Category Archives: Letters

Letter to the Editor: Reader Questions Kelsey’s Position on Halls Road ‘Political Football’

Posted on by

To the Editor:

Because the Republican Party has made the HROD an issue this election season, I thought to correct a recent letter that seemed ill informed or deceptive. I offered the below to CT Examiner last week, but they have not responded. Notably, David Kelsey is listed as the principal funder of the CT Examiner on its website (1).

On October 14, CT Examiner published Emerson Colwell’s “Finance Candidate’s Backing of Halls Road Overlay Shows Lack of Judgement.” Colwell argued Board of Finance member Thompson supported the Halls Road Overlay District (HROD), and should be replaced by candidates Matthew Olson and David Kelsey.

A few facts:

  • Kelsey was a member of the Halls Road Improvement Committee (HRIC) from 2020-2023 (2). This was the key period in which the HROD plan as currently known was formed.
  • Kelsey on June 9, 2022 was THE member who motioned to forward the draft HROD to the Zoning Commission (3). This was to be the first time the Zoning Commission rejected the HROD.
  • HRIC minutes show Kelsey was an active HRIC participant and supported the plan.
  • Kelsey, a former Wall Street investment banker focused on real estate, is co-founder of an investment company headquartered in Old Lyme that owns and operates apartment complexes and other commercial properties across the United States (4).
  • Kelsey owns one property on Halls Road (5). I believe per the news at the time he claimed to buy it for altruistic purposes for the town. Kelsey’s company occupies another property in what could become the HROD. The property’s ownership is unclear per the Old Lyme GIS.  With HROD approval, it is reasonable to believe both properties would increase in value.

I do not personally know any of the candidates Mr. Colwell mentions. I do thank the three as well as our other volunteers of all or no parties upon our behalf. Mr. Kelsey has volunteered his time to the town over the years as have the others. I only wish to correct the errors.

But, if one were to take a paranoid mindset (and I do not), then … if there is anyone living in town that has the background, acumen, financial incentive, and access to massive sources of capital from across the country to build up Halls Road to the hilt, it is Republican Candidate David Kelsey and the team of Wall Street real estate investment professionals he leads.

The HROD was the result of many years of time generously volunteered by our neighbors. They did their best.  It was an open discussion with meetings, minutes, public outreach with surveys and open houses at Town Hall which many of us participated in. Greg Stroud the owner of the CT Examiner published some criticisms on legal issues, which the HRIC took to heart and made important changes. It was a non-partisan and bi-partisan effort to do something to improve things, as every generation should attempt to do for their community. Hopefully, some of its research assists the Zoning Commission in this new third round of examination of Halls Road.

What I would like to see next from the local press is an open discussion among the Republican candidates; perhaps Kelsey and a major HROD detractor. What does Kelsey think about the way things have gone down this year with his creation; it becoming a political football?  Does Kelsey and his firm have a secret plan for Halls Road?

Beware of those who peddle in unsupported accusations, drama, division, and/or deception.  Character matters.

Sincerely,

Kevin Clougherty,
Old Lyme.

Sources:

  1. https://ctexaminer.com/about/
  2. https://onboard.oldlyme-ct.gov/board/4213
  3. https://www.oldlyme-ct.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_06092022-1686
  4. https://hamiltonptinv.com/team/
  5. https://oldlymect.mapgeo.io/datasets/properties?abuttersDistance=100&latlng=41.322986%2C-72.338979&previewId=21-54-1&zoom=20

Letter to the Editor: Why Won’t Old Lyme Republicans Participate in a Debate?

Posted on by

To the Editor:

As a long term beach resident of Old Lyme and a past elected official, I have had the honor to serve with members of both parties and independents. I am however disappointed that our Republican candidates have refused to participate in a debate with our Democratic opponents.

One has to wonder why.  Perhaps they do not want to publicly defend their misleading attacks on Martha Shoemaker or perhaps their alignment with the priorities of the GOP and Project 2025 or most disturbing their support for Trump/MAGA. So much for “All politics are local”. Very disturbing.

Martha Shoemaker and her running mate, Jim Lampos, have proven themselves as dedicated public servants who “put the people of Old Lyme first”.  They have worked diligently and transparently to address long standing issues, many of which were stalled under prior Republican leadership.  Only through open meetings and community engagement have they shown what responsive, responsible government looks like.

Running a town requires Listening and being willing to engage in “Honest” discussion.  I urge my fellow residents whether you be Democratic, Republican or Independent to support them on Nov. 4-Row A for leadership that represents every resident of our beautiful town.

Sincerely,

George Finley,
Old Lyme.

Editor’s Note: The author is chair of Old Lyme’s Board of Assessment Appeals and a member of its Harbor Management Commission.

