I am writing as a resident taxpayer in Royalton and not as one of the members of the Royalton Selectboard. I will be voting NO on Article 7 on the town warning for the annual Town Meeting. The article is to establish an ordinance allowing ATVs to operate on sections of the town highways to connect with a recreational trail system. Stuart Levasseur and the Royalton Planning Commission outlined in an email to the Selectboard as to why the Planning Commission did not support the writing of an ordinance to allow ATVs.
It’s much too early for Royalton to be writing an ordinance to allow ATVs on town highways for the purpose of connecting recreational trails. Currently there are no approved recreational trails in Royalton open to ATVs. And our neighboring towns do not allow ATVs on their town highways or on any recreational trails.
I do not feel it is safe to allow these small motorized vehicles on our narrow town roads. I live on a busy paved state highway, so I will not be impacted by the increased travel these noisy ATVs will cause when the roar passes by my house. But I am concerned about how these vehicles will impact our roads and interrupt the quiet solitude of our rural environment. Therefore, I would urge voters to join me and vote NO on Article 7.
John P. Dumville
South Royalton
John Dumville is a member
of the Royalton Selectboard.
I have been following the debate in New London on who should be elected Selectman on March 8. It is an interesting discussion. For example, I was struck by an ad by Bill Helm, touting the fact that the tax rate in New London went down 5% during his term as a Selectman (2016-2019). I am greatly affected by tax increases, both personally and as a businessman in New London. How budgets are determined is a very important matter to me. It no doubt affects all business owners in town in a similar fashion, not to mention those who may have lesser means to handle large increases.
So, I looked back at tax rates during the years Mr. Helm served as Selectman, and the 2019 tax rate did in fact go down 4.8%. But this was an anomaly and there is an explanation. In 2019 the total assessed value in town increased $100,000,000, so although the “rate” went down, the dollars raised for taxes increased by almost $170,000 (3.4%). Based on my experience from my time on the Budget Committee and my time as a businessman in New London, it seems to me that this is game-playing with the numbers. And that concerns me.
I want to be able to rely on the Selectmen to gather the necessary facts and information and to accurately represent what is being proposed and its effect on the town. It is not helpful to the residents and taxpayers of New London simply to make a statement that happens to be true on the surface, but is not true at its core.
So, I have concluded that I will give my vote to Colin Beasley. He will rely on the work of our dedicated committees and treat them with mutual respect and cooperation; he will base his decisions and recommendations on the data and facts; and he will work toward collaborative solutions for the benefit of all residents and taxpayers. I will give my vote to Colin Beasley and I hope you will, too.
Doug Homan
New London
On Saturday, Feb. 12, Phil Robertson wrote that residents of Norwich and Randolph who oppose certain solar developments have “NIMBY” (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) attitudes (“Articles reveal NIMBY tendencies,” Feb. 12).
We are two of the residents opposing the development in Randolph. We have solar panels in our own backyard to provide for our electrical needs, and we support community solar projects that are properly sized and properly sited. Most of the renewable energy credits (RECs) from the Randolph project will be sold to out-of-state buyers. When they buy Vermont RECs, the result is that commercial-sized arrays are built in our backyards rather than their own.
The Randolph project is not a community solar project and has no customers in the neighborhood for the power it will produce. It is expensive for Green Mountain Power (GMP) to buy and transmit power that is not used on-site, and this solar project will cause electric rates to increase for all other GMP rate payers.
There are other reasons why the Randolph project is ill-conceived, but our opposition to it is largely because of the steepness of the site and the extreme mitigation efforts required to manage storm runoff on the site. It does not conform to Randolph’s Town Plan prohibiting large energy facility developments on slopes greater than 25%.
Joan Allen and Michael Binder
Randolph Center
Thank you for the heartwarming article about Judy Cooper Reed (“When you think of Chelsea, you think of Judy,” Feb. 21). Judy was my roommate at East Stroudsburg University in Pennsylvania. She was a serious student, enjoyed managing the women’s lacrosse team, played intramurals and always had the best stories to tell about student teaching. After graduation, we found each other teaching in the Northeast, Judy in Vermont and me in New Hampshire. We traded stories of working in our sports programs and the differences between the two states. I went to see her drive her carriage behind her Morgan horse and run programs at the fair as well as enjoy an occasional trip to Farm-Way, attend a women’s ice hockey game at Dartmouth and visit the factory sales in Vermont.
Your article was spot on. Judy was a dedicated teacher who taught because she loved children and wanted to help them grow and learn. She loved her family, her horses and her community. Judy was a no-nonsense type of person but had a dry sense of humor that came with a twinkle in her eye, a giggle and an almost mischievous smile.
Judy touched the future. She was a great teacher and a wonderful soul. Rest in peace, my friend.
Linda Tanner
Sunapee