Our letters to the editor page is meant to be an engaging exchange of ideas representing different perspectives. In general, our guidelines are simply a max of about 400 words, on issues relating specifically to Lexington, written in a respectful tone. We seek to represent a range of perspectives and reserve the right to choose which letters to publish based on our editorial needs and judgment.

Letters may be edited for length and clarity. While we don’t have the capacity to fact check all letters, we reserve the right to edit any factual errors we notice, and will reject letters that include blatant misinformation. We do not publish anonymous letters.

As we head into election season, we are more than happy to post letters from or about candidates that are focused on ideas and add to the conversation, but will not to publish posts that sound more like advertisements, or multiple letters that make similar points, since the purpose is to inform and engage our audience (different from say a congressional letter-writing campaign where quantity counts).

We accept letters at any time and will do our best to run them in a timely fashion. Typically, we are able to share letters we receive by Wednesday at 5 p.m. in our Friday roundup two days later.

Letters to the editor are separate from our reporting and do not represent the views of the Lexington Observer. LexObserver does not independently verify the content of Letters.

To submit a letter to the editor, please write to letters@lexobserver.org. Thank you!

Letter to the editor: A better path forward for Massachusetts retirees

“Where I believe the current debate falls short is that it treats pension funding and retiree healthcare funding as separate issues. Municipalities have one group of retirees and one pool of taxpayer resources. Pension and OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits) obligations should therefore be evaluated holistically.”

by David Kornwitz

Letter to the editor: Praise for Lexington Building Commissioner

“It is clear that Mr. Kelly is dedicated to serving his constituents and helping them succeed. In a field that governs matters of health and safety — sometimes literally life and limb — he approaches the work with a professionalism, calm demeanor, and genuine willingness to help that I deeply admire.”

by David Supple

Letter to the editor: Answering questions on Article 31

“The timing is driven by contracts, not conspiracy: the Town’s hauling contract and its disposal contract with the North Andover waste-to-energy facility are both coming up for renewal with costs rising sharply, and the Town must know whether fees are on the table before it negotiates.”

by Jeremy Levitan

Letter to the editor: What are we really voting on?

“Most people don’t run for office because they want to inflict misery on their neighbors, and I expect they would jury-rig something to keep things running as best they can.  But the final result would unavoidably be less predictable, less efficient, and less fair than what we’ll get if the Yes vote passes.”

by Benjamin Lees

Letter to the Editor: The cost of waste disposal

“The choice before Lexington voters on June 16 is not “free trash versus paid trash.” It is whether we manage our rising waste costs proactively, or absorb them later through higher taxes and cuts to the services we depend on.”

by Eran Strod

Letter to the editor: A trip with Lexington’s trash

“Net, net there is no magic wand solution to trash. Even a well-designed, well-functioning incinerator has output which can have some negative economic and ecological cost. It’s been 11 years since our field trip, the costs continue to go up, and what we took for granted is turning into material cost factors for consideration. “

by Deepika Sawhney

Letter to the editor: A meaningful path to connection

“A group of moms from Concord, Acton, and Bedford is launching the inaugural Middlesex Chapter of Young Men’s Service League (YMSL), a national organization that brings mothers and high school–aged boys together through service.”

by Amy Hill Amick