L E T T E R S
SEND YOUR LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: INFO@NANTUCKETINDEPENDENT.COM
FEARFUL OF COMPETITION

To the editor:

Nantucket, Massachusetts is a beautiful and quaint location that is steeped in history, one of America's true geographical treasures. But the town's vote to ban chain stores and franchised businesses in a supposed effort to retain the uniqueness and local culture of Nantucket should be greeted with the same concern that their ancestors felt upon learning that petroleum would soon replace whale oil in America's lamps.

Consumers, offered quality goods and services at fair prices, respond to the principles of free enterprise competition. And competition - or fear of it - is what this ban is all about.

On the surface, such bans may appear to seek the preservation of culture or uniqueness, but in reality, they are nothing more than misguided efforts to maintain artificial systems of economic protectionism that ultimately deny consumers their rights to choice and honest dealings stifle smallbusiness development.

If there was any doubt, one has only to read the New York Times article "Nantucket Votes to Ban Chain Stores From Downtown," in which a local business owner expressed trepidation that the arrival of a nationally-known chain store would be harmful because," I make a lot of money in markups," he said.

To the editor: Above are two pictures of a building, just west of the clubhouse at the Old 'Sconset Golf Course. Arguably, this is the oldest remaining barn on Nantucket. Perhaps one of your readers could help determine just how old it is. I have it on the highest authority that at one time it was considerably longer, extending to the north, but was shortened to make way for a fair-way during the conversion of the land from farm to golf. And that was quite a while ago. Henry also confided that the nearby clubhouse was moved there from the Town of Sherburne. Therefore, it's not inconceivable, indeed perhaps probable that these buildings co-existed and their use, contemporaneous, suggesting a date somewhere in the early 1700s. If any old barn is worthy of the preservationist's passionate attention, it's this one. And soon! Yours truly, - Richard B. Corkish, Jr. (Dick) Nantucket

As a representative of the franchising sector, I can assure you that today's franchise systems have no interest in damaging or even changing a locality's in manners which help attract customers to the benefit of nearby independent businesses.

Also misunderstood is the fact that franchised small businesses are owned and operated by local business people. In fact, franchises are always just small businesses that have well-recognized brands and proven business systems. The dollars they generate, jobs they create and taxes they pay, are in large part, fed back into the local economy and aid in growth and stability. And let's not overlook the additional contributions of community involvement by franchisees that result in an improved quality of life for all the citizens of those communities.

It is regrettable that the Nantucket Planning Board is so fearful of competition that they are willing to deny others the right to enjoy the American Dream of business ownership. This chapter of their history won't be one future generations of Nantucketers point to with pride. Sincerely,

- Matthew R. Shay,

President, International Franchise Association

NATIVES SHOULD BE RESTLESS

To the editor:

Grant, as you know, I think the world of you, however, this "Yack" fan is confused at your definition of a "working stiff." I could quite easily make a case that Michael Glowacki may very well be the number one working stiff on our new "balanced" Board of Selectmen. Of course by doing that, it would exploit how long I've been here and that, of course would be unfair to your growing "washashore rebellion" membership.

Nantucket is quite fortunate, in my view, to have such a diverse and successful working stiff population. To succeed here, all one needs is a good work ethic, the ability to grasp a trades type skill, understand the value of a dollar and have a reliable alarm clock. (Now set 1/2 hour later!) The now over-scrutinized scalloper (the ultimate working stiff) benefits greatly from the success of Nantucket's working stiffs. More work means less fair weather scallopers. Nantucket is quite balanced in that area indeed.

Anyone taking a bit of time to think knows that if you own a growing business, it becomes more difficult for the owner to toil in the daily grind. They usually end up in an office mired in paperwork and other various exercises that result from success. That does not mean they have fallen off the work wagon.

From where I sit, (in my van, most of the time) if you no longer run the lawn mower but are responsible for the work or no longer bake the bread but are responsible for its quality and delivery, then you are still a working stiff.

To me, it is quite obvious what has happened with our new Board. Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Glowacki are not in favor of regulating the crap out of the working stiff population. Mr. Kopko and Mr. Willauer have signed on to the "managed growth" doctrine which really means regulate the crap out of what most working stiffs do for a living, (which is already regulated).

As for "our Dougie," he seems to have, at least since the election, become sort of a hatchetman. By casting the deciding votes to remove Mr. Glowacki from his chairmanship and Mr. Chadwick from his NP&EDC position tells me that this young (conservative?) has either been getting an earful from one of our local chapters of "Sustainable" axe grinders or there is something in the water at the rotary drinking fountain.

It will be difficult for me to yack to him at his favorite spot since we planted trees where we used to pull over. Another small freedom removed, decided by whom? But of course, it's for our own good. We stiffs are too busy working to know the difference.

- Nat Lowell

Nantucket ATTENTION PRESERVATIONISTS! MOVE ON WITH NEW CHAIRMAN

To the editor:

"Painful" is the only word to describe watching the Selectmen's meeting.

Please do us all a favor and have a re-election for the Chairperson position so that the meetings can at least be conducted with some semblance of order and understanding.

Last week, at least two other selectmen seemed to be in charge of the show. The Chairman looked confused, removed and completely unaware of the professional setting to which he was elected.

Put us all out of our misery and move on with a new Chairman!

- Kate Campbell

Nantucket

GREENPEACE SAYS IT'S TIME FOR TED TO GO

To the editor:

As a lifetime Democrat, and tireless campaign worker for several of our Congressional candidates, it is with a heavy heart that I write this letter.

However, if the recent statement from Greenpeace is accurate, then I must say to Sen. Kennedy, Thank you for your years of service to the residents of Massachusetts, and it is time for you to go along now (''Greenpeace takes Kennedy to task,'' April 24).

Our party has many dedicated candidates capable of comprehending that scores of the Cape's residents cannot afford expensive electricity. These are honest men who would never trade a $300 million bridge to nowhere serving no one in Alaska for an under-the-table effort to kill the desperately needed wind turbines that may block Kennedy's precious million-dollar waterfront view or cause him to veer his luxury sailboat a few degrees off course.

- Don Jordan

Onset

DON'T CHANGE THE WIND FARM RULES

To the editor:

In May 2005, Sen. Edward Kennedy took to the Senate floor and criticized Republican attempts to end the filibuster.

"Every child knows that you don't change the rules in the middle of the game," Kennedy said in his remarks.

Yes, every child knows this, or should anyway, but it's a lesson apparently lost on others long past childhood. Less than a year later, Kennedy is pushing for Congress to do exactly what he was denouncing Republicans for last spring.

Kennedy wants to change the rules in the middle of the game for offshore renewable energy lest the Cape Wind project succeed in its rigorous environmental and regulatory review, well into its fifth year, and wind turbines eventually appear on the horizon several miles from the Kennedys' summer homes. The provision that would derail the wind farm, the so-called Stevens amendment, gives veto power over Cape Wind to the governor of Massachusetts for no specific reason at all. So much for the opponents' claims about massive bird kill, radar problems and threats to navigational safety.

After three years of research, Mass Audubon issued preliminary approval for Cape Wind last month, with more studies still to come. The Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration have concluded that Cape Wind would not pose a threat to vessels and planes crossing Nantucket Sound, with more vigorous oversight still to be done, as warranted for any utility-scale energy proposal.

But Cape Wind's opponents aren't taking any chances. They would rather kill the project outright than risk further scrutiny that would show Cape Wind in a favorable light.

This is the specter on the horizon that haunts them more than any other.

- Jack Coleman Media adviser to Clean Power Now