UPDATE: FOR THE LATEST ON THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PROPOSAL, GO TO THE "STILL IN DENIAL" PAGE.
 

 

Bottom line of original proposal: Use of Illegal Means to Achieve Vague, Speculative Environmental "Benefits" at a Significant Cost to Local Businesses

Introduction

As part of a struggle over the use of Kent's Point which has been going on for decades, Orleans is floating the prospect of excluding nonresident vehicles from the Kent's Point Parking lot unless they carry a sticker, currently priced at $420. There is no other practical access for nonresidents unless they know someone who will let them park nearby.

 

Lack of Environmental Basis

The proposal is before the Orleans Conservation Commission (OCC). The petitioners for this "remedy" rest their campaign on the word "overuse" – which makes restrictions seem necessary – but no one has ever defined overuse, explained its consequences, or proved that it exists. It's a buzzword, nothing more. Despite coordinated urging by numerous witnesses in December 2024, the Town's hired expert declined, in his $15,000 report, to identify excess visitations as a problem, or to recommend access restrictions. (He did, however, point to the need for fencing, water diversion, and educational signage.) Nevertheless, the OCC keeps pressing forward, the Chair claiming that the OCC has a right to impose restrictions if the members "feel" that they would be environmentally beneficial. This loose "we can follow our hunches" standard contravenes the requirement in the Town Charter that decisions be supported by a rationale, i.e., the application of reason and logic to established facts.

A review of the August 27 hearing discloses that the petitioners have no environmental arguments at all, other than "something, something, overuse," and that their real central gripe seems to be about traffic on their street. The crucial questions which no one is even trying to answer are, "what specific environmental problem will restrictions solve, to what extent, and how?"

Illegality

Because the area of Kent's Point between the fenced-off habitat areas is functionally a park (something which no "magic" word or phrase such as "conservation area" can change), access restrictions are unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Because lands dedicated for public use in Massachusetts are automatically dedicated to the "public" of the entire State (not just the town where the land lies), these access restrictions are illegal under Massachusetts law as well.

Overkill

Even if we assume for argument's sake that there is a need to reduce visitations, there is a much better way to do it than illegal access restrictions The parking lot's capacity could be reduced, and the neighbors' traffic concerns could be addressed by putting an electronic "LOT FULL" sign on the corner of Monument and Keziah's.

Blame-Shifting

The Town of Orleans has neglected Kent's Point for ages, and seems not to understand the vast damage caused by runoff erosion during rainstorms, despite being advised by the expert's report to divert this water. By focusing on the number of visitors (without specifying any particular benefit that will be derived from excluding them), the Town shifts blame for its failures onto others, rather than conducting a fair and honest self-examination in order to improve.

Cost to Businesses

Kent's Point brings in a lot of business to Orleans. If dog-walkers go elsewhere, they will also shop elsewhere. No one has made the slightest effort to quantify this potentially significant loss. Moreover, given the difficulties that local businesses are having paying for the new sewers, it's hard to imagine a worse time to cut into their revenues.