Until now, home solar in the US has largely been for homeowners with plenty of money lying around to invest and the knowledge that they won’t have to move anytime soon. This has not been the case in Europe, where apartment dwellers are permitted to put solar on their balconies and plug it directly into their wall. Germany has at least 1 million balcony units reducing electricity bills and helping meet climate goals as we speak.

Now, the idea of plug-in solar is starting to gain traction in the US. In 2025, Utah passed a law that allows portable solar generation devices up to 1,200 watts and removes requirements related to interconnection, utility approval, and permitting. Virginia recently followed suit. This means that homeowner and apartment dwellers alike could go to the store, buy a system, and plug in that day. Not only will plug-in solar lower electricity bills, but people will be able to invest in their energy security by putting up solar that they own and can take with them when they move.

In both Utah and Virginia, the legislation passed either unanimously or by ridiculous margins. A typical plug-in system costs between $500-$2000 and has a payback of 3-5 years, depending on your electricity prices and how much sun you have access to. Because the systems can move with the renter and systems can last 20+ years, the payback really adds up. Here is an estimate:

Individual Household with a 1.2 kw Balcony Panel

Estimated System Cost $900

Electricity at 0.3 / kWh and 0.23 tons / kWh CO2

If 100,000 of the estimated 1 million renters in Massachusetts took advantage of plug-in solar, that comes to $30 million in utility savings per year and 23,000 tons CO2/year avoided. That’s equivalent to buying bay-staters 66,000 Nintendo Switch 2’s and taking between 4 and 5 thousand cars off the road. At a time when everyone is complaining about utility prices, plug-in solar is an easy win, and don’t we deserve an easy win right now?

If you want to make plug-in solar a reality, you can tell your reps to support the plug-in solar provisions in Massachusetts House of Representatives bill H.5151. You can read a bit more here: Balcony solar bills make inroads across New England | Canary Media, and here: Massachusetts House Energy Bill Passed with Massive Improvements Except One Terrible Section

A fiscal advisory panel told the Barnstable Town Council that the town faces a $589 million unfunded gap in capital needs over the next five years. The advisory panel urged an override vote for tax increase or debt exclusion by spring 2027.

Why it matters: Proposition 2 ½ (State Law) prevents towns from raising taxes by more than 2.5% per year without approval from a town wide vote. The town also can’t borrow money to fund projects that it doesn’t have the yearly tax revenue to pay back. In the next five years, both Comprehensive Wastewater construction and the School Department need funding for large capital projects. Without new funding by fiscal year 2028 (calendar June 2027), Barnstable will have to choose between clean water infrastructure and the schools, police, and roads residents depend on.

Driving the news: The Comprehensive Financial Advisory Committee’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) subcommittee delivered a report that deliberately set aside line-item project details to elevate what chair Jim Sproul called its “most urgent message.”

By the numbers:

• $589 million in capital requests from departments over the next five years, far outpacing available revenue and borrowing capacity.

• The comprehensive wastewater management plan is the largest driver, but school capital needs alone exceed $200 million in the same period.

• The current sewer assessment cap of $10,000 per connection, set in 2021, has not kept pace with inflation, effectively asking taxpayers to subsidize late adopters at outdated prices.

State of play: The subcommittee pitched three pillars to bridge the gap. First, a debt exclusion, a dedicated tax surcharge that sunsets when the debt is retired. Second, updating the sewer assessment to track the Construction Cost Index so connections made in 2030 carry fair weight. Third, an evaluation of the opportunity for a public-private partnership program to bring outside capital, operational efficiency, and risk transfer to infrastructure delivery.

What they’re saying: Town Manager Mark Ellis clarified that the town has not obligated any money it cannot pay for, and has no intention of doing so. He stressed the $589 million figure represents planning for future expenses, not an existing deficit.

Yes, but: Councillor DaLuz pressed the panel on youth involvement, noting that no one under 20 was in the room while the council made decisions that would bind future generations to decades of debt.

What’s next: The council will hold a fiscal strategy session at the April 16th or 30th meeting to begin the legislative groundwork for a debt exclusion vote. The subcommittee set spring 2027 as the absolute deadline to bring a question to voters and stay on the wastewater construction schedule. If passed, a debt exclusion would raise property taxes to pay off the debt that would be borrowed for sewer and school construction. A debt exclusion differs from a tax override because it only raises taxes for the debt payback duration, not permanently. Councillor Burdick called for special council meetings solely focused on revenue strategy, unburdened by regular business.

