Whelan’s Immigration Stance
To the editor:
In your Aug. 4 article about the upcoming sheriff’s election and our county’s 287(g) agreement [“Fate of County’s ICE Pact May Depend on Voters,” front page], you report that candidate Tim Whelan “listed some of the charges brought against immigrants who had been targeted as a result of the agreement. They included indecent assault and battery on a child under age 14, possession of a large capacity firearm, and domestic assault with intimidation of a witness.”
Whelan’s comments are misleading. The laundry list of criminal charges is intended to shock, frighten, and shut down further discussion. But let’s remember that everyone he’s talking about is already in custody for said charges and will go through the same judicial process whether they’re citizens or not. That means only a judge can order their release.
In fact, 287(g) is not about criminality at all — it’s only about deportation. It’s a program designed to help ICE prosecute immigration offenses like overstaying a visa or missing a court date and being ordered deported in absentia. ICE doesn’t prosecute criminal offenses; talking about criminal charges is just a way to drum up public support for the program.
Local police are the ones making arrests for criminal charges. Once people are brought to jail, the 287(g) empowers our sheriff to screen them for immigration status. But if our county 287(g) were to end today, nobody would be released without a proper court order.
Mark Gabriele
Wellfleet
NIMBY or Not NIMBY?
To the editor:
I take exception to “A Disconnect at the Provincetown Planning Board” [Aug. 4, page A3] by Town Manager Alex Morse, related to the proposed project at 22 Nelson Ave.
I don’t see this as a disconnect at the planning board but instead a planning board that is listening to the people who live on Nelson Avenue and at Seashore Park. This is not a NIMBY issue related to affordable housing. Only 2 of 12 units are being proposed to be affordable. This is a “make as much money as you can” project at the cost of increased traffic, noise, drainage, and a loss of a piece of forest.
If the project was composed entirely of affordable units, then I would be hard-pressed to object to it, though it would still have a negative impact on the two abutting neighborhoods.
Jim Vogel
Provincetown
The writer lives on Nelson Avenue.
Nelson Ave. and Short-Term Rentals
To the editor:
Alex Morse talks a big game when it comes to affordable housing (“A Disconnect at the Provincetown Planning Board,” Aug. 4), but talk doesn’t go far when there’s a housing crisis afoot.
Mr. Morse had the opportunity to support deed restrictions at 22 Nelson so the new units would not allow short-term rentals but chose not to pursue it. The fact that Airbnb, VRBO, and the like decimate local housing stock is no secret, but we have allowed our town officials to turn a blind eye.
What specifically is the town going to do to stop the housing scourge wreaked by short-term rentals? If deed restrictions are off the table, what other options are there?
Instead of worrying about whether the planning board is doing its job, why don’t you come up with a strategy to deal with the community-wide challenges unleashed by short-term rentals? If you’re not doing everything to solve the housing crisis, you are not doing enough.
Michael Gaucher
Provincetown
The writer lives on Nelson Avenue.
Truro’s Habitat Project
To the editor:
While I understand the concerns raised about the proposed Habitat project at 181 Route 6 [“Habitat Faces a Tough Sell for Truro Project,” Aug. 4, front page], it’s important to acknowledge that the current proposal is significantly different from what was proposed in 2013.
The houses will be moved back from the slope, a retaining wall will be built, and the number of bedrooms has been reduced. If Warren Green lives in the area, then he knows that houses can be built there without contaminating abutters’ wells. Several properties that are upslope from 181 attest to that. We can be assured that the board of health will make sure of this.
Apparently, some attendees at the July 28 forum took offense at Wendy Cullinan’s characterization of opponents. I have heard that some residents are concerned that their opposition to projects like this will label them as “anti-affordable housing.” These worries may be justified.
If you do support addressing Truro’s critical housing needs, here are some things you can do:
- Participate constructively in public meetings on affordable housing, and come with an open mind, prepared to offer solutions.
- Support the select board’s goals to create more affordable places for people to live and work in Truro.
- Contribute financially to the nonprofit organizations that are working on housing, including Highland Affordable Housing, Habitat for Humanity, the Community Development Partnership, and the Housing Assistance Corporation.
- Participate in a Habitat “build,” or volunteer at Restore.
I was at a conference recently where a speaker stated that it’s not a question of whether the Cape is changing. The question is: Will we harness that change in a positive way? I believe that Truro can do this.
Kevin Grunwald
Truro
‘How Will Democracy Survive?’
To the editor:
I was glad to read Edouard Fontenot’s “Shouldn’t We Be More Alarmed?” in the July 28 edition. He raised many concerns my husband and I share.
In his Aug. 4 response, “The Treatment of Rioters,” Brian Eastman seems to have missed the point of the commentary. His grievances are exactly what Mr. Fontenot’s article expressed concern about.
The attack on our Capitol and our democracy is not morally equivalent to protests for equal justice, even those that destroy property. I am not condoning either, but one is a game-changer for who and what America is, while the other is a cry that America can be better.
Mr. Fontenot worries that facts no longer matter over feelings. As political philosopher Hannah Arendt stated, “the ideal subjects” for dictators are “people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction … and the distinction between true and false … no longer exist.” If we cannot distinguish what is factual from what we want to believe, how will our democracy survive?
This approach is straight from Putin’s playbook and Russia’s disinformation warfare: if you can confuse issues and emphasize false narratives, then you can manipulate your citizens. A political leader who appeals to people’s prejudices, scapegoats outside groups, exaggerates dangers, and lies to stir emotions is a demagogue.
The lie that the 2020 election was stolen has done more harm to our democracy than what occurred on Jan. 6. It has destabilized our country.
The select committee hearings are not the same as a court of law. It is a Congressional investigative committee trying to get at the facts of what happened and who was responsible. I hope all Americans who care about the fragile and precious democracy that so many have fought and died for would want to know the facts.
Kathy Miller
Brewster
