Letter: For your reading interest
I’m sure that most readers are tired of reading about the bylaw ballyhoo, but if I may make just a couple of comments:
∎ Eleven of the 13 letters in Friday’s paper about the supposed faux pas committed by Albert Norman and David Singer were thoughtful commentaries on the process and did not contain buzz terms like “trust shattered” or “sprawl-buster.” They spoke to the issue, which is the right of a citizen to have opinions and input on an important topic;
∎ it seemed to me that one letter said it best. Susan Worgaftik asked for a “discussion of the content of the suggested ordinance revisions.” Isn’t this a levelheaded and intelligent way to approach this issue, which apparently is of great moment to many residents of Greenfield?
Wetlands need protection by law; they have no voice of their own, unless you count the basso of a bullfrog. I would ask The Recorder if it were possible to please print the wetland bylaws in their entirety with the proposed revisions from all sources so that readers can become well informed and make intelligent decisions regarding this very important issue. I think that this would make interesting reading for many Greenfield citizens.