From the Editor
From our corner
We are not in the practice of responding to letters in which readers take issue with us. That is their right, and we welcome them to it. However, in the case of this week's letter from Selectman Len Dorrian, we feel compelled to respond for the limited purpose of correcting facts.We note chiefly that Mr. Dorrian appears to have missed the point of our editorial position in last week's piece, "Time for clear speaking in York Village." Concerning the future of the Coventry Hall property, our request is not that our town leaders stop their proper dialogue, but rather that they be clear about what their intentions are so that the rest of us are not confused as to what they are up to.
The public, certainly those of us who work and reside in the Village, have understood for some time now that the Coventry Hall parcel was so clearly improper a site for a public safety center that it was not under any serious consideration for such use by our town leaders. If this was in fact the case, then our view was that town leaders should not allow unnecessary confusion to creep into the issue.
While Mr. Dorrian may view the matter simply as an exercise in numbers, such discussions take on a far different meaning to the residents and business owners that would be affected. Public discussion regarding valid proposals is one thing, needless confusion over obviously bad ideas that waste the public's time, money and energy is another.
Regarding the location of a police station at the Coventry Hall property as a bad idea, we refer our readers, and Mr. Dorrian, to Page 2 of this issue, wherein he will find our article "Chief opposes Coventry Hall as police station site." The article is, we believe, self-explanatory on the issue. In any event, the article simply places in the public record the views of the York Police Department, which have been known to the rest of the town for some time now, with the exception, apparently, of Mr. Dorrian.
Regarding Mr. Dorrian's allegation that we seek to suppress citizen input, stop dialogue among town officials and inhibit town-wide involvement, we point out that from our first days in ownership we have regularly sought out and published the views of all town leaders, including Mr. Dorrian, regardless of whether their views coincided with ours. Mr. Dorrian knows this to be the case, as do all the other town leaders to whom we have freely given space to speak out in whatever manner they have felt appropriate.
Finally, we take issue with Mr. Dorrian's claim that we have a publicly stated bias: "York residents can afford more taxes." This quote is a complete fabrication by Mr. Dorrian, which he has manufactured and falsely attributed to us in order, we can only assume, to support his argument. We leave it to our readers and Mr. Dorrian's constituents to ponder the motives and thought processes involved for him in this regard.
