George J. Mellendick, M.D.
Old Pocha Road
Chappaquiddick
9 December 2008
Re: Chappy Bike Path
Edgartown Selectmen and CPC Members
Main Street
Edgartown, MA 
Dear Selectmen and CPC Members:
I strongly oppose the proposed Chappy Bike Path, now called the “Mixed-use Path,” as well as a proposed second Environmental Study. Furthermore, the use of CPA Funds for the Path and any related expenses is, in my opinion, illegal.
The history of the Bike Path discussion is a long but sporadic one, going back nearly 30 years, to the late 1970’s. Town Hearings at that time, moderated by Jeff Norton, also excited much interest. I attended those hearings then as did many long-standing Chappy residents, opposing the Bike Path. The reasons for opposition then are even more cogent now. Before briefly reviewing the basis for opposition, however, let me cite several concerns with this current “discussion” in 2008.
The Chappaquiddick Community has been polled on this matter in a haphazard and questionable manner but putting that aside, why are we all considering this important matter during the Thanksgiving-Christmas Holiday off-season of 2008, when the last time the matter was seriously raised was thirty years ago? We have been told that there is a rush due to the timetable of the CPC and Selectmen’s scheduled meetings. Again, why this cycle of meetings? The CPC and Selectmen will be there next year as well, after the entire CIA membership could have the opportunity to consider the matter sensibly and appropriately. In addition, only now is there direct outreach to the most affected: road-front property owners whose property would be violated by such a Bike Path. These Chappy residents were the most strongly opposed to the Path the last time. I suspect that would be the same now,
Keep in mind that this Mixed-use Bike Path, if 8-12 feet or wider will require a wider platform for construction, so that the minimum destruction will be considerable. The proposed straight (except for dangerous excursions onto the paved road) Bike path, to Menaca Hill or East Beach, will also be a Path of destruction of trees, vegetation, and beauty that cannot be replaced. In a recent email, there was some indication that there will be a 2 foot buffer between the road for cars and the road for bikes. That, frankly, will look awful. It is absolutely certain if this Path goes forward, this narrow, ugly strip between the two roads will need to be outfitted with a steel knee guard separating the two, furthering the ruin. The CPA regulation expressly forbids damage to vegetation, trees and fauna. The intent of the CPA legislation is Conservation. Conservation of open space; conservation of communities.
A major reason the Town decided not to proceed 30 years ago was safety. Another concern of the Town was the matter of “taking.” I will leave this latter matter and related legal issues to others to pursue in whatever way they choose. I do believe, however, the CPA regulations preclude expenditures for the purpose of an Environmental Study of this nature as well as the Path. Other Towns have been successfully sued for similar misuse. Open Space, Preservation and Community Housing are the major three areas intended by this legislation. After that, “land for recreation,” not recreational or other projects on private land and land not purchased with CPA Funds. To waste $27,000+ for an unnecessary, superfluous, second Environmental Study, with the current economic conditions, in my opinion, would be negligent of the CPC as well as the Selectmen who oversee this Committee. And possibly illegal. Fundamentally, what is lacking in the existent Environmental Study? Couldn’t that money be better spent to support Community Housing so desperately needed in Edgartown?
Summary of Major Reasons for Objection to a Chappy Bike Path:
1. Destruction of Open Space, which the CPA/CPC is dedicated to preserve;
2. “Creation” of hazard and increased risk for both cyclists and motorists, as others have documented;
3. Destruction of private property;
4. Ruin of the roadside beauty still remaining, by an ugly Bike Path/Road; (Roadside preservation, by the way, was the main reason large two tracts at 5 Corners were preserved by the Land Bank many years ago.)
5. CPA Funds, if used, will be challenged legally by taxpayers.
In conclusion, once again, there is absolutely no reason for a rush to action here. The process must be totally transparent, inclusive and non-pressured. I urge the Edgartown voters to soundly reject this Bike Path if and when it comes to a Town vote. The idea may sound good but the results will be bad.
As many have commented, we all love Chappy. That may be true; however, we each love Chappy for very different reasons. I am reminded of an editorial Russell Baker wrote for the Nantucket Inquirer and Mirror in the early 1980’s. He observed that so many had come to Nantucket because they all loved that other Island just as it was, but then proceeded systematically to change and destroy the place with “improvements,” overbuilding, etc. Yes, we all love Chappy. We came here or stayed here because Chappy is something special. Let’s not destroy Chappy further; let’s leave her alone. She’s just fine the way she is. 
GEORGE MELLENDICK, M.D.
CHAPPY