Public Access Is Alive
To the editor:
Reports of the demise of public access television, as in your July 24 article “Newscasts Seek New Home After Lower Cape TV Layoffs” [page A10], have been greatly exaggerated.
Coverage of LCTV’s downsizing has conflated three categories of programming (public, educational, government) into “public access,” which is broadly correct but misleading. LCTV provided public and educational channels to the five towns from Truro to Brewster, but the government channels broadcast from each town hall are still alive and well.
Cable subscriptions have declined but not so much as to make public access impossible. Comcast is obligated by law to return to each town up to 5 percent of the town’s gross annual subscription revenue. Each town then sends a portion of that money to LCTV to fund the public and education channels.
Public access is a right. At Orleans Town Hall, we record, livestream, broadcast, and archive the meetings of some 30 boards and committees from 8 in the morning until 10 at night; provide real-time remote access to meetings; support in-room assistive listening tech and presentations; and generally dedicate ourselves to providing the transparency that is the lifeblood of local government. Each town has its own staff whose work to provide access should be recognized.
Migration to streaming services does present a serious obstacle for public, educational, and government access but not an insurmountable one. The Communications Act of 1934 established the FCC and required public access from telecommunications companies in return for their use of public roads. It was amended in 1984 with the wide adoption of cable television, and it was amended again in 1992. Bill S.41 in the Mass. Senate proposes requiring streaming services to provide those public access funds, adapting yet again to a new era of technology.
Mia Baumgarten
Orleans
The writer is the media program coordinator for the town of Orleans. She wrote this letter as an individual, not on behalf of the town.
Questioning Tourism Data
To the editor:
Regarding the article “Provincetown Tourism Data Show Ups and Downs” by Paul Benson [July 31, front page], I question the usefulness of tax receipts that show an increase of 9 percent in sales at the town’s hotels, motels, and campgrounds and an increase of 10 percent at restaurants in the first half of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024. These numbers leave unanswered a critical question: are these increased sales a result of a larger number of patrons or higher prices?
As a partner in the Waterford Inn and former Waterford Grill from 2009 to 2016 and a Provincetown Business Guild board member from 2018 to 2021, I believe that revenue figures alone explain little about visitor numbers. I think most residents and repeat visitors would agree that prices have increased steeply here — at some establishments, double what they were just a few years ago. These price increases are understandable, as many establishments face mounting operating costs, food costs, and employee costs, including housing.
The Independent has reported that the Linchris Hotel Corp. now owns 31 percent of Provincetown’s hotel rooms. Visiting friends have told me that room rates at those hotels are much higher than they used to be and that independent hotels are more expensive, too.
Without examining these price increases, I don’t see how the quoted tax figures could tell us much about the number of visitors in town.
Michael Dru Kelley
Provincetown
Septic Mandates in Wellfleet
To the editor:
I appreciate John Cumbler’s passionate concern about protecting Wellfleet’s harbor, and I agree that addressing nitrogen pollution is a serious priority. His recent op-ed column, however [“Wellfleet’s Wastewater Choices,” July 24, page A3], misrepresents current science, state regulations, and the town’s planning efforts.
Contrary to Cumbler’s implication, the state does not currently require Wellfleet to implement the most restrictive septic rules. Because the town has submitted a notice of intent and a Targeted Watershed Management Plan (TWMP), it is exempt from the new Title 5 nitrogen-sensitive area regulations while the plan is under review. This flexibility allows towns to pursue strategic, equitable solutions like sewer expansion, cluster systems, and targeted upgrades.
The select board is not “stalling.” It unanimously submitted an amended TWMP outlining a phased approach focused on high-impact areas and commissioned expanded sewer modeling and financial analysis. What many residents oppose is premature enforcement of costly septic mandates — some exceeding $100,000 — before the plan has been approved. Nearly all towns in nitrogen-sensitive areas are using sewering as the primary strategy. Requiring septic upgrades in areas that may be sewered could place unfair burdens on working residents.
Overreliance on enhanced Innovative/Alternative systems is risky. These units are expensive, require continuous maintenance and monitoring, are not approved for general use, and have not shown consistent long-term performance. If the town cannot demonstrate sufficient nitrogen reduction through these systems, it may face an administrative consent order requiring emergency sewering — without access to state funding.
We must also plan for emerging contaminants like PFAS, pharmaceuticals, and microplastics, which these septic systems cannot remove. Sewers offer broader protection for public health and water quality. The science shows Wellfleet still has time to act wisely. A coordinated plan led by the town, not enforced through blanket septic mandates, gives us the best path forward.
Michael DeVasto
Wellfleet
The writer is a former member of the Wellfleet Select Board.
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.
