To the editor:
So. In the words of the celebrated political prankster Dick Tuck, upon learning that he polled less than 10% in California’s 1966 primary for state senate, “The people have spoken.”
Tuck famously used some additional words to describe his unconvinced electorate, but what did “they” say? To get a plurality of Marblehead voters by unearthing a never-before-used law that is older than most voters and reverse the settled 951-759 decision of Town Meeting was a kind of achievement.
In the words of the little red door hangers which blossomed like a rash on our Marblehead body politic over the holiday weekend, “Why is this on the ballot?” Blaming “deep-pocketed real estate developers” barely concealed the refusal to take “yes” for an answer.
We cannot know what the state’s response will be, but it cannot be nothing. In that sense, “no” on 3A may ultimately turn out to be “yes” with bells on. For example, should the state Supreme Judicial Court follow the precedent already usefully set for us by Milton and reject Marblehead’s desperate plea to be considered as special, what could prevent a new, possibly more extensive, zoning ordinance being imposed from Boston under the 3A rule? Of course, the changes could be delayed by lawsuits, paid for by the taxpayer and pursued as promised by this tenacious team of “winners.”
Perhaps the greatest challenge for the people of Marblehead lies not in the result of the referendum but in fact that it took place. For the first time since the town was granted its independence from Salem in 1648, the primacy of Town Meeting as the legislative body has been challenged and overturned. The committee now drafting a written constitution for Marblehead will have to take this into account.
We may not like where we are, and we may even come to think we have been blinded by a string of false promises, but there is no going back.
Rhod Sharp
Franklin Street
