeded regardless, and the town and the select board. During an ongoing review of the operation of jet charters at the airport, the airport manager said that “to accommodate the charter jet aircraft, the airport would have to be expanded in all directions.” Since the airport is so constrained as to make this impossible, and the fact of the continuing review and an upcoming community forum, would it not make sense to stop destroying these acres of trees contrary to the wishes of the community?

Michael Tompsett
West Chatham

Editor:

Cape Cod’s greatest resource is the natural beauty around us: our beaches, wetlands, woodlands, hiking trails and wildlife attract visitors who boost the economy and make our region a special place to live.

That’s why I urge voters to vote yes on Question 6, the Protect Water and Nature ballot initiative. Passage of Question 6 would create a new Nature for All Fund, with as much as $100 million each year to support the conservation and restoration of water and land in Massachusetts. The Fund would also improve parks, trails, and other outdoor recreation spaces. For Cape Cod, this investment could make a real difference.

Question 6 doesn’t raise taxes or create a new tax. It simply redirects the standard sales tax we already pay on outdoor recreational gear like equipment for camping, sports and fishing toward protecting land and water resources. It’s a win-win cycle. 

At the Harwich Conservation Trust (HCT), our mission is to preserve land that protects woods, water, wildlife and our shared quality of life. We offer guided nature walks and free early childhood family programs thanks to generous community support. Our volunteers and staff work hard to protect open space, maintain trails and improve habitat for wildlife.

Passage of Question 6 could provide municipalities and nonprofit conservation organizations like HCT with funding to improve access to nature for residents and visitors. Cape Cod’s natural beauty is a vital economic engine that requires the kind of ongoing investment and care that voting yes on Question 6 provides.

Thomas M. Evans, board president 
Harwich Conservation Trust

Editor:

Are the bridges being designed so that traffic can increase?

It appears that only the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the Cape Cod Commission and the Cape and Islands Bridge Coalition would say “no” to that question. When proponents talk about replacement, are they not really talking about expansion as well? Without saying it, are they not talking about accommodating more people? And the big question: “Does the design increase the number of vehicles that can cross in an hour?” Amazingly, MassDOT outreach to date about the bridge project includes a “no additional lanes” comment. Clearly, they are soft-peddling; they are looking at data jargon and engineering terminology that defies common sense. 

Presently we have two 10-foot lanes, no shoulders, no median strip and a limited ability to move faster while on the bridge. The proposed layout will have two 12-foot “through lanes” and a third lane running across the bridge for the purpose of merging Buzzards Bay traffic at some point on the bridge or when over the bridge. There will be shoulders to keep breakdowns out of the travel stream.

Apparently if one looks at DOT classification lingo, the bridge is not acquiring a third general purpose lane! This is obfuscation; it is disingenuous. We deserve better from those tasked with presenting future consequences for the Cape. Perhaps MassDOT does not want to field this very simple question: During peak demand can more vehicles cross the canal? Regardless of the label “auxiliary” or the label “through lane,” the third lane will carry more vehicles across the bridge. Capacity needs to be established in terms of vehicles, not DOT jargon. Let's have a refreshingly honest statement from MassDOT and other affiliated engineers. The answer is yes, the bridges are being designed so that traffic can increase.

By my amateur, non-engineering calculations, MassDOT should admit that, with certainty, the increase in carrying potential over the bridge lies between 41 percent and 100 percent. Who would spend $4 billion and not end up with a more efficacious facility?

Matt Sutphin
Harwich

Editor:

Your article on a project to remove trees on airport and private property states: "Federal Aviation Administration regulations and the town’s own bylaws require that trees deemed to be obstructions to air travel be trimmed or removed, according to the commission." The key phrase here is "according to the commission." In fact, there is no such federal regulation that requires removal of obstructions. That is a myth perpetrated by airport officials. Part 77 is the applicable regulation. Grant Assurances may apply, but those are not regulatory, they are contractual. 

You can also find Part 77 online at FAA.com under Current Regulations. Part 77 requires notice of certain proposed structures, sets standards used to determine obstructions, and establishes a process for aeronautical studies of obstructions. Obstructions are presumed to be hazards where they impact safe navigation. As a result of such determination the FAA can recommend appropriate marking and lighting, etc. and provide appropriate notification to the aviation community. But there is no requirement for removal.

There exists no regulatory requirement to remove trees and there is no such order by the FAA to remove trees identified as obstructions in Chatham.

Don’t believe everything you hear from this airport commission. There may very well be sound reasons for selective tree removal in Chatham, just as there are sound reasons for not doing so. But neither decision is backed by any FAA regulatory requirement.

Of course I am always willing to be proven wrong. The commission is free to cite that part of the regulation or court findings that are contrary to my assertions.

David Bixby
West Chatham

Editor:

Please people, read all nine questions on the ballot very carefully! Some are very confusing. Question 9 is a good example! A yes means the present firearms life-saving 2024 law will be kept in place! A no will weaken our gun laws. Massachusetts is a leader in gun safety. Let’s keep it that way.

Anne Peirce
North Chatham

Editor:

It is important to note that the letter (“Voters Support Affordable Housing,” Oct. 22) was written by a former select board member who served concurrently as the affordable housing trust chair. There is no dispute that virtually all Chatham voters support affordable housing as evidenced by their appropriation of several million dollars for the purchase of land dedicated to affordable housing. 

What voters do not support are the large apartment complexes foisted on the town by the former chair as the only solution to Chatham’s affordable housing needs. Voters made that clear when they ousted the former select board member in his bid for reelection. The former chair was also instrumental in silencing those of us who opposed the kind of irrational Pennrose development that was allowed by the affordable housing trust board’s requests for proposals, also driven by the former chair.

