Category Archives: Letters

Letter to the Editor: ‘The Battle of the Beaches’; Who’s Oldest, How to Resolve it … Annually

Posted on by
Reply

To the Editor:

Both Revere Beach in Revere, Massachusetts; and Sound View Beach in Old Lyme proclaim themselves as “America’s oldest public beach”. Sound View history is well-documented in Jim Lampos’ wonderful “Rum Runners …”

Revere’s public beach dates back to 1896, with a rail link that actually began in 1875. Revere remains accessible today via the MBTA’s blue line. Revere was declared a national historic landmark in 2003.

Sound View Beach, on the other hand, claims that its public beach actually began in 1892, subsequent to H. J. Hilliard’s deeding of the beach property to the “unorganized general public for its perpetual use”; thus, making Sound View America’s oldest public beach.

Bad math? I don’t think so. Revere is less than 10 miles (as the drone flies) from both Harvard and M.I.T.

Incompetent Massachusetts historians? I don’t know. Perhaps a team from Yale’s Archaeologic Studies Program can sift through the ruins and ash of the Antique Shanty and corroborate our claim.

I believe that there is an opportunity to settle the issue right on the sand with an annual beach volleyball tournament between Revere and Sound View. In time this might rival both “The Race” between Harvard and Yale’s heavyweight rowers (which began in 1859); and “The Game” between Harvard and Yale’s football teams (which began in 1875). Otherwise, our respective Chambers of Commerce should get involved and resolve the dispute.

Sincerely,

Thomas D. Gotowka,
Old Lyme.

Letter to the Editor: Sound View Sewers? Town Funding Not Justified, But Consider Other Alternatives

Posted on by
6

To the Editor:

A group of Sound View property owners are voicing strong opinions regarding the funding for the proposed sewer system for Sound View, specifically why it is not considered a public works project to be funded by all Old Lyme taxpayers rather than just Sound View property owners.

In my opinion the distinction is simple. The Old Lyme taxpayers receive no benefit from the sewers for Sound View properties and have no right to access or use those private properties. Only the Sound View owners benefit and can use their properties so only they must pay for the improvement.

I think that the Sound View folks should aim their efforts in the way Merv Roberts has suggested for decades. Pressure DEEP to approve alternative on site septic systems being used in other states instead of installing sewers. Only properties tested and found to be in need of new systems would have to install them and the cost would likely be substantially less that the proposed sewer assessments and maintenance costs. The technology is available and only the “empire builders” at DEEP are refusing to consider alternatives to sewers. They mandate sewers with little or no empirical data and testing.

I’m sure that other property owners, such as those in Hawk’s Nest and elsewhere (Rogers Lake?) would gladly join the effort with Sound View to insist upon proper testing and the use of alternative septic systems.

Sincerely,

Steven A. Ross,
Old Lyme.

Letter to the Editor: Sound View Residents’ Sewer Cost Concerns are Justified

Posted on by
1

To the Editor:

Thank you for your coverage of the Sound View sewer project.  Property owners in Sound View should be aware of their potential obligation for the construction, operation, and maintenance of this system.

According to the WPCA slide presentation, the “typical average house of 1 EDU (1,242 square feet)” would be charged a “$6,000 connection fee plus a $25,007 betterment assessment” for a total of $31,007.

The per EDU assessment will be calculated on a sliding scale.  Thus a 2,500 square foot house would be charged for 2 EDUs.   In my case, my house was built in 2009, with a compliant septic system that cost me $30,000.  My home did not need any zoning variances to be built, and the town limited me to a 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath house based on the septic capacity of the lot.  The EDUs however are based on square footage of the home, not bathrooms or typical occupancy, which are also metrics allowed by state guidelines.  My EDU calculation comes to 2.5, thus my betterment assessment comes to $62,500.  Along with the $6,000 connection fee, my total assessment comes to $68,500.   This doesn’t include the actual cost of connecting to the main, which estimated at $100 per linear foot brings me into the neighborhood of $80,000.

All this for a newly built home with a state of the art septic system.

Furthermore, these per EDU cost estimates have been quickly escalating, and there is no assurance that they will not go higher.  The referendum is for the bond issue only–the cost per homeowner is not fixed by the current agreement.  As the town has made it clear that 100% of the town’s share of the sewer project will be paid by the residents of Sound View only, and all future costs will also be passed on in full to these homeowners, the exposure of Sound View property owners is unlimited.

Finally, in the likelihood that other beach communities down the line such as White Sands require sewers, or the potential Halls Road developments, Sound View homeowners have received no assurance that they will not also be on the hook for those.  We have been told that these will be considered on a “project by project” basis, and the costs for those potential sewer projects may be paid by the town as a whole, thus obligating Sound View property owners not only to pay 100% of the town’s share at Sound View, but also a share of the costs for projects elsewhere in town.

The concern of Sound View residents is well founded.

Sincerely,

Jim Lampos,
Old Lyme.

Letter to the Editor: Unite Against Vandalism, Reward Offered for Information Leading to Arrest(s)

Posted on by
1

An Open Letter to my Fellow Residents:

With great dismay, I note road after road of beaten, vandalized mailboxes in the past month.  Sill Lane, Boston Post Road, Four Mile River Road – each and every box has been hit, my own included.  This is a broken windows issue, and I offer a $1,000 personal reward to anyone our police tell me has given them information that leads to an arrest.

Vandals and petty criminals need to be on the alert – Old Lyme does not put up with such behavior, and we are united as a town against them.   Perhaps it is time for some Neighborhood Watch signs, unfortunately.  Please alert our police to anyone you may hear bragging about this thoughtless, pointless and despicable act.

Sincerely,

David Kelsey,
Old Lyme.

Editor’s Note: The photos, submitted by the author, show a selection of mailboxes in Sill Lane, which have been vandalized.

Letter to the Editor: Pre-K for Some, But Not All

Posted on by
1

SEE COMMENT ADDED 1/27. According to the writer of the Comment, the Region 18 Board of Education has changed its proposed policy to include children born between Sept. 1 and Dec. 31

To the Editor:

The LOL Board of Education has proposed to expand the current special-needs lottery pre-K program into one available to all children in the district. This is great news!  Unfortunately, there is a gaping hole in the proposed program. It introduces a September 1st age eligibility cut off date even though the state of Connecticut strongly encourages children turning five before January 1st to enter kindergarten. This discrepancy means that children born after September 1st cannot participate in the program the year before they are slated to begin kindergarten.

Leaving out children born in the last four months of the year results in one out of every three children in a potential incoming kindergarten class being excluded from attending pre-K. It seems to directly contradict the stated intentions of the program. If the proposed pre-K program wants to “ensure limited variability among kindergartners in terms of skills and school readiness,” then why are we leaving out one in three kids?  Surely kindergarten teachers would prefer all of their students, not just some, have access to pre-K before coming to them.

This program has the potential to be a transformative equalizing force for our children and for our town, but it needs to truly include every child in order to do so. If the program is just available for some of our children while leaving out the youngest members of an incoming kindergarten class, it becomes instead something great for only some and a way for others to be left behind, and that isn’t universal or fair.

If you are interested in signing a letter in support of having the LOL pre-K expansion program’s age eligibility align with that of Connecticut kindergarten, please go to https://tinyurl.com/preK4all and thanks!

Sincerely,

Danielle Kuczkowski,
Old Lyme.