Letters to the Editor - The Lakeville Journal - 3-11-21

Bad language doesn’t help message

In the last week or so, local people and visitors to Canaan alike have been seeing an offensively written message about President Biden in the Canaan area. I didn’t know what form this message was displayed — banner, sign or something else — until I went to the Canaan Library yesterday. Parked on Main Street, in front of the yellow Farnum Building, was a large car with the words F--- Biden painted in two-foot-high letters covering the entire back window. It’s not the political view expressed that angered me, but the prominence of inflammatory language that would be seen by people of all ages going past. 

I didn’t know whose car it was, but wanted to suggest to the owner that they either remove the expletive or park the car off the main road. I found the owner, who runs the newly opened antiques store there, and had what turned out to be an unfortunate and extremely ugly verbal confrontation in which the person declared he had his First Amendment right to free expression, but would not address the language itself, which was and continues to be my only objection.    

While the message is, of course, a hot-button issue and the right to express our opinions an honored part of American life, what about the rights of people forced to drive, walk, or ride past this facile, provocative message?

Lynn Curtis

Salisbury

Ms. Reville misinformed

In her guest commentary last week (March 4), “Responsible approaches to affordable housing in small towns,” Daly Reville mischaracterized our presentations and our responses to her questions. We believe that readers will think twice before taking what Ms. Reville says at face value.

David Berto, President, Housing Enterprises, Inc.

Enfield

Sam Giffin, Policy Analyst, Open Communities Alliance

Hartford

Voting rights must be protected

Apparently, it is not enough to have a Constitution that gives us the right to vote. As we have just witnessed, the ability to cast a ballot is what elections come down to. No sooner have we finished counting the ballots for the recent election than groups across the nation have introduced all kinds of bills to try and limit access to the ballot. In other words, there are groups that want to disenfranchise as many people as possible. Why would anyone want to do that in a country that calls itself a democracy?

There are historical roots to limiting the ballot, laws made by people who owned a certain amount of land, whose houses had a certain number of windows, who paid a certain amount of tax, to keep out people of lesser means, a different gender and color. Over the centuries, the United States chipped away at these limitations.

Connecticut is fortunate that four bills have been introduced in Hartford to maintain the changes that made the recent election work better for all its citizens: H.J. 58, H.J. 59, S.B. 901, H.B. 6464. Having shown their importance in making elections more manageable, these bills deserve support. Moving forward involves changing the state Constitution, something that has happened many times in Connecticut’s history and needs to happen again in the 21st century.

While Connecticut should be a model, states across the country are proposing measures claiming to make elections “more secure.” That’s the new code word for keeping people from voting and comes down to less access: a shorter voting period, fewer and less convenient voting sites, more identification regulations, even fewer mailboxes. Once again, some people want more for certain groups, less for others, and they are introducing measures to limit those who can vote. 

Let’s keep our country moving forward by supporting H. R. 1 (House Resolution #1) “For The People’s Act,” which safeguards voting rights nationally. It’s number one for a reason: making sure people can vote and their votes are counted are the foundation of democracy. 

Betty Krasne, PhD

Kent

Respect for Klemens and all town volunteers

One of the things that is sometimes overlooked is the extraordinary amount of time and skill that is donated to our towns by the volunteer commission members, both elected and appointed. Their efforts ensure that we remain affordable, educated, safe and able to live our lives in these special places called small towns. Members are either elected by residents or appointed by the Board of Selectmen.

These commissions must periodically deal with controversies that pull at our goodwill and divide our communities, and many of these end up needing legal determinations from our land use commissions, including Salisbury’s Planning and Zoning (P&Z) and Inland Wetlands (IWC) commissions. These commissions are presently in the hot seats in Salisbury for issues of affordable housing and lake shore conservation. 

We write to acknowledge and thank Michael Klemens, who we believe has skillfully led our P&Z with fairness, transparency and a deep scientific knowledge. He has a strong respect for people and their need for dignity and inclusion. He knows about our landscapes and the fragile nature of species that can only exist in preserved habitats. He knows land use law and when to seek outside opinions that protect our town. 

He has recently been disparaged in a way that we find insensitive and vitriolic, which should not be the reward for such a long record of volunteer service to our town. We salute Michael Klemens and all other volunteers in our town; we are grateful for your contributions, we respect your selfless dedication, and we have your backs. Thank you.

The Salisbury Board of Selectmen

Curtis Rand

Chris Williams

Don Mayland

Salisbury