No ATVs in residential neighborhoods

To the Editor:

It appeared that the writer of a letter and paid ad (1/20/11 AD) was confusing a matrimonial ceremony with the constitution when he wrote, “Speak now or forever hold your peace.” I would remind him that the first amendment to the constitution says, “Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speech....” That would be the very freedom of speech that the writer was practicing while telling others to speak now or never again.

While the writer believes public property should be open and available to everyone, saying, “The next vote could be on something you enjoy doing on public property, hiking fishing....” But the silence was deafening when the police chief attempted to cut off public access to the town owned gravel pit to everyone except the ATV club.

The writer went on to say, “I strongly believe if you own property you and only you have the right to say what happens on it.” Again the silence was deafening when the police chief attempted to declare privately owned gravel pits closed, without the owners’ consent.

The writer said, “If complete privacy is a concern of someone, they build or buy off in the woods or build a fence.” I can assure you that you are not free of the sound of ATVs or snow machines, no matter how deep in the woods you may live.

The writer spoke of property “owned by out-of-state family members.” I would remind him that these “out-of-state” property owners pay taxes without requiring town services. That is a bargain for any town. I also suspect that many “out-of-state” property owners allow ATVs and snowmobiles to access their property.

Keep in mind that when these people, that the writer is focused on, bought their home out in the country, there was no ATV access to the road. If there had been, then they would have no recourse. However, these hardworking taxpayers bought their home to enjoy peace and tranquility.

The writer said that ATVs are “not nearly as loud as the diesel truck these people drive every day.” The truck, like a mowing machine, is a single vehicle. We do not see 50- or 60 of them driving past a private home, just for sport.

The writer said, “We did not elect them (selectmen) for what they wanted. We elected them to represent the residents and the majority.” Our selectmen bent over backward to reach an amicable settlement between the parties. They sent out notices and held several meetings. In this case “the residents” and the “majority” to which the writer refers to are not one and the same, so the selectmen had to make a decision. The decision was for “equal justice.” To suggest that they listen to 10, but not one, would deprive the one of “equal justice.” Justice is blind for a reason.

The writer said, “Good luck to us all if you do not speak up in opposition to this decision or any decision that questions the majority.” But doesn’t the writer himself question the majority of selectmen?

In conclusion, I believe that if you were to ask the citizens of this town if they would like an ATV trail running up and down their street, less than 60 feet from the front door, with 50 to 60 ATVs going by on a weekend, I suspect the majority would say no.

My history as a landowner clearly shows that I have no bias against ATVs or snow machines in their proper place. But that proper place is not in residential neighborhoods.

Barbara Payne

South Paris