Image from Barnstable Town Council Presentation 3-26-26

Council Downzones Parts of Downtown Hyannis

The Barnstable Town Council voted 13–0 to adopt a zoning compromise, replacing the Downtown Village (DV) zoning district (lavender color) with the lower-density Downtown Neighborhood (yellow color) on Pleasant St and parts of Camp, Stevens and North St and Yarmouth Road, but keeping the majority of the multifamily DV intact.

Why it matters: The change caps density at four units per lot on the edges of downtown while keeping higher-density zoning where the council wants redevelopment to continue. This is the fourth zoning change passed in 2026 that partially rolls back the form based code implemented in 2023. No specific analysis is available for the town regarding how the new zoning will impact future creation of affordable housing units.

Image from Barnstable Town Council Presentation 3-26-26

Image from Barnstable Town Council Presentation 3-26-26

Barnstable has the blueprint. It has the committee. It has the crisis. What it lacks is a way to bring everyday residents into the most significant zoning overhaul this town has attempted in a generation. The familiar faces show up at every public hearing. The people who need to be heard do not.

The Town Council’s Zoning and Regulatory Committee is working through seven priority reforms. They range from short-term rental regulation to additional building height limits in downtown Hyannis. These are not minor adjustments. They will determine where housing gets built. They will determine what businesses can operate in residential neighborhoods. They will determine what Cape Cod’s largest town looks like for decades. That deserves more than a handful of comments at a 5:30 p.m. Thursday meeting.

The blueprint is solid. Barnstable adopted its Local Comprehensive Plan in September 2025 after three years of engagement and more than two thousand resident comments. In October the Town Council created the Zoning and Regulatory Committee to translate that blueprint into code. The architecture is in place. The process to balance the necessary tradeoffs and compromise on the path forward is not.

The stakes are plain. The median home price in Barnstable has climbed to nearly $700,000. Two-bedroom rentals run about $3,200 a month. Cops, teachers, EMTs, and hospitality workers cannot afford to live here. They are also the least likely to show up at a Thursday zoning hearing. The zoning code is one of the strongest tools a town has to fix a housing crisis. The people most affected deserve a voice when it is rewritten.

The Zoning and Regulatory Committee’s March 19 meeting drew four public commenters. Four voices spoke on rules that will shape a town of over 44,000. That is not a criticism of the committee. The members did their work thoughtfully. It is a structural problem. The existing channels are not reaching the residents most affected. This is when more voices should enter the conversation. Once draft language is on the table the window narrows.

There is a tested model. A citizen assembly is a panel of randomly selected residents chosen to represent the whole community. They spend structured time learning about a policy issue. They hear from experts and neighbors. They deliberate toward recommendations. Think of it as a jury rather than a town meeting. A cross-section of the community is given enough time and information and asked to exercise collective judgment.

Eugene, Oregon, tried this for housing code changes in 2020 and 2021. Twenty-nine residents chosen by lottery met for thirty-five hours across fifteen sessions. They worked through many of the same questions Barnstable faces. Where should the town allow density? How should it balance neighborhood character with housing need? What trade-offs will the community accept? More than half their recommendations were adopted.

The predictable objection is that Barnstable already has a Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, a new Zoning and Regulatory Committee, and the standard apparatus of public hearings. That is true. But four commenters at a meeting that will shape the future of the largest town on the Cape town tells you those tools are not working. A citizen assembly does not replace these tools. It feeds them. It gives elected officials the broad input they need to make difficult decisions.

The Town Council should direct the Committee to incorporate a citizen assembly. It should start with the thorniest item on the list, how to address housing costs. Two thousand residents shaped the Comprehensive Plan. Translating it into code demands more than self-selected voices at hearings. It demands the deliberate judgment of residents chosen to reflect the whole town.

Why it matters: Officials are responding to residents who claim they are being “driven insane” by industrial noise and equipment storage, rather than prioritizing affordable housing or environmental concerns.

The big picture: Planning Director Jim Kupfer presented a Top Seven list of amendments deemed urgent by committee members to modernize the town’s land-use rules:

• Restrict commercial vehicles and commercial activity in neighborhoods (Items 1 & 2)

• Review regulations related to signage (Item 3)

• Establish short-term rentals ordinance (Item 4)

• Explore changes to Downtown Hyannis building heights for Downtown Neighborhood district (Item 5)

• Establish accessory structures (pools, etc) ordinance (Item 6)

• Review and amend commercial zoning for West Main Street (Item 7)

Driving the news: The most “thorny” debate centered on businesses outgrowing their residential footprints. Neighbors report large trucks, heavy equipment, and early morning noise that disrupt quiet streets.

