Letter to the Editor: Non-compliance doesn't make 3A go away
Dec 31, 2024
To the editor:
In response to Tracy O’Neil’s letter to the editor of Dec. 17 (Gloucester Daily Times) thanking those who signed the petition opposing 3A zoning.
Tracy’s letter conflates the outcome of a vote with the right to vote itself. Losing a vote doesn’t mean losing the right to vote; it means the majority didn’t support that position. For this claim to hold weight, it needs backing with evidence showing the ability to vote was impeded or restricted in some way. Personal convictions, while important, don’t substitute for concrete evidence.
Beyond claiming losing the right to vote, the letter expresses fear about our lasting republic. Gloucester is neither sovereign nor a republic. Terminology is important. Sovereignty refers to the authority of a state to govern itself without outside interference, which applies to countries, not cities or towns. The U.S., as a whole, is a republic of individual states, cities, and towns self-governed without a republic status.
Misrepresenting the outcome of a vote as losing the right to vote is a form of fear-mongering. Losing an election or a vote simply means the majority chose a different option.
Even when the result is not in your favor, your participation still counts. The MBTA Communities Act, also known as 3A, is binding and can’t be disregarded at will. Choosing non-compliance does not make the 3A law go away.
City Council members must uphold the law. And they did. I support and have faith in the City Council. I question the faith of one encouraging noncompliance with the laws — especially to the detriment of Gloucester’s welfare.
Judy A. Steiner,
Gloucester