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.

Town Meeting solar vote was democracy working as intended

Two recent letters to the editor took issue with the defeat of the solar farm article at our last Town Meeting. I respect the passion, but both miss why it failed. The reasons are not hard to find.

 Notice that nearly every resident who rose to oppose the article began with “I support solar, but…” That qualifier was said for a reason. In this town, questioning any climate proposal, even thoughtfully, risks being labeled a denier. Once that label lands, your opinion is dismissed and debate is shut down before it begins. That does not build coalitions. It breeds resentment and bad projects.

This proposal required clearcutting acres of land, habitat that neighbors and abutters know intimately. One committee member dismissed those neighbors as mere dog walkers. In my view, that condescension is precisely why the article lost. People who walk that land every day deserve a seat at the table, not insults from the microphone.

One letter warned that our grandchildren face a ruined planet because of this vote. The other proposed dismantling Town Meeting because the vote did not go their way. Both overreach. A single vote on a single parcel of land is not a verdict on the climate, and Town Meeting did not fail, the solar project did. People showed up and voiced their concerns. That is democracy working as intended. As for the claim of minority rule: A similar number of residents have consistently participated in Town Meeting over the years. No one raised objections when Town Meeting funded projects they supported. Raising it only now says more about the loss.

Most residents would support solar if the process is transparent, if it does not require destroying a forest to save the environment, and if the economics pencil out. Payback periods are rarely discussed, and the full cost to the town after grants is seldom made clear. Residents deserve to see the full financial picture before being asked to vote. Bring a proposal that meets those tests, genuinely include the neighbors most affected, and it will pass. That is not NIMBYism or obstructionism. That is how trust is earned.

Brad Besse
Westcott Road

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