• Village specific ordinance: Staff noted that multiple commercial vehicles on a residential property is likely not disruptive to some villages given two acre zoning, but this can be a problem in denser village areas.

• The cost of doing business: Committee members noted a lack of affordable commercial space often forces small businesses to remain in residential zones longer than appropriate, contributing to the current resident complaints.

What’s next: The committee voted unanimously to tackle items 1, 2, 3, and 5 first. Staff must now provide background information, proposed zoning language for item 5, and arrange for input from the Police Department and Building Inspector regarding complaints received.

The bottom line: The established committee priorities so far do not include updates to the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance to increase the number of affordable units built or the Seasonal Communities designation to support more flexible housing options.

Why it matters: The vote limits buildings by overall height, not number of stories, and reduces the amount of units able to be built in the Downtown Main Street and Downtown Village districts without zoning exemptions.

Driving the news: The noticed item, 2026-005, contained only a reduction in number of stories, but the Planning Board had proposed an overall height limit. Councilor Betty Ludtke included this in an amendment after consulting local builders Matt Teague and Tim O’Neal, who confirmed the 44 ft limit will still allow for 3.5 story buildings. The Planning Board had recommended 49 feet, but Ludtke pushed lower.

By the numbers:

• Main Street (DMS district): capped at 3.5 stories and 44 feet, down from 4 stories.

• Village district (DV district): capped at 3 stories and 40 feet, down from 4 stories.

• Height is now measured to the top of the roof joist, a change from previous measurement to the top of the top floor joist.

What they’re saying: “I think 44 ft is a really reasonable compromise … we’ll have something that’s going to meet all the requirements to keep the housing going and to help maintain the character,” Ludtke said.

Yes, but: Not everyone wanted lower limits. Sean Hogan, Hyannis resident and town employee told the council he would “enthusiastically live in these tall buildings,” arguing taller structures say “yes to more community members who can come and contribute.”

Between the lines: Under state law, the new limits are retroactive to September 5, 2025, the date of the first public hearing notice, meaning projects that received building permits after that date may be disrupted.

Image from Barnstable Town Council Presentation 3-12-26

What’s next: The council will hold another hearing in two weeks on redrawing or eliminating the Downtown Village district boundaries(see image below) to further reduce the amount of new housing that can be built. Up to 259 lots could be reduced from multi-family to a maximum of 4 units per property.

Image from Barnstable Town Council Presentation 2-12-26

State of play: At the March 12th meeting, Town Engineer Griffin Beaudoin updated the council on the Cape Cod Rail Trail progress in Barnstable. Phase 3, a 4 mile, $16 million stretch from Yarmouth to the Mary Dunn/Independence Drive intersection is under construction now by Lawrence Lynch Corp. This section contains a complex bridge over Willow Street which is expected to be completed in February 2031. Phase 4, from Mary Dunn to the Sandwich town line, is in the planning phase.

By the numbers:

• $77 million: current construction cost estimate for Phase 4 in 2026 dollars.

• $900,000: Mass Trails grant funding secured for initial design work, including route surveying.

• 10 miles: the Phase 4 route runs from Independence Drive down Attucks Lane, over Route 132 via a new bridge, and along the Service Road into Sandwich.

What they’re saying: “We are absolutely anticipating state funding for this construction … however communities, municipalities are ultimately responsible for getting the project ready,” Town Engineer Beaudoin told the council. The town must cover all design costs and complete necessary land acquisitions before the State will provide funding.

What’s next: The town is targeting a pre-25% design submittal to MassDOT by the end of 2026, with a public hearing at each major design checkpoint. Construction likely won’t start until the 2030s and funding is still needed for the remaining design work. Councilors also asked staff to explore a spur near Route 132 and Cape Cod Community College to access parking and rest area facilities.

Image from Barnstable Town Council Presentation 3-12-26

Why it matters: The committee fills a gap in the town’s zoning process. Until now, proposed zoning changes went straight to the Planning Board and Town Council without a dedicated forum for early public input and debate.

