LETTERS TO THE EDITOR POLICY

Letters to the Editor Policy
 

  • The word-count limit for letters is 350, including signatures (with exceptions at the discretion of the editor).
  • Letters may be edited for length, style, and clarity.
  • Email letters to editor@harvardpress.net with “Letter to the Editor” in the subject line, or send by regular mail to Editor, The Harvard Press, P.O. Box 284, Harvard, MA 01451. Deadline is 5 p.m. Tuesday to be included in that Friday's edition.
  • Letters should include your name, address, and phone number. Phone numbers and house numbers will not be printed; they are used only for verification.
  • We will not print anonymous letters, form letters, blanket-mail letters, or letters that we consider libelous.
  • We will not print more than one letter from the same person in any given week.
  • Letters must be signed by individuals; we do not accept group names as signatures. Up to four people may sign a letter on behalf of a group; all must provide addresses and phone numbers.
  • During contests for public office, we will not publish endorsement letters the Friday before an election. Based on space availability, we may limit the number of endorsement letters in a given week, but will strive to print a balanced representation of letters received. We will not publish negative letters about any candidate.
  • All letters may be read online by Harvard Press subscribers who are logged-on registered users of the website.

Among competing needs, affordable housing must remain a town goal

I want to clarify a comment that was attributed to me in last week’s Press article on the continuing effort to bring solar to town. I was quoted as summarizing the possible uses of the gravel pit site as “just housing, just solar, or both.”

In fact, my comment was not a summary of possible uses but a request for clarification: Was the gravel pit still being proposed for the solar array that was presented at Annual Town Meeting in May; was it still a priority location for affordable/mixed income housing; or was some combination of these two uses—or some other use (e.g. conservation)—being proposed?

My understanding was that this site was no longer under consideration for the solar array following its narrow defeat at the May Town Meeting. It has never been a priority acquisition for conservation, and while it has long been considered a priority location for housing—first by the Housing Partnership, which 20 years ago commissioned a feasibility study and conceptual design for the site, and more recently by the Municipal Affordable Housing Trust—the town never pursued developer interest in the site. Today it remains an underutilized asset.

Not having moved forward with the housing proposal years ago, then not moving forward with the solar project this year, were missed opportunities to meet important town needs, in my opinion. However, the layout of the solar array presented at the May Town Meeting precludes the use of this site for the housing proposals put forth in the 1990s and 2000s because the solar array covers virtually the same footprint as those earlier housing proposals—not surprising as the “buildable” area was prescribed (for both uses) by considerations such as setbacks from existing residential areas, wetlands and conservation land, soils, slope, etc.

As the article noted, the Housing Trust has made a request of the Select Board that it be included in future discussions concerning the disposition and reuse of all town properties. Harvard has many needs and limited assets. There will always be competing goals: environmental stewardship, energy efficiency, educational and recreational uses, and municipal services, to name a few. Affordable housing needs to be among them.

Bonnie Heudorfer
Stow Road

Please login or register to post comments.
Latest News
Latest Features