The following letter was sent to the Edgartown selectmen from members of the Chappy Path Steering Committee:

As we all know, the debate continues on the merits of a multi-use path on Chappy. The good news is that we believe this will not go on forever. Here we outline four steps for bringing resolution to this thorny question:

Step 1: Develop a factual basis for discussion. A key element missing in previous discussions was what options are feasible and what are their implications and cost. People were trying to evaluate concepts without concrete examples. The recent project conducted by the Civil Engineering Department at Northeastern University is designed to evaluate the Chappaquiddick roads and provide a more factual basis for evaluating alternatives.

Step 2: Accurately measure public opinion. We believe that democracy is the best antidote for what appear to be irreconcilable differences. A mail opinion poll of all Chappy property owners will be part of the Northeastern project and the results will give a clear and unbiased reading of the support for the various possible alternatives.

Step 3: Promote community understanding. This summer will offer a time for further discussion with a wider audience that includes seasonal residents. Recognizing that it has been difficult for either side in this debate to feel comfortable with the informal meeting processes used last summer, it would be desirable if town officials would take the lead in facilitating an open discussion of the alternatives.

Step 4: Engage the appropriate town committees. Many of us would like to see a bike path decision made by Chappy residents. The reality is that such decisions are made in the context of the Edgartown’s public funding process which includes analysis and discussion by various boards and commissions. The appropriate boards and commissions should be encouraged to engage in the process of evaluating the alternatives. Obviously, nothing definitive is going to happen without a positive vote at a town meeting.

Final note. We understand the frustration and anxieties with the process to date. We do believe that the end is in sight one way or another. We are committed to keep the discussion on a civil and rational level. However, our main objective remains unchanged; we want to present a realistic proposal for rational discussion and fair consideration.

The letter also was signed by Bob Colvin, Melissa Kagan, Will Geresy, Joe Sullivan, Tom Tilghman and Peter Wells.