‘A Dangerous Precedent’
To the editor:
I am writing as an alumna of Provincetown High School, Class of 2007, in response to the recent firing of employees of the Cape Cod National Seashore. One of the employees highlighted in William von Herff’s Feb. 27 front page article “Feds Terminate Three National Seashore Staff” was former PHS science teacher John Hanlon.
I and my classmates David Anderson, Pele Berg, Katie Brandt, Chad Edwards, Laurel Felton, Melissa Hanson, Helen Hemley, Brandon Lillie, Dimitri Papetsas, and Katy Ward, all former students of Mr. Hanlon, can speak to his character, dedication, and passion for his work. He encouraged us to appreciate the National Seashore, taking us on many field trips into the Province Lands, and he shared his love of natural science with us.
The fact that Mr. Hanlon and his fellow terminated federal employees received impersonal emails suggesting that their “subject matter knowledge, skills, and abilities” did “not meet the Department’s current needs” is absurd, demonstrably false, and sets a dangerous precedent for stewardship of this precious ecosystem.
Mr. Hanlon’s dedication to instilling learning and protecting the Cape Cod National Seashore is vital, as its establishment in 1961 allowed it to survive as one of the sole remaining and intact Provincetown environments from our childhoods, our parents’ childhoods, and our grandparents’ childhoods. Losing knowledgeable guardians of this jewel will only make it more vulnerable.
We vehemently oppose Hanlon’s termination as well as all other sudden and unjust termination of CCNS employees.
Racine Oxtoby
North Truro
Wellfleet’s Watershed Plan
To the editor:
Re “Select Board Delays Vote on Watershed Management Plan” [Feb. 27, page A6]:
Your readers need to be aware that the town of Wellfleet had submitted a draft watershed plan to the Dept. of Environmental Protection in July 2023. The DEP’s response to that submission was long delayed, partly due to a change of administration and because the DEP was changing some of its own regulation requirements.
When it finally responded, the DEP was largely supportive of the plan but wanted to see an increase in the size of the proposed sewer district, particularly in areas that had direct interface with the harbor. The DEP was open to including aquaculture and the Herring River project in the plan but did not deem them quantifiable enough as interventions to be worthy of credits toward the plan’s nitrogen reduction goals.
The town’s consultants have worked to tweak the original draft to meet the concerns of the DEP. There have been multiple presentations and updates on the second submission. The board of health heard the worries of residents and drastically altered its proposed septic regulations. The current version is a modest approach to dealing with the cesspools that are still in use.
Somehow this narrative has been completely ignored, and the select board has tied the second submission up in knots.
Select board member Sheila Lyons is right: further delay jeopardizes potential funding for this project. But more than money is at stake. With every day that goes by, Wellfleet’s water quality is degrading — the water that supports the town’s $9.5-million shellfish industry.
Everyone needs to wrap their head around what Wellfleet will do when the state comes in and demands remediation.
Kathleen E. Bacon
Wellfleet
The writer is a former member of the Wellfleet Select Board.
Eckman and the RTE
To the editor:
Re “Part-Time Residents Question Eckman’s Reversal on RTE” [Feb. 20, page A4]:
Using assessors’ data for the average single-family homeowner in Eastham, here’s the impact of the residential tax exemption:
With a 10-percent RTE, a part-time resident’s property taxes would increase $281 — $629 more than a full-time resident who takes the RTE would pay. With a 20-percent RTE, the increase would be $587, $1,316 more than the RTE-reduced tax bill. At 35 percent, the increase would be $1,103, $2,471 more than a full-time resident’s bill, and a 50-percent RTE would increase that tax bill by $1,699, or $3,808 more than a full-time resident would pay.
Most taxpayers would not consider these increases “a few hundred dollars,” as Aimee Eckman described them, and once the RTE is implemented, it will result in increasing yearly costs based on the tax rate and property values. The difference between what a part-timer would pay in taxes and what a full-time resident would pay is significant.
Eckman said that a 10-percent RTE would be the starting point, and that towns always start low before going higher. That is a clear indicator that the select board will raise the RTE percentage as fast as possible to the maximum. It’s time for the select board to stop trying to solve a problem it has not taken the time to understand, acknowledge the true impact on all taxpayers, and reassess its financial approach over the longer term. It needs to respect part-time resident taxpayers instead of belittling the costs imposed on them.
