Letters to the Editor - 1-11-24

Thank you David Baranowski

Who would have thought on an ordinary first Friday in January after a little mundane business in the town hall one could go across the street and experience a soul soothing, little slice of musical heaven at the Congregational Church in Salisbury. Thank you David Baranowski!

Check it out, every first Friday.

Susie Pelletier

Salisbury

Thanking Sharon voters

We on the Sharon Energy and Environment Commission thank the voters of Sharon for their support of the solar array which will provide both clean and inexpensive energy for the Sharon Center School. We appreciate the fact that there are reasonable objections to the siting of the array and to various aspects of solar in general. However, we also know that continued reliance on fossil fuels will leave a damaged if not dying planet to future generations. The solar array in Sharon represents a small saving in fossil fuels, but if towns across America follow our example, we may hope for a brighter future than our current pattern of energy consumption suggests.

Lyn Mattoon
Helena Barnes
Katy Kinsolving
Roger Liddell
Mike Nadeau
Doug Rick
Shrevie Shepherd
Jane Strong

Let’s stand by the Constitution

As controversy intensifies about whether the Constitution disqualifies Trump from holding office, we trust our election officials, judges, and justices to enforce the Constitution as their oaths of office require.

From 1776, Thomas Paine inspires:

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer judge and the sunshine justice will, in this crisis, shrink from enforcing the constitution of their country; but he that stands by it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. (Based on The American Crisis Number 1)

1. Section 3 of Amendment XIV is clear:

No person shall ... hold any office, ... who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same .... But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

2. There is only one critical question — Did Trump engage in insurrection against the Constitution? If “Yes,” Section 3 prohibits Trump from holding office. If “No,” Section 3 does not apply.

3. The prohibition is automatic and absolute (“No person shall ...”). The prohibition does not require action by Congress or conviction of any crime.

4. While Section 3 does not require Congressional action in order to disqualify, it permits Congress (by two-thirds of each House) to remove the disqualification. Congress has not removed the disqualification; the prohibition is in effect if Trump engaged in insurrection.

5. In the second impeachment of Donald J. Trump, the House of Representatives voted 232 to 197 to indict Trump for “Incitement of Insurrection,” and the Senate voted “Guilty” by a vote of 57 to 43. While the Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds necessary to convict in an impeachment trial, Congress has determined by a majority vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate that Trump engaged in insurrection.

6. The results of criminal prosecutions of Trump are not relevant to the Constitutional question of qualification to hold office.

7. State courts and election officials are considering the issue in the context of the preparation of ballots for Republican Party primaries. Both the District Court and the Supreme Court of Colorado determined that Trump engaged in insurrection as did the Secretary of State of Maine. Some state courts and election officials have avoided the issue on procedural grounds. There will be more decisions shortly.

8. Some argue that enforcing Section 3 to disqualify Trump from office and the ballot would be anti-democratic and that voters should be able to vote for Trump even if he is an oath-breaking insurrectionist. On the contrary, in the context of the determination by Congress and state courts and election officials that Trump has engaged in insurrection, failure to enforce Section 3 would be anti-democratic. American democracy will shine as Section 3 is enforced and Trump is prohibited from holding office again. We shall then be able to express our love and thanks to the election officials, judges, and justices who stand by the Constitution.

G. A. Mudge

Sharon

Observations on Salisbury housing

As an attendee at a meeting on the evening of Jan. 4, to move forward a plan to build houses in an already relatively crowded area near the center of Salisbury, I would like to state my observations.

1. All the decisions being made, and all the praise for the project, were being made almost entirely by people whose own homes will not be affected.

2. It seemed as if letters in opposition to using this building site, which contain the reasons for that opposition in the voices of those affected, had not been given to all members of the Salisbury Affordable Housing Commission and the Salisbury Housing Trust. It looked as though those who had not seen them had formed their opinions in a bubble created by people who find the building site so ideal.

Anyone who had not read them would then have voted to recommend that the plan be passed forward after only just hearing those people speak for the brief opportunity they were allowed. It is doubtful that the momentum built by then would have allowed a pause to reconsider based on what those people said. Isn’t it part of the responsibility of the leaders of these groups to be sure all members consider those voices well in advance, and not just the voices of those who choose to look at it as a good idea from properties far from the proposed site?

3. By passing the proposal closer to a town-wide vote, the people affected by the addition of these buildings so near to their own homes will be guaranteed a much greater minority than it would be if the whole committee had heard them. On top of that, a public campaign is being conducted that can only continue to drown their voices out.

The question is not whether affordable housing is a good idea. Everyone is in favor of it. Please do not think that being against building on this site is being against affordable housing.

And the decision to build on the land that has been proposed should not be based on it being town land and therefore being relatively easy to get, and especially not be made to satisfy a project deadline. The effects would be permanent.

The issue here is whether the town will take seriously the voices of people in their concern for not crowding Salisbury in this particular place; they are people with a very real motivation to speak for the welfare of the whole town by addressing this issue and for preventing the effects of crowding that other people cannot as clearly see.

To honestly agree with this proposal, you must also agree that you would be willing to have the buildings built in the equivalent space to your back yard — how many people moving this forward would do that? — instead of finding a location, difficult as that might be, that does not have the damaging effects that voting yes on this proposal would have.

L. Tomaino

Lakeville

Our Trees: Let ‘em live

On any given workday, open your door, go outside, and listen. Chances are what you will hear mingled with everyday sounds is the wailing of chainsaws and the moaning of chippers — tree removal equipment transforming life into death.

Hardly a week goes by we are not prompted to stop our cars for a poor soul holding a stop/slow sign while the tree crews impose the carnage on roadside trees. What is equally alarming is the removal of perfectly healthy trees and other vegetation on private property. The shortsighted reasoning behind this wonton elimination of biomass is varied.

Some homeowners have been instilled with a fear that their trees are going to topple onto their homes or where they recreate, so those menacing trees must be removed before they can cause harm.

Still others wish to open up vistas of distant views for their personal viewing pleasure, totally disregarding the damage they may be doing to their own ecosystems. And the most ludicrous reason: cut down the trees to grow more lawn!

How did we get here?

The truth is there are plenty of trees that pose a real hazard and are best removed preemptively. The pestilences that have been wrought on our native vegetation — many by human intercession — like climate change, non-indigenous invasive plants, the Emerald Ash Borer, and the Spongy Moth, to name a few, have left many trees in sore straits. This is where skilled arborists with their chainsaws and chippers, and those minimum wage workers with their stop/slow signs, are put to their best and highest use.

It is the otherwise healthy native trees and other vegetation that is the focus of this article.

Ponder for a moment that tree-like life forms have been on this planet between 350 and 420 million years! In contrast, human-like creatures have been around for a mere 1.5-2 million years; modern Homo sapiens for 160,000 years. Weren’t we taught to respect our elders?

Maybe our human brain chauvinism has clouded our ability to see the wisdom and the value in a living being that is other than ourselves.

What wisdom can a tree hold, you ask? Think of a time when the sun was too hot and you moved toward the shade, or were thirsty and took a drink of water, or the myriad reasons we do things for our comfort and survival. Now think of a tree, rooted in place.

They have developed mechanisms that allow them to persist through the tribulations of their lives, right where they are, in some cases for thousands of years. Pretty smart.

Countless ecological services trees provide to sustain all life, like oxygen to breathe, climate modification, carbon storage, and the transcendent wellbeing we feel just being among them, is reason enough to consider every tree as sacrosanct and to think and feel first before we end a life unnecessarily. If trees had lawyers, we’d be in trouble!

Mike Nadeau

Sharon