Letter: Vote DeMayo-Wall for Planning Board

Letter to the Editor06:40PM / Sunday, May 08, 2022Print Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

The only way that you can live in Williamstown and say "let's wait for the new town plan to solve our housing problem" with a straight face is if you're new to town or you have been asleep. We know that Williamstown will not follow housing recommendations in a master plan because we have a near-perfect record of not doing so.

Here's the evidence we do have: Williamstown's 2002 plan outlined seven strategies the town should use to create a target of 200 new housing units that people at or under the area median income could afford. We then spent the next 20 years ignoring all but one of the recommendations, and disparaging those who sought to bring them about. The MP recommendation that a portion of the Lowry property, in the town center, be used for housing was shot down. The MP recommendation that the Water/Spring Street area be used for housing was nixed when our own Select Board voted not to accept a proposal to build affordable housing on Water Street (Jane Patton was the only vote in favor). When the
Planning Board drafted bylaws to encourage housing density in the town center, another MP recommendation, it was accused of over-depending on the residents of Cole Avenue to accommodate housing; when it recommended bylaws to encourage housing out of the town center, it has been accused of supporting sprawl and runaway development.

In housing terms, we are worse off in 2022 than we were in 2002. With evidence that we systematically reject housing recommendations in the reigning Master Plan, how can anyone say with a straight face that opportunities to create new housing should wait for the completion of a new Master Plan? It's code for no, without the honesty, at least, of just saying no.

Vote for Carin DeMayo-Wall for Planning Board. She's smart, energetic, and knowledgeable. And not naive.

Cheryl Shanks
Williamstown, Mass.

Tags: election 2022,

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

Save & Earn with Greylock

3.30% APY 6-month certificate. Click to learn more! Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

rk MILES Blding Materials

Are You Ready to Update Your Home? Start With rk MILES. 4 Locations (800)670-7433

www.rkmiles.com

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Letter: Vote No on 'Jungle' Primaries

Letter to the Editor02:05PM / Wednesday, September 30, 2026

To the Editor:

They don't call them "jungle primaries" for nothing.

Question 3 on the November ballot would trash two-party primary elections and replace them with California-style, chaotic — and extraordinarily costly — "jungle" primaries that would destroy the very political parties that have kept America stable since Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison created them in the 1790s.

Jungle primaries put all candidates, regardless of party, on one ballot with the top two vote-getters facing off in the general election — even if they're from the same party. That would create chaos, but the real issue is money: Jungle primaries give a distinct advantage to candidates backed by corporate money and the super wealthy. In short, jungle primaries move our primaries from the ballot box to big donor meetings long before campaigning even begins.

When something this radical is proposed, you have to look at who's behind it, who's funding it, and ask "why" they are doing it.

Their philosophical guru is Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor who ran for governor in 2022 but couldn't get 15 percent of the Democratic Convention vote to win the party's endorsement.

The money behind this extreme attack on small "d" democratic politics tells us more. With over $5 million in the bank as of Aug. 28, this is a very well-funded campaign — the lion's share of which came from wealthy Boston-area private equity individuals.

Twenty-two private equity executives gave $3.99 million, or 77 percent of all the money from individuals. Current and former Bain Capital executives contributed $1.92 million, and Berkshire Partners executives put up $1.32 million. In short, 22 rich people put up nearly $4 million to change how five million of us vote. Yes, it seems the ultra-wealthy want to destroy the two-party system that has kept our politics stable for 200 years.

View Full Story