To the editor:
In response to the May 1, article by Steven Fletcher, "City backs off call on DPA," the headline implies that there was a decision made by a group of individuals representing the city of Gloucester's 29,000 residents to change their position on the state's Designated Port Area of Gloucester Harbor.
This is not the case.
The "city" didn't back off on anything. The "city" is the residents. The "city" is not only the council, not only Mrs. Garcia, and certainly not the small group of individuals seeking funding for pet projects, or businesses and research organizations that contribute zero to the city.
This rewrite of the draft is largely driven by the fact that I pre-emptively took the findings of the draft report of the summit to the Planning Board meeting on the hotel overlay district and pointed out how the summit recommended lessening the restrictions on the waterfront in order to stimulate growth.
That original draft called the strict regulations — and, in particular, the DPA — one of the "biggest obstacles" in a transition toward an innovation-oriented marine economy. This paragraph doesn't fit the agenda of Ian Kerr of Ocean Alliance and Valerie Nelson one bit, so they and perhaps others demanded those parts be taken out of the report. See my Letter to the Editor from March 28, http://www.gloucestertimes.com/opinion/x1450998199/Letter-to-the-editor-Gloucester-a-city-of-uncommon-interests
I sure wish I could rewrite some selective parts of history to fit my needs. I cannot. Apparently this group thinks that it can.
The city needs tax revenue and jobs. The city wants the restrictive regulations changed and the DPA removed so that we can bring in companies, with funding and jobs that will contribute to the city at large.
With closed fire stations, streets that resemble a war zone, who can argue against a need for a larger tax base?
I think there should be a referendum put on the ballot for this fall on which "the city" can vote to show what "the city" really wants.
Bay View, Gloucester