YOUR SEPT. 1 editorial condemns Framingham’s proposal to reduce its dependence on Massachusetts Water Resources Authority drinking water. The principle underlying the Globe’s argument is that it is wrong for a community to take advantage of a local circumstance to shift a burden to its neighbors that do not share that advantage - that Framingham should not use its wells to reduce its use of MWRA water because the resulting loss of MWRA revenue would transfer costs saved by Framingham to the other MWRA communities.
How far does that principle extend? As a result of local circumstances such as demographics, property values, and a reputed not-in-my-backyard perspective, MetroWest communities adjacent to Framingham are unsuitable for hosting social service facilities that abound in Framingham. Consequently, the burdens of lost real estate tax revenues, fire and police protection costs, and impacts on quality of life fall largely upon Framingham. On the Globe’s principle, ought those suburban Framingham communities be insulated against sharing that public burden as if they were, in your words, “medieval duchies’’?
The Globe’s financial remedy for the MWRA’s potential loss is to prohibit Framingham from developing its wells. What is the remedy for relieving society’s social service burden that, because of local circumstances, is unduly imposed on Framingham?
John Kahn
Framingham
The writer, a former Framingham selectman and moderator, is an elected member of the school committee of the Joseph P. Keefe Technical School, which serves several MetroWest communities. 
