Wetland Laws Tough
Tom Vannah ("No Time to Relax," Oct. 4, 2007) stated that some residents felt that the Massachusetts wetlands protection laws were onerous. It would be best to shed some light on those attitudes. Consider a lot or tract of rural land 400 feet wide with a 12-inch-wide perennial stream running through the center. If the homeowner/taxpayer read the law, they would find that the protected "resource area" was defined as being 200 feet wide on either side of this stream: an area 100 feet broader than the length of a football field and running the entire length of the stream. (It is ironic that in city limits where major river damage is created by toxic runoff, winter road sand/salt, silt, etc., this protected area is only 25 feet wide.) Should this rural property owner/taxpayer begin to clear an area to garden, remove invasive plants, or create a campsite or a place to keep a horse or cow, they would probably meet up with the local Conservation Commission.
Conservation Commission actions are often instigated by an anonymous tip and documented by aerial images of the property. Here in Massachusetts it seems that warrantless surveillance of private property by satellite and the use of these images does not require judicial oversight. The average property- or homeowner simply does not know this stuff and when they discover the breadth of the law it can seem incomprehensible, overly restrictive, and onerous. These attitudes are more fundamental than a Big Box store debate of the type Tom Vannah suggests.
Phil Grant
via email
*
The Library Lobby
Although I am not a member of the Pioneer Valley Project, I attended a couple of City Council meetings about the fate of the Springfield public libraries four or five years ago and have lobbied for their continued existence ever since then. I was appalled by the membership of the Springfield Library and Museums Association, whose movers and shakers were almost exclusively not Springfield residents, and whose attitude was distinctly not community-oriented. They actually tried to put the main library on State Street on the market—for condos, businesses, who knows.
My (then) local library, Forest Park on Belmont, was closed, completely and for months. Since then I live closer to the downtown main branch. The point is that the Forest Park branch has reopened, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday—a minor victory, but a victory nonetheless. I only mention this because the cover of the Valley Advocate ("Bread and Rosaries," Oct. 11, 2007) shows the Forest Park branch in such a negative light, showing a big CLOSED sign on the door and clearly distressed people on the stairs. I consider this a bit misleading insofar as it is a very user-friendly branch open four days a week. It is a tough battle in a city with such giant deficits, but libraries are always worth fighting for.
Elizabeth Lancaster
via email
