To the Editor:
On March 31, the Marion Select Board did something small that carries large consequences: it removed Article 31 from the Town Meeting Warrant. The article would have let residents decide whether to transfer land from the Marine Resources Commission (MRC) back to the Select Board, land that could support a proposed Parkland, and, more importantly, land that belongs to the public.
Articles 2–30 passed without discussion. Article 31 was different. Clerk Norman Hills observed that the MRC no longer has a significant use for the parcel it received in 2009. Reassigning the parcel would lead to better management and stewardship. However, Chairman Randy Parker opposed this measure and, along with Vice Chair John Hoagland, voted to remove it from the Warrant. Clerk Hills was the only one who voted to keep the question before Town voters.
That decision did more than halt a proposal. It removed the public from the decision.
Island Wharf is not just another parcel. Its 1901 deed is explicit: the land is to be used for public, non-commercial purposes. Yet today, commercial activity and vehicle storage occupy portions of the site. The damage is visible. More importantly, it conflicts with the deed and the town’s obligation to protect a shared asset.
At the same time, planning around Island Wharf is accelerating. At recent MRC meetings, officials have discussed parking management, seasonal permits for commercial vehicles, and coordination through the harbormaster. At an April meeting, Chair Vincent Malkoski remarked that “the idea that you can never put stuff on the grass is just not a reality.” That statement reflects a broader shift, from asking whether the land should be protected to how its use can be accommodated.
Residents are paying attention. Many showed up on April 28 expecting to discuss parking, only to be told the topic would not be heard. They left without answers.
This is why Article 31 matters. A harbor management plan effectively considers water, land, boating, fishing, safety, and access. Parking is part of that. But when decisions affect land bound by clear legal limits, public input is not optional. It is essential.
Instead, the public forum where this question belonged – Town Meeting – was closed off. Discussions continue in committees and planning sessions, but without the one mechanism that guarantees every resident a voice and a vote.
No single action proves intent. But the pattern is hard to ignore: routine items rushed through; one consequential article singled out and removed, and parallel planning moving forward elsewhere. The result is the same regardless of motive: less transparency, less accountability, and less public trust.
Island Wharf is a test. Will Marion honor the plain language of its deed? Will it protect a public space from gradual erosion into commercial use? And will it trust its residents enough to let them decide?
The land’s purpose is clear. Its condition is increasingly clear. What remains in question is whether the town will include the public in shaping what comes next, or continue to decide it for them.
Eileen J. Marum, Marion
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. All letters must be typed and submitted directly to: news@wanderer.com.