The Eastham Part-Time Resident Taxpayers Association stands ready to help those truly in need of financial assistance in our town. However, that assistance should be targeted to those who actually need the help and not include those who can clearly pay their own way.
Tom McNamara
Weymouth and Eastham
The writer is president of the Eastham Part-Time Resident Taxpayers Association.
‘We Will Fight for Children’
To the editor:
The members of the Truro Education Association believe in the promise of public education to unlock endless opportunities for children. On March 4, the Protect Our Kids Day of Action, we here at Truro Central School stood with students, parents, educators, and community allies across the nation who came together to raise the alarm about the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle the U.S. Dept. of Education and make devastating cuts to public schools.
Federal education funding exists to provide opportunity for our most vulnerable children. These funds go to hiring teachers and school staff and programs that support literacy and math skills in rural, suburban, and urban communities in every part of the country. They ensure that children from low-income families have many of the same rich educational experiences and after-school programs that children from wealthy backgrounds enjoy.
Students with disabilities will face even greater challenges. The administration’s plan will cut funding for special education services, taking away the critical support that 7.5 million students with disabilities rely on to succeed in school. Cutting these services would set them back, limiting their potential and stripping them of their right to a fair and equal education.
This isn’t just a policy debate; it’s a question of whether we, as a nation, believe in giving every child the opportunity to succeed.
Our elected officials need to hear loud and clear that it is incumbent on them to protect and expand investments in our schools and students.
We will fight for the children who need us the most — the children whose futures are on the line if these cuts go through. We will protect our kids and hope you will join us.
Debra Raymond
Eastham
The writer is co-president of the Truro Education Association.
An Alternative to Regionalizing
To the editor:
The item titled “Regionalization Study” in Wellfleet Currents [page A15] last week — about Brewster, Orleans, Eastham, and Wellfleet discussing regionalizing the elementary schools — leapt out at me.
I was on the school committee back around the turn of the century when enrollment at the Wellfleet school was about double what it is now. My children went through the system, including a somewhat checkered career in their middle-school years.
May I suggest, based on experience and some institutional knowledge, that a better solution than regionalizing the elementary schools would be to eliminate the middle school and use the extra space at the elementary buildings to educate our children in their own communities right up to high school.
This is not a new idea. Many have questioned the institution of the middle school, which had its beginnings in the middle of the last century based on concern for what was considered the singular needs of prepubescent children. Given what I know about this age group, I am fairly certain that they are not served well by being herded into one building. To have some seniority in the school they grew up in might level some young heads; being surrounded by teachers and a school culture that are familiar may comfort others.
Think of this: if the elementary schools were regionalized, would we then be busing our younger children away from town to larger schools? What is the educational advantage of that? And would that building need to be built? Certainly, one would need to be expanded.
Rather than regionalize the elementary schools, let’s take the opportunity to revise the system for the sake of our children.
Andrea Pluhar
Wellfleet
Shocked and Ashamed
To the editor:
I watched the beginning of the broadcast last Friday of the meeting between President Zelensky of Ukraine and President Trump and Vice President Vance with some hope that they could move forward toward ending the war that Russia started in 2022 by invading Ukraine.
That did not last long. I witnessed our president and vice president bully and humiliate Zelensky over and over.
How can the president claim to represent the best of our democratic system and behave in such a deplorable way? I was shocked and so ashamed. Intimidating and demeaning another person is classic bullying, and it is unacceptable.
Constance Moquist
Provincetown
What Would Thomas Think?
To the editor:
“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the other,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in Notes on the State of Virginia.
I wonder what Jefferson would think about President/King Donald Trump and Elon “Chainsaw” Musk ignoring the Constitution and dismantling the federal government.
Mike Rice
Wellfleet
Letters to the Editor
The Provincetown Independent welcomes letters from readers on all subjects. They must be signed with the writer’s name, home address, and telephone number (for verification). Letters will be published only if they have been sent exclusively to the Independent. They should be no more than 300 words and may be edited for clarity, accuracy, conciseness, and good taste. Longer pieces (up to 600 words) may be submitted for consideration as op-ed commentary. Send letters to [email protected] or by mail to P.O. Box 1034, Provincetown, MA 02657. The deadline for letters is Monday at noon for each week’s edition.
