Brianne Goodspeed is harsh on critics of the Norwich Town Plan that has recently been submitted to our Selectboard (“Cradle of Winter Olympians: Norwich Nurtures Athletes, and a Glowing Self-Image,” Jan. 13). This is not simply a “high-density affordable housing plan” as she asserts.
Here are a few highlights along with my observations:
According to Jeff Goodrich, chair of the Planning Commission, if only the 35 acres currently for sale on Route 5 were designated, there would have to be “150 mixed-use units built” to make the opportunity viable for a developer. Only one-quarter of those units would be required to be affordable. There have been no impact studies to show our “fair share of the regional needs” for such housing, and we have not seen any verifiable estimates of current low-income availability in Norwich.
If the Selectboard approves this plan, it should be able to tell current residents how the plan will affect their taxes. How will the addition of 150 units, or likely more, affect the operation of the fire, police and public safety departments? What additional personnel will be required to maintain the infrastructure, cope with additional traffic at Interstate 91 and the Ledyard Bridge, and respond to emergency calls?
When 300 more acres are added to connect the development to the Hartford wastewater system, how much will Norwich taxpayers be tithed for being aligned with the system and how much will it cost each year to maintain our physical link to the system in perpetuity? Among the units, commercial development will also be encouraged. What benefit will it have for the young families who move to the neighborhood? Is it necessary for Norwich to pave over green space to offer “travel services” when White River Junction, Wilder and West Lebanon are next door?
Weigh in at Tracy Hall on Tuesday.
Charlotte Metcalf
Norwich
In my opinion, those in our legislatures and elsewhere who are opposed to the legalization of marijuana are failing to be realistic and, in defense of prohibiting it, unwittingly hypocritical. The facts are telling. Suppositions are not fact based.
How many of those opposing legalization themselves consume alcohol, either daily or occasionally? How many automobile accidents, injuries and fatalities, and how much workplace absenteeism and inefficiency, is associated with alcohol compared with marijuana? How many deaths are due to alcohol-induced cirrhosis of the liver? How many relationships have suffered as a result of alcohol abuse?
What did we learn from the prohibition of alcohol? Not only did it not stop people from drinking, it created a hugely profitable criminal distribution business. Marijuana is no more a “gateway drug” than alcohol is a gateway drink to opiate addiction.
Restriction, legal or otherwise, is best imposed on those things that are proven to do irreparable harm to oneself or others. Neither alcohol use (in moderation) or marijuana use (in moderation) have such a proven outcome. Moderation cannot be legislated and criminalization cannot ensure it.
All of us find ways to cope with the stress of living: imbibing moderately of alcohol or marijuana, using stress-reduction techniques such as yoga, meditation or workday breaks, taking vacations, socializing, participating in sports, etc. In addition to this, along with the impossibility of effective enforcement, is the fact that there are enormous sums of money to be gained from legalization (the way the states now benefit from alcohol sales).
Let all who would continue to criminalize marijuana legislate a return to a prohibition on the sale and consumption of alcohol.
Audrey Cherin
Hanover
Trump wins again. The meeting last week of the president and a bipartisan group of senators was billed as an opportunity to find a way forward on immigration policy. A small bipartisan group of senators had worked hard on a proposal, which meticulously forged compromises to meet the major demands of both Republicans and Democrats.
Shouldn’t that be big news, especially for the many Americans who have longed for a more functional Congress?
But then the president’s outrageous remarks quickly made him, once again, the epicenter of the news, stoking division while distracting the press and the public from needed attention to the bipartisan initiative and the demands of working together in a democracy.
Margery S. Walker
Hanover
“I’m not a racist,” proclaimed President Trump. I wish I could say the same. I am, as Ta-Nehisi Coates put it in his book Between the World and Me, someone who believes he is white. But that is irrelevant to my status as a racist.
I am a racist because I am human. Except for saints, all people, both of color and of no color, sense difference when they see someone who looks different, and they assume things that may or may not be true. All of us must use our heads to counter gut feelings if we are to deal fairly with other people.
The problem in America is not that I and everyone else is racist. The problem is that one so-called race (a term biologically meaningless but socially ingrained) has dominated politics and the economy for centuries. And some people who believe they are members of that race want to stay dominant.
It is pointless to accuse someone of racism. If you look for racism, you will find it, in yourself as well as in others. Let’s quit naming and shaming racists and instead attend to the structures and conditions that have the intent or effect of maintaining dominance or oppression.
Richard Andrews
Springfield, Vt.
A big thank you to the Valley News delivery people who work in difficult winter weather conditions to get our newspapers to us before sunrise.
I appreciate your hard work every day.
Trudy Cohen
Croydon