Driving the news: Ludtke beat Zoning Board Chair Jake Dewey for the chairmanship in a 6-1 roll call vote. Planning Board Chair Steve Robichaud, who nominated Dewey, cast the lone dissent. Council Vice President Kris Clark argued a councillor should lead the panel because its job is to carry recommendations back to the full council, a point several members endorsed before the vote.

State of play: The committee is advisory only; it will collect public input and make recommendations to the full council. Planning Director Jim Kupfer presented a three-page list of potential amendments compiled from the council, Planning Board, ZBA, town staff, and Local Comprehensive Plan, and asked committee members to submit their top five priorities by March 9. Two items already referred by the council, home occupation rules and commercial vehicle parking, are included in this list.

What they’re saying: Robichaud urged deliberation over snap judgments, saying the work must be “grounded in the facts, the context, the preparation, not those first impressions and those initial opinions that we might want to jump to.”

What’s next: The committee meets next on March 19 at 5:30 p.m. to discuss priority lists and choose which zoning issues to tackle first.

February can be dreary.  It’s too late in the year to irritate friends with Hallmark movies, and yet there are no songbirds to comfort.  The wind is biting, and it seems reasonable to toss new year’s resolutions into the nearest pond.   Massive winter storms knock us back to the dark ages, it’s cold, and you just don’t wanna.

Dreary too was the news that, on February 12th, the Barnstable Town Council passed a zoning amendment increasing parking minimums from 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit for downtown Hyannis, reducing the density allowed for new construction.

But you hate density, you say?  Well, that’s just because you haven’t been properly introduced. Density puts money in your pocket, oxygen in your lungs, and protection for your beachfront property.  Density is great, and here is why:

Money

Dense neighborhoods provide more tax income relative to their costs.  Infrastructure is largely established in downtown areas.  No major sewer extensions are needed, public transit is already there, and with higher density comes higher assessed values without miles of road to maintain.  Dense buildings are worth more per acre of land and therefore pay more taxes.  Downtown infill is as close to a profit-making enterprise as municipalities can get, and these profits subsidize the rest of town.

When staff summaries to the council say there is no fiscal impact to increasing parking minimums or cutting building heights, they are leaving the tax implications out entirely.  Make no mistake: reducing building heights and increasing parking minimums will cost you money in the future.  These zoning amendments are a tax hike in disguise; they reduce future tax revenue at a time when the town already faces a significant revenue shortfall.

Oxygen

I will admit to a little poetic license here.  Dense neighborhoods don’t produce more oxygen on their own, but they are more climate friendly.  Dense neighborhoods enable non-automotive modes of transport that reduce emissions and improve health outcomes.  They also make locally owned small businesses, like the corner markets and coffee shops, economically viable.  The air gets cleaner, and the people who make this town worth living in will be healthier for it.  Isn’t life better when your barista is cheerful and well-exercised? 

Beaches, am I right?

Our beaches are an asset, financial and spiritual.  For those of you fortunate enough to have inherited a water view, I imagine you would do most anything to preserve it, and here I have good news about density.  Downtown density is a way to reduce emissions per capita, slow climate change, and slow sea level rise.  World Bank models show that dense, walkable neighborhoods beat suburban per capita emissions by as much as 40%.  It’s also considerably cheaper than a sea wall.

Come on down!

Parking minimums may already have passed, but downtown Hyannis building heights are up for debate this Thursday, March 13th.  So if you can muster the will, come on down to the Town Council meeting and make the case to preserve our financial and environmental future.

Say yes to density.

This is not abstract. The ranch houses priced at $675,000 in 2026 were valued at $350,000 before the pandemic. That near-doubling is not standard inflation. It is the result of off-Cape wealth bidding up properties that local workers used to be able to own, because there is always another buyer with an out-of-state salary who can pay the higher price. The people who cook the meals, teach the children, and keep the lights on are being priced out of the town they work in, and a large share of the profit from that price appreciation flows directly into the pockets of second-home owners who parachute in only for the nicest months of the year.

Last month, after five hours of laborious debate, Barnstable County’s Assembly of Delegates approved a motion sending a resolution to the statehouse in support of a real estate transfer fee. The room was packed with angry and fearful retirees, primarily from Barnstable, who turned out to cry “socialism” and insist there is no housing crisis on Cape Cod. Online speakers from the Lower and Outer Cape were ready to assert that the crisis is real, and that a transfer fee is an excellent way to begin addressing it. Fights broke out between commenters during recess. The crowd heckled the delegates. At one point, a particular individual was so displeased with the proceedings that he threatened to overthrow and dissolve the county government in retaliation.

