As full-time residents in Woodstock Village we are incredibly grateful for the space that Faulkner Park offers for our family. We’re especially fond of the trail to Mount Tom, as that is where our 6-year-old transitioned from “How much longer?” to simply enjoying the hike, with an occasional “Can I have a snack?”.
We are strongly opposed to town ownership of the park. To us, it boils down to the fact that all of us get to enjoy the park now as a great natural resource — with no financial or legal obligations — thanks to Marianne Faulkner and her trust, administered by JPMorgan Chase & Co. If the town takes title to the park, all of us are taking on risk, most notably in higher taxes. The proposed $850,000 that the town would receive for management and maintenance may sound like a significant sum, but it is inevitable that it will be depleted, resulting in another tax increase for us all.
While this plan is clearly in the best interests of JPMorgan (which made the proposal), in our opinion, it is not in the best interest of the taxpayers of Woodstock.
GRETA and LARRY ZEITLIN
Woodstock Village
I am distressed by the current efforts to take over the management of Faulkner Park in Woodstock. The terms of Marianne Faulkner’s trust are clear and have been successfully implemented for many years to everybody’s benefit. If disregarded, this will set a precedent that will make others less inclined to make such generous gifts.
I am baffled why Woodstock would want to take on a project that would require investment and attention when major projects such as our schools, sewage issues and Town Hall renovations are, as they should be, at the forefront of our community concerns.
Please, leave well enough alone and devote the resources to projects that actually need attention.
ANDREA FARRINGTON
Woodstock
I was astounded when I saw the photograph of the Mid Vermont Christian School girls basketball team in the sports section (“Game on in Vermont: Scott lifts pandemic restrictions on indoor athletic competition,” Feb. 6). Of the nine girls visible, six either had no mask or wore their mask under their nose. They were standing side by side.
If this is an example of how these sports will be managed safely now, then I fear for what’s to come with our COVID-19 numbers. God forbid any of those girls bring back the coronavirus to a grandparent.
IRIT LIBROT
Norwich
Regarding the covering of our murals at Vermont Law School (“Vt. Law School claims right to remove mural,” Feb. 6): In celebration of Black History month, we object to the murals being covered. These murals are the only mural statements of the abolition movement in Vermont. They are an important acknowledgement of Vermont’s role in Black history and we object to their being covered during this time of memory and reflection.
Why did the fugitives come to Vermont? Because of the “Habeas Corpus Law” passed by the Vermont Legislature in November 1850 that essentially made it impossible for Vermont judicial and law enforcement officials to assist in the capture of fugitive slaves.
Our murals Vermont, The Underground Railroad, and Vermont and the Fugitive Slave celebrate this moment and should be seen during Black History Month.
This is the only celebration of the abolition movement on a wall in Vermont. It is being sequestered by VLS during Black History Month and we object.
SAM KERSON and KATAH
Quebec
The headline of the Jan. 30 article regarding the return of Jennifer Frank to the Windsor Police Department from the Norwich Police Department reads: “Windsor poaches Norwich chief.”
One wonders if the headline would have read “Norwich poaches Windsor chief” had the opposite situation occurred.
HAM GILLETT
Windsor
Title 18 section 1505 of the U.S. Code prohibits interference of congressional or federal administrative proceedings. Conviction carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. I see absolutely no reason why every person in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 who was not involved in the certification of the Electoral College vote should not be punished to the full extent of the law.
Also, any evidence of a person’s presence there — video footage, tweets, etc. — seems to me prima facie evidence of guilt. Who among us believes they should not be jailed? This seems to me the only way to impress upon the insurrectionists the severity of their actions. Conversely, anything less seems an affirmation of the insurrection and an encouragement of similar actions. Is there any reason for exceptions? Is anyone on those steps, in that building, not deserving of imprisonment for five years?
STEVE THOMS
White River Junction
We do not need a foreign foe to rent democracy, for the enemy lies within.
Democracy seen as a lovely aspiration … are we waking from that dream?
WILLIAM GILBERT
Lebanon