The former select board member’s touting of several board approvals is highly misleading. The zoning board of appeal’s approval was not without significant pushback from voters and virtually impossible to disapprove under the constraints of 40B. The select board narrowly approved Pennrose for development of Main Street and Meetinghouse Road with a 3-2 vote, the two select board members serving on the affordable housing trust not surprisingly voting yes. 

At a subsequent select board meeting, it was stated that the two select board members’ votes “cloud the perception of independence” and are “bad optics” for both boards. A citizen petitioner agreed and submitted a warrant article for a bylaw change to allow only one select board member to serve on the affordable housing trust. The article was approved at the 2025 town meeting, thus eliminating the true “manipulative minority.” 

Tellingly, of the two select board members sitting on the affordable housing trust board, the former chair of that board voted no on the petition article despite the “bad optics.” The other member appropriately abstained. 

George Myers
Venice, Fla.

Editor:

I wish to congratulate the Harwich Select Board on bringing an innovative affordable housing strategy to our town. Through a grant from the U. S. Forestry Service, Harwich will enjoy a sustainable supply of two-by-fours to be used in future affordable housing projects.

You may have noticed numerous two by four trees in Harwich Center now bearing dimensional lumber. Our pilot project has proven so productive that a second cutting will be made later this fall and while the original intent was to use this lumber to build snow sheds over the Safe Sidewalks to be built in the center, our board has wisely designated this renewable resource for keeping housing within the budgets of our residents.

I hope that these wonderful trees may one day lead to reforestation of our dormant cranberry bogs and inspire a festival to celebrate our annual two-by-four harvest.

Bob Johnson
Harwich

Editor:

On a recent Saturday night, my husband, a senior living with Alzheimer's, had trouble entering a local pizza shop. A smiling, friendly gentleman left the restaurant to help us in and hold the doors. Later he presented us with a generous gift certificate to “use on your next visit." He also held the doors as we left. Kindness, compassion and generosity are alive and well in Harwich. I thank this good man and intend to “pay his thoughtfulness forward.” I encourage everyone to do the same.

Susan Buoniconti
Chatham

Editor:

I grew deep roots in this community knowing I had a place and a purpose, to love you and protect you, buffeting you from wind and protecting you from rain. I have quietly stood by you breathing in and out for you. But now I am to be killed to make space for your loud, polluting toys. Grant me one last wish: Never say I encroached on you…

Christine Claireaux 
Orleans

Editor:

On Sunday, Oct. 25 I had the privilege of standing in line to pay my respects to a very old friend. As I looked at the many hundreds of people there, both young and old, I realized Roger Ling was blessed with a special gift that many people only wish they had. I always felt special in his company. But standing in that line, listening to the stories others shared about Roger, I realized he made everybody feel special. Yes, Roger loved fast cars and beautiful women, but it went far beyond that. He genuinely loved people and had a gift for remembering the finer details of their lives.

I feel truly blessed by the spice Roger added to my life and, like so many others, will miss him greatly. As for you, Roger, now that you’re on the flip side, use your influence to make this planet even better than when you left it.

Jack Ferreira
Chatham

Editor:

Readers may have noticed competing protests along Iyannough Road outside of Health Imperatives. Far-right religious folks have been holding prayer vigils outside of the clinic since late September while feminists and clergy of many faiths have been standing to support the clinic staff, patients, and everyone's right to bodily autonomy, a core principle of healthy democracy.

Given the daily onslaught against all aspects of our democracy, most people have missed the shift taking place in the rhetoric and participation of the Catholic clergy egging on parishioners with misinformation and half-truths about abortion, especially about the new Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act. They say they are peaceful and prayerful, but the words of priests and bishops are laying the foundation for the possibility that a disturbed individual might take violent action against clinics, or women, or doctors, because they believe they are doing “God’s work.” Perhaps they have forgotten that the Church was forced to reckon with this back in 1994 when an anti-abortion zealot killed two clinic workers in Brookline?

I can’t help but think that, as the vigil-keepers outside of Health Imperatives recite the Hail Mary prayer, they are oblivious to the irony that they would likely have Mary die of sepsis or bleed out in a hospital parking lot. So much for being "pro-life."

Laurie Veninger
North Truro

Editor:

Owning a valuable home does not mean that a homeowner can afford the costs that come with it.

In February 2025, the Barnstable Board of Health granted a Centerville family a three-year extension to connect their home to the public sewer system. The elderly homeowners argued that their limited income made them unable to afford the connection. This problem is not isolated. At the same meeting, another resident disclosed that he was still repaying a $17,000 loan for septic system work.

These cases highlight a growing concern. Barnstable's Phinney's Lane sewer expansion will extend service to approximately 550 properties, helping reduce nitrogen pollution in the Centerville River watershed. While environmentally necessary, these improvements risk imposing substantial financial burdens on residents. Based on Zillow’s data, the typical home value in Centerville is $693,000. For elderly homeowners who are on fixed incomes, their decades of appreciation don’t necessarily translate into disposable cash for new sewer connections.

Provincetown already recognizes this distinction. In fact, its 2024–2025 sewer assistance program excluded primary residences from asset limits when determining subsidy eligibility. Barnstable should follow Provincetown’s lead, assessing household income, savings, and financial obligations when expecting that residents pay for sewer connections. Targeted subsidies would allow the town to protect its waterways without jeopardizing residents' financial security.

A cleaner environment should not come at the cost of forcing longtime residents into financial hardship.

Chun-Yi Wang
Centerville