Sitting on the tallest hill in a village older than our nation, one might wonder if the ghosts of revolutionaries past had begun to possess a new generation of land-holders who feel oppressed by their current system. But a real estate transfer fee is not the taxation without representation that lit the fires of the American Revolution.

It is, if anything, the opposite. The real tax paid without representation is the one year-round residents pay when we allow this extractive system to continue without returning a fraction of that profit to the community that creates the value in the first place.

A real estate transfer fee is a one-time, mandatory fee imposed when property ownership changes hands, calculated as a percentage of the sale price. Towns across the Cape have been petitioning the state for years to access this tool, and despite the discord in that meeting room, many of our towns are on the same page. Provincetown, Wellfleet, Truro, Eastham, Chatham, and Falmouth have all passed town-level home rule petitions, some multiple times, that have been continuously ignored by the state. The County’s collective petition is an attempt to finally be heard.

The legislation gives towns meaningful control over how the fee works. Each town can set the threshold at which the fee applies, perhaps homes worth more than a million dollars, or in communities where even working-class year-round residents own million-dollar homes, a threshold of two or three million. Towns can also set the rate, which cannot exceed 4%, and decide whether it is paid by the buyer or the seller. Critically, no town would be forced to adopt the fee. Each would vote on it at Town Meeting or, in Barnstable, through the Town Council, and then require approval by a ballot question. Of the revenue collected, 90% would be returned directly to the towns to use as they see fit. The county holds the fund, but the money flows back home.

What could Barnstable do with it? The options are numerous. Subsidized starter homes — single-family, duplex, or ownership units within multifamily buildings. Workforce rentals with income caps set higher than traditional affordable housing thresholds, so that the nurses and teachers and restaurant workers who keep this town running can actually qualify. Down payment assistance for first-time buyers. Loans for construction of accessory dwelling units. Infrastructure improvements. The list goes on.

All of it pointed at the same goal: making Barnstable a town that can still be home to the people who work here.

The value of Cape Cod real estate is high precisely because of the character this community has built: the fried seafood served, the children educated, the shorelines kept clean, the streets made safe, and the culture maintained year-round by people who live here and love it. Second-home owners benefit from all of that. A modest fee on high-value transactions, applied only if a town chooses to adopt it, is not an act of revolution. It is a long-overdue acknowledgment that the people who create the value deserve a share of it.

Why it matters: The measure aims to combat the region’s severe housing shortage by giving towns a new local revenue stream to fund year-round housing initiatives.

By the numbers: The petition cleared the Assembly with 10 delegates in favor, representing 51.4% of the county’s population. Delegates representing Bourne, Sandwich, Mashpee, Barnstable, and Chatham voted against the petition.

• If authorized by the state, participating towns could levy a tax of 0.5% to 4% on the portion of sales exceeding $1 million.

• 90% of the collected revenue would return to the originating town, with 10% retained by the regional government for regional projects and program administration.

State of play: During a marathon meeting, delegates amended the petition multiple times to address critics’ concerns. Key revisions included:

• Mandating that local adoption requires both town meeting approval and a town-wide ballot vote.

• Exempting primary residence owners aged 62 or older who have lived in the property for at least 10 years.

• Changing the word “fee” to “tax” throughout the document.

What they’re saying: Deputy Speaker Daniel Gessen argued the tax is essential for reversing aging demographic trends, noting that “We are dealing with generational demographic shifts that are really going to change the face of Cape Cod.”

Yes, but: Dozens of residents and several delegates strongly opposed the measure. Real estate broker John Julius called it a “thievery tax” that would unfairly punish retiring homeowners.

What’s next: The petition heads to the Massachusetts Legislature. If lawmakers pass the special act, individual towns will decide whether to opt in.

Why it matters: On the surface, the measure was about parking, but the debate was really about development in Hyannis. Some proponents recognized that requiring more parking constrains the amount of units per lot, driving up costs and possibly limiting the amount of new construction. Arguments about the necessity of car ownership and the right to have a space to park were used as a shield in their battle to stop growth in Hyannis.

