Falmouth recently embarked on updating its comprehensive plan, a document that concludes a phased process of determining residents’ quality of life – and taxes – for the next decade and beyond.

Councilors Amy Kuhn and Jay Trickett are responsible for the initial “visioning” process and have promised full transparency, with an emphasis on resident input. They’ve also adamantly stressed that town staff is not in charge behind the scenes. However, it was our long-range planner who conducted “due diligence” on Future iQ, the consultancy the council unanimously voted to hire for $63,000. This is the same planner who led the previous misguided comp plan update, which informed the disastrous 2016 rezoning.

Repeated assurances of a resident-focused process with resident-driven outcomes don’t align with Future iQ’s proposal, in which undefined “stakeholders” are equal influencers. Moreover, the proposal states the final results of this process will be determined by an equal weighting of town staff (the long-range planner is the lead on the project), “stakeholders” and the council. Does that sound resident centric?

Why should town staff be allowed to put their finger on the scale? Neither the manager nor the planner live in Falmouth.

When will resident opinions, who bear the costs of outcomes, be weighed in the vision process, comp plan and every key decision in between?

Trickett’s branding of those brave enough to question the vision process as “activists” may be a clue. Apparently for Trickett, engaged residents (and taxpayers, I would add) who offer differing opinions from his and the council are clearly not “stakeholders.” Otherwise, their opinions and requests would not be consistently ignored and dismissed outright.

Residents are the only “stakeholders” who should matter.

The council promises transparency and preaches resident input. It’s past time they put their money where their mouth is.

Valentine Sheldon
Falmouth

Comments are not available on this story.