Letter to the Editor: Writer ‘Disheartened’ by Old Lyme Republican Postcard; Requests Civility, Absence of Divisiveness Going Forward

Posted on by

To the Editor:

Recently, I was very disheartened to receive a postcard from the Old Lyme Republican Party.

At a time when voters are interested in fact-based strategies for governance, this communication was an unobjective smear campaign against Martha Shoemaker. Rather than listing the items the Republican slate plans to initiate if elected, it was a list of slurs and innuendos aimed at our First Selectwoman.

In a divided nation where objectivity and cooperation are absent from the federal government, a negative communication with no details about the platform is unproductive and divisive. The voters of Old Lyme deserve candid and adult discussions of plans for the next term, not childish smear campaigns.

In an election, the future of local government should be a more productive and mature conversation.

Let’s be civil, not divisive. 

Sincerely,

Fred McCullough,
Old Lyme. 

Letter to the Editor: Martha and Jim Roll Up Their Sleeves for the People

Posted on by

To the Editor:

There has been so much negativity posted in the press this campaign season in Old Lyme, that it makes me wonder – actually makes me worry. And then I realized that it’s because the Republican candidates have no plans, just vague accusations. That’s why Mesham and Read won’t debate with Martha and Jim. Because they have no answers, only questions.

Think back to two years ago, when Republicans Griswold and Ward were in charge. Were they present in your neighborhood when there was an issue? Did they answer your questions or even acknowledge receipt of your letter or phone call? Did they offer any solutions to the town issues of sewers or Halls Road? Did they ensure adequate funding for town projects? Pave streets in the south end of town? Fix the Grassy Hill Bridge? Deal with flooding at Cross Lane and in the beach areas?  No they did not. Just kicked the can down the road leaving the new Democratic-majority board with a pile of complex issues to solve.

In the past two years, Martha and Jim rolled up their sleeves and tackled these tough issues head on. They listened to the people of Old Lyme. They inherited these leftover problems that had been festering for years under previous boards, and which “conveniently” came to a head this year due to debt service and other contractual issues taken on by the previous administration. This was not easy. Halls Road was a complex issue made worse by lots of misinformation, but in the end, the process worked. The community’s voice was heard. Is there an overlay still in planning? No. Let’s move on. When a crowd of angry homeowners crowded a Selectmen’s meeting last year, voicing concerns about speeding, they listened and created the Road and Public Safety Committee to address the issue. Martha and Jim personally showed up multiple times with shovels in hand to alleviate flooding at the Hawks’ Nest Sluiceway (AKA “the crib”), and oversaw the building of a new engineered structure there. They have increased security at the beaches, completed the Senior Center project, constructed the soon to be open Emergency Operations Center at Boughton Road, and were awarded grants to protect our fragile marshes and coastline. But it’s hard to hear about these and other accomplishments through the fog and noise of negativity from naysayers with no ideas of their own.

On Saturday, October 18th, millions of Americans took part in “No Kings Day” to celebrate democracy – leadership by the people, for the people. Let’s not go backward to the government by the “old boys network.” Let’s move forward Old Lyme!

Sincerely,

Mary Daley, 
Old Lyme.

Letter to the Editor: Checks and Balances are Important for Lyme

Posted on by

To the Editor

I’m writing as a neighbor who appreciates anyone willing to serve our town—and as a 20-year Lyme resident, who hopes that our local government stays balanced and transparent.

With that in mind, I’m concerned about a married couple, Mary Powell-St. Louis (“MARY”) and Tom St. Louis (“TOM”), seeking two of our three top seats (First Selectman and Selectman). Concentrating that much authority in one household can weaken the checks and balances small towns like Lyme rely on. Even the appearance of that concentration (of potential power) is troubling. National politics may be beyond our control; our local choices aren’t.

I attended the Republican Town Committee Open Forum hoping to hear two independent voices. Aside from a difference over how to address hydrilla in Hamburg Cove, I heard no meaningful policy distinctions between these husband and wife candidates. Several times, Mary interrupted Tom to display greater subject-matter familiarity—not to disagree on policy. When I asked what significant town issues they differed on, Mary replied, “good question,” but neither candidate was able to identify any substantive policy differences.

This matters for civic discourse. Healthy government needs open, independent debate—ideas tested in public, not settled privately. If domestic partners hold two of three seats, dissent can feel domestic rather than civic, which may chill participation, narrow options, and weaken accountability.

Relatives sometimes serve together in small towns; that’s part of community life, and I value that spirit of service, particularly when it is multi-generational. But granting two executive seats to spouses is different: it concentrates power, increases the likelihood of conflicts and recusals, and reduces the chance for genuine pushback.

This isn’t about party politics, it is about principle. And it would be the same for couples of either red or blue stripe; it’s about our town. Lyme deserves multiple, independent voices—people free to disagree and compelled to persuade. For balance, accountability, and healthy public discourse, please support independent representation, not a household slate.

Sincerely,

Sarah Crisp,
Lyme, CT.