Wrong discussion on Mill Pond


To the Editor:

As time goes on, and as more and more discussion ensues, I find myself less and less patient with the three-cornered debate that has developed about the future of Mill Pond in West Tisbury. While I understand Prudy Burt’s slant on the issue, that taking away the dam and returning the property to its natural state pleases her conservation interests, I also can’t believe we’ve even allowed her to be considered in the discussion. The issue was never whether it should be returned to its natural state; the issue was whether it should be dredged or not. Prudy deftly inserted herself into the conversation to champion interests dear to her heart. I understand that. She’s a good woman, and a valued protector of the environment, but her opinion in this matter seems moot to me. The issue is simply: Do we dredge, or not?

When Donald Campbell gifted the property to the town back in 1948, it was with the understood condition that it would be cared for, and preserved for future generations to enjoy … as a pond, not as anything else but … a pond. It was a very simple condition which we, as a community, are compelled to honor. Let’s not muddy the waters (pun intended) any further by entertaining any thought that this iconic part of West Tisbury should disappear; let’s concentrate our efforts on the original issue. To dredge or not to dredge is, and should be, the only issue.

Charlie Kernick

West Tisbury