Meetings Ahead
Most meetings in Wellfleet are remote only, but some are held in person. Go to www.wellfleet-ma.gov/calendar and click on the meeting you want to watch, then follow the instructions on the agenda.
Thursday, April 25
- Natural Resources Advisory Board, 2 p.m.
- Zoning Board of Appeals, 6:30 p.m., Adult Community Center and online
Wednesday, May 1
- Conservation Commission, 4 p.m.
Conversation Starter
Backshore Watch
At its meeting on April 12, the cable internet and cellular service advisory committee discussed adding cameras to its beach Wi-Fi project.
For a year, the committee has been developing a plan to bring public Wi-Fi to Cahoon Hollow, White Crest, and Lecount Hollow beaches. It brought the plan to the select board on April 2 to request $55,000 to add to a $200,000 grant from the state to fund the project. At that meeting, advisory committee chair Josh Yeston told the board that cameras were not included in the project.
But a week later, on April 11, committee vice chair Steven Kopits posted on a Wellfleet social media page that the committee was “in the process of selecting equipment,” and “one topic which has arisen is cameras.”
Kopits, who is running for select board in the April 29 town election, said that the cameras would be connected to a “Wellfleet app” where beachgoers could go to determine whether there are parking spots available. Additional cameras could be installed at restaurants in town so people could view the lines there, he said.
“I personally would be thrilled to have parking cams and wait-in-line cams at the restaurants,” Kopits said.
At the committee’s April 12 meeting, Yeston said he had reviewed a T-Mobile grant application that Kopits was working on and found Kopits had included cameras in the project’s scope of services despite the group having debated and decided against beach surveillance.
Committee members expressed frustration that Kopits had posted on social media without consulting them.
“We went in front of the select board, and we said in no uncertain terms that cameras were not a part of this scope,” said Yeston. “To say that they were still being discussed was misleading and misrepresented the facts.”
Kopits said that the post was to “suss out public opinion” on cameras. Kopits said the response to his post was “sufficiently controversial” and that public opinion was “at best a split decision.”
The Independent reviewed 70 comments that took a stance on Kopits’s proposal; only six were in favor of cameras. —Sam Pollak