What happened: At the February 12, 2026 meeting, the Town Council passed item 2026-003 increasing the required number of spaces per dwelling unit from 1 to 1.5 and setting minimum space and aisle dimensions for downtown Hyannis zoning districts. Prior to passage, Councilors Keane, Shiengold, Levesque and Starr attempted to amend the item to reduce the minimum to 1.25, but failed. Final vote was 10 yes, 4 no, with Keane, Shiengold, Daluz, and Levesque in the minority.

What they’re saying: Public commenters appeared to agree on the impacts of the measure, increasing parking minimums will reduce the number of units constructed, whereas lowering parking minimums may increase number of units and lower rents. However, they disagreed on whether this was good or bad.

”You should be allowed to own and park two cars in the village of Hyannis. You cannot discriminate against us if we want to park two cars in front of our condo.” Erik Schwaab, public commenter

”And that is going to drive the rents in a good way, I guess will drive rents down. You’ll end up with landlords competing with each other, and the only way they can compete is by reducing the rent or offering some amenity. So as the rents go down, the quality of the tenant goes down.” Chris Kuhn, public commenter

“”We have an ocean of parking, but it’s not utilized well. If you go out there today, you’ll see a lot of asphalt.” Seth Etienne, Member of the Town Ad Hoc Committee to Review and Permitting Regulations

”We’re putting together rules that are going to guide for generations. When you build a property and demand that it have at least 1.5 spaces, I’m wondering whether 5 or 10 years from now, we’re going to look at that and say how crazy it is that we made the first floor of these buildings have to be parking lots rather than green space.” - Precinct 2 Town Councilor Tom Keane

What’s next: Item 2026-007 expanding the area of Main St where commercial space is required on the ground floor also passed with limited debate, but 2026-005 (lower building heights) and 2026-006 (eliminate the Downtown Village District) were continued to the February 26th agenda.

Why it matters: Petitioners call the current system a “retirement penalty”, a 20-percent cost jump the day you stop working.

What happened: At the January 29, 2026 meeting, the Town Council voted 10–0 to declare “merit” and consider the petition further. As retirees, President Tamash and Councilor Levesque recused themselves.

What they’re saying:

“The retirees were left out and we felt abandoned.”

Thomas Toomey, Retired Officer, 37.5 years of service

“People that have been retired can’t even afford to pay for their insurance.”

Patti Machado, 45-year town employee

What’s next: This was a vote on merit, not a final appropriation. The council must now complete a fiscal impact analysis for FY2027 and schedule a binding second vote.

The bottom line: With a unanimous vote and broad public support from a packed house of retirees, the remaining question is what will it cost the town?

Why it matters: The proposed zoning amendments increase costs and reduce the number of homes that can be built in Hyannis by restricting the number of units per property and devoting more area to parking. As a result, these amendments will hinder the construction of new affordable housing units in Barnstable.

What happened: The Town Council opened and immediately continued public hearings on four zoning amendments to February 12 after the town attorney flagged potential conflict-of-interest issues for councilors and their immediate family who own property in affected downtown districts.

The four items:

• 2026-003: Increase required parking from 1 to 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, cap at 2, and set minimum space and aisle dimensions, requiring more pavement and less homes per lot.

• 2026-005: Lower maximum building heights and number of stories in the Downtown Main Street and Downtown Village districts to prevent a perceived “canyon effect.”

• 2026-006: Eliminate the Downtown Village District and expand the Downtown Neighborhood District to better match surrounding residential character, while limiting the potential for new home construction.

• 2026-007: Require ground-floor commercial space in the Downtown Main Street district.

What they’re saying: Multiple residents and former ad hoc zoning committee members urged passage of items 003, 006, and 007 but asked the council to delay 005 on building heights until more data is provided.

What’s next: Public hearings resume February 12. Councilors were directed to verify with the state Ethics Commission that they have no conflicts before voting. Two additional items on home occupations and off-street parking were withdrawn and referred to the new Zoning and Regulatory Committee.

The Barnstable Current aims to fill this vacuum with truly local news: we are local people discussing local solutions to local problems. We’ll keep you informed about the conversations happening in our town hall and how other communities with similar challenges are solving them. We aim to make our stories fact based and approachable but without the fighting in the comments section. We’re interested in good news, creative policy proposals, town history, poetry, political cartoons and letters to the editor. Submissions or story ideas are always welcome! Some of our editorial staff were born and raised here, and some have washed ashore, but we are all equally dedicated to civility, positivity, and creating a better Barnstable.

In a time where everyone seems to have a problem, the Barnstable Current is talking about solutions.