Letter to the Editor: An Open Letter to the USPS (Excluding Old Lyme P.O.) — Stop Messing With My Mail

To the Editor:

To Whom it Should Concern at the USPS

Please stop messing with my mail!

Let me remind you: Title 39 of the U.S. Code states that the Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities.

Unfortunately, your recent “transformative” initiative has had “unintended” consequences that impacted overall service levels.

Is it possible that these consequences, “unintended” or not; have resulted in an unacceptable degradation of the Postal Service, — which is also relied upon by many Americans for prescription refills, pension checks, and, we thought mail-in absentee ballots in November?

You have already warned many states that those transformative misadventures will likely make USPS compliance with state-mandated deadlines impossible to meet.

This may be another moment in history where “failure is not an option”. God help us if that is not also your goal.

Note that I am not suggesting that this is a local issue at USPO/Old Lyme.

Sincerely,

Thomas D. Gotowka,
Old Lyme.

Letter to the Editor: Old Lyme Land Trust’s Assessment of Bucky Brook Beaver Situation Challenged

To the Editor:

I recently read the statement provided to you by the Old Lyme Land Trust in February. I find it odd that no one from your organization met with Dave Berggren to confirm the lowering level of the pond after one dam was removed.  What’s more egregious is that when I took the Bucky Brook path just yesterday I found 4 beaver dams as well as the beaver’s lodge and how the volunteers did not see these is beyond me and they should be ashamed to have suggested otherwise.

The entire Bucky Brook needs to be dredged as well as the beavers removed.

I have video documentation of all the beaver dams if you want to see.

Sincerely,

Lee Detwiler,
Jenkintown, PA.

 

Letter to the Editor: An Open Letter to the Old Lyme Community … with Two Challenges

Editor’s Note: We published this letter July 22. We have received comments almost daily related to it — the publication date shown reflects the date of the most recent comment. PLEASE NOTE THAT AS OF JULY 31, 2020 COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE ARE NOW CLOSED.

To the Editor:

An Open Letter to the Old Lyme Community 

Several weeks ago a group of two or three hundred residents of Old Lyme marched from Town Hall to the First Congregational Church. On that day, people of varying political perspectives and social backgrounds joined together to give voice to the pain, indignation, and yes, hope, that meaningful change could be enacted to address the systemic racism that continues to plague our country. It was a heartening moment, one that was reenacted a week later in Lyme, thanks to the leadership of several thoughtful and passionate students from the Lyme-Old Lyme High School. Both events were the occasion for our community to acknowledge its limitations, even while articulating our broad aspirations, that toward which we hope and strive. 

Foremost among our limitations is the scarcity of people of color in our two towns, a fact made overwhelmingly clear by the rallies themselves. The faces gathered on the church lawn and on the ball field in Lyme were predominantly white. Foremost among our aspirations is the will to address that painful evidence of de facto segregation, and to make our town more welcoming and open to people of all races and backgrounds. To do that, we’ll have to ask, and hopefully answer, difficult questions about what makes our schools, our houses of worship, our public spaces, our town boards and committees, and yes, our housing, so overwhelmingly homogenous, so overwhelmingly white. 

Two years ago Old Lyme went through a series of public hearings about an affordable housing project that would have been built under the direction of HOPE Partnership. During those hearings, many residents voiced a variety of concerns about the location of that project, while also saying that they were broadly supportive of affordable housing – just not there. 

Now is the time to reopen that discussion. Now is the time to trust that what was spoken during those hearings, a broad affirmation of the need for affordable housing in Old Lyme (and Lyme), was actually the case. Now is the time to trust that the pain, outrage, and hope that brought so many of us together last month might actually translate into a meaningful gesture to address the de facto segregation of so many of Connecticut’s towns, including our own. Now is the time to come together as a community, and to finally construct the affordable housing that we so desperately need if we are to be the welcoming and open community we wish to be. 

In a recent conversation with HOPE Partnership, they shared that the organization expended over $100,000 as a result of costs incurred in Old Lyme two years ago. This included land deposits, architects fees, engineering fees, and legal fees. That loss has severely impaired their ability to continue their mission of building affordable housing along the Connecticut Shoreline – though it’s surely worth noting that Madison has recently approved a HOPE project, with another currently underway in Essex. Still, among the consequences of the Old Lyme incident is that HOPE has not been able to hire a new executive director after their previous director left. HOPE Partnership is one of the foremost agencies working to address the systemic inequities of our region, inequities that have profound implications for the racial injustices that have weighed heavily on our hearts over the last months. 

And so here are two challenges. First, can we in Old Lyme come together to collectively raise the $100,000 it will take to replenish the losses HOPE experienced two years ago, helping to restore their capacity to pursue their mission? Through the generosity of two anonymous sources, the First Congregational Church is able to seed that effort with $25,000. That’s a start, but the gap remains. Might some of the other organizations in town be willing to contribute to that effort? Might individuals, with contributions both large and small, be willing to help meet that goal? It would go a long way toward binding the wounds that still exist from two years ago. And it would be a meaningful way to address the systemic injustices that our nation is finally confronting. 

If you’re willing, you can contribute to HOPE Partnership at: 

HOPE Partnership Inc. 90 Main Street, Suite 105B Centerbrook, CT 06409 

We also understand that not everyone is in a position to help financially during this time, particularly because of COVID-19 and its aftershocks. Moral support is also deeply appreciated. You can show that in the form of a letter or short note to HOPE, which would go a long way toward encouraging those who have volunteered their time and labor to construct affordable homes in our region. 

