Because of the closeness of the vote for the town/college plan for new town hall and recreation facilities, I believe it can be reasonably argued that Angelo Lynn’s editorials in the Addison Independent made the difference in the result of citizens’ choice on article 6. In recent editorials Mr. Lynn has been a dependable cheerleader for one side among the voices speaking about the future of our town.
I am left to wonder how different things would be for Middlebury if our newspaper made a point of giving a respectful summary of all points of view before declaring its choice. Is the purpose of a community newspaper to promote the interests of one group (say businesses, schools, the college, environmentalists, historic preservationists, young people, seniors, etc.), or is it to encouraged open discussion of all the issues? Numerous well-read newspapers (e.g, The New York Times) regularly run op-ed pieces by writers who disagree with their editorial policy. The Addison Independent does have a “Community Forum,” but if I remember correctly, all the writers favored a yes on article 6.
I continue to express my appreciation for the way the Independent seems to print as many letters as possible representing every viewpoint. But I am asking now for a reconsideration of its own editorial policy.
Meanwhile (and this may be more important), I hope that our selectboard will note the closeness of the vote. In the lead-up to the vote on Town Meeting Day, opponents of the town plan posed many questions that, I believe, were not sufficiently answered. The decision about location has been made, but there are other questions (e.g., costs, traffic and parking, and facilities for young people and seniors).
Before going full speed ahead, may we ask the board to continue in discussion with all parties and to make a careful effort to find the best answers to the questions that have been raised about the town plan?
George Klohck
Middlebury