To the Editor:
I found Ms. Newell’s account of the recent Mattapoisett Conservation Commission’s March 12 meeting alarming.
I also find that when a local official says something is in the “town’s interest,” they don’t usually mean “in the interest of most town residents” but rather that it is in the interest of a tiny minority who might profit from it in some way.
We currently have a ConCom Chairman who voted against a wetlands protection act the commission had been working on for two years. He is also against any state level review of the current situation.
I disagree. I still have many unanswered questions about the legality of building any residences on a property that was listed as unbuildable for over 90 years. The Chairman wants to “condition as many projects as possible” as soon as possible.
I think that instead an objective analysis of the current projects before the ConCom is in the interest of a majority of Mattapoisett residents.
We won’t get an objective opinion from town officials.
I think we do need to ask the District Attorney or the Attorney General’s office to help us sort this situation out, as soon as possible.
The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.