The second challenge is this: we need to find a site where affordable housing can be built, and we need to get out of the way and allow the project to move forward. We are encouraged that the recently formed Old Lyme Affordable Housing Committee is working to identify sites in town that might be suitable, and we support those efforts. 

It won’t single-handedly solve the inequities and injustices that plague our country and our region. But it will create an opening, one that suggests that we’re listening, that we’re responding, and that we care. 

In hope … 

Sincerely,

Rev. Dr. Steven R. Jungkeit, Old Lyme.
Rev. Laura Fitzpatrick-Nager, Old Lyme.
Rev. Carleen Gerber, Old Lyme.

Editor’s Note: All three authors are Ministers of the First Congregational Church of Old Lyme.

PLEASE NOTE THAT AS OF JULY 31, 2020 COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE ARE NOW CLOSED.

Letter to the Editor: Parks & Rec. Leaders Challenged Over Use of Old Lyme Ballfields by Private Entity That Brought in Hundreds of Out-of-Towners

To the Editor:

Old Lyme Parks and Rec. Commission has dedicated much of their energy over the last few years, and particularly the last few months, to limiting the activities in Hains Park. Most recently, this has been executed under three guiding principles: limit the use of public property by private entities, limit the use of Old Lyme property by out-of-town people, namely residents of Lyme, CT and control the spread of COVID-19.

On June 27, lifeguards and parking attendants were stationed at Hains Park to control the influx of out of towners, and ensure social distancing, at taxpayer expense. On that particular Saturday, 3 out of town visitors were identified and barred entry, out of a total of 8 park users. Meanwhile, across town, at Cross Lane, chaos reigned. A private entity had commandeered our ball fields and brought in hundreds of ball-players from as far as the COVID epicenter of Westchester County.

Inquiries have not yet revealed a completed Parks Usage Form, as required by Parks and Recreation posted rules. No social distancing practices were detectable. The Emergency Management Director had not been notified, as has been required in May at Hains Park. Parking was so renegade as to impede the egress of Old Lyme emergency vehicles, stationed at that facility. When the situation was brought to the attention of a Park and Rec employee on Saturday, alternative parking was recommended, but the event was allowed to continue on Sunday without any mitigations.

This inconsistency brings into question the integrity of Parks and Recreation leadership. It is time that Old Lyme taxpayers are served by leadership who actually cares about parks and recreation.

Sincerely,

Candace Fuchs,
Old Lyme.

Letter to the Editor: Sen. Formica Clarifies His Support of Expanding CT’s Absentee Ballot Rules

To the Editor:

I was disappointed to see David Collins write columns in The Day, (“Can Connecticut GOP block safe voting,” June 11 and “The two sides of Sen. Formica’s mouth on early voting,” June 26), which ignore many facts and try to paint all Connecticut Republicans as wanting to risk people’s lives in a public health emergency as a way of suppressing votes. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Contrary to what is stated in Collins’ columns, I absolutely believe that in the current environment there is a need for vulnerable populations and those with preexisting conditions to vote by absentee ballot, and if Collins had called me before writing columns attacking me, I would have explained my perspective in detail. In this unique situation, I support no-excuse absentee ballots for all people, with proper safeguards in place to ensure every legal vote is counted.

As much as I would like to see every person be able to vote by absentee ballot, there is also a state constitutional question as to whether any legislature or governor has the ability to change the laws on absentee ballots because of the restrictions contained in the Connecticut Constitution. That document can only be changed by Connecticut voters through a ballot question, not by the legislature, governor or any state official.

The Connecticut Constitution does not allow for no-excuse absentee ballots, and states that the legislature may define laws for voting absentee only if a person is, “unable to appear at the polling place on the day of election because of absence from the city or town of which they are inhabitants or because of sickness or physical disability or because the tenets of their religion forbid secular activity.”

The question of what the legislature can do within these limits is currently being discussed amongst legislators and being looked at by the courts. We are awaiting an answer.

Collins wrongly jumps to conclusions about me based on a vote that took place last year long before the COVID-19 pandemic on a proposal to allow for early in-person voting, a different issue. I voted against a referendum on early in-person voting because there was no provision for a safe and secure method for which the early voting was to occur. Instead, the bill asked for a modification to the Constitution and left the safety and security provisions to be defined later. I thought it would have been fairly simple to outline the way early voting would occur with proper protections — in a town clerk’s office during a preset time period for example — and thought that was an important piece missing from the legislation.

While Collins’ intent seems to be designed to lump me and my Republican colleagues in with the division of Washington D.C., I have always worked with people on both sides of the aisle to reach solutions that help Connecticut residents. This issue is no different.

Our job as lawmakers is to make sure we have policies that protect everyone’s rights, including access to voting, the integrity of their vote and upholding the Constitution. If we can address the constitutional question and get clarity from the court as to what the legislature can legally do in regard to absentee ballots, I would vote for no-excuse absentee ballots for all, with proper safeguards during this difficult time.

Sincerely,

State Sen. Paul Formica,
Hartford & East Lyme.

Editor’s Note: State Senator Paul Formica represents the residents of the 20th Senatorial District, which includes Old Lyme along with Bozrah, East Lyme, Montville, New London, Old Saybrook, Salem, and Waterford. He serves as Deputy Senate Republican Leader, Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee and the Energy and Technology Committee, and Co-Chair of the bipartisan Tourism Caucus.