A reader took issue with the March 19 headline “LRHA proponents demand podium time at Town Meeting” in a story comment and emails to the Squirrel asked that it be changed, particularly the verb: “The use of ‘demand’ is prejudicial and indicates a negative view of the petition signers, many of whom are my neighbors who simply want more information. They are not members of LRHA but just people who want to learn about the opposition to Article 3 before they vote. Are you playing to a perceived audience? I hope not!” The original headline has been changed.
It is true that the word “demand” has a different connotation than the word “request,” so the verb in the headline has been changed. However, the Lincoln Squirrel feels it is disingenuous to think that a sizable portion of the 300+ signers of the letter cited in the article have not made up their minds, as opposed to “[simply] wanting more information,” so we have let stand “LRHA proponents” (which include Smith, according to the organization’s website). The text of the letter to the Select Board is below.
“These registered voters of the Town of Lincoln request of the Town Meeting Moderator, Planning Board and Select Board: Ten (10 ) minutes at the podium at the March 23, 2024 Town Meeting to present the perspective of the Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives (LRHA). As the LRHA proposal garnered a substantial percentage of the vote in the previous Town Meeting, and in light of the Planning Board’s 3-2 split vote on February 26th, we respectfully ask that the democratic process be honored. As such, we request a designated spokesperson be allowed to present the perspective of the LRHA to Article 3.”
I am quite stunned that you elect to characterize signatories. What information contributes to your statement? It was unnecessary and gratuitous to add to your response regarding a citizen taking issue with you using a loaded characterization of her public comment. I would never see this in the Bedford Citizen, or read it in the reporting done by Mike Rosenberg!