The old saying goes that reasonable minds may disagree. The opinions of reasonable minds should at least be based on facts, though. In recent weeks, David Collins has expressed his opinion about the “litigiousness” of the New London Maritime Society (NLMS) and accused NLMS of making misleading claims. Hopefully this response will set the record straight.

Collins asserts that NLMS “made a lot of promises” to the federal government in its application for the lighthouse, and implies that it failed to keep those promises. In the 2002 application, former NLMS President Ben Martin proposed extensive increases to the activities at the lighthouse and related physical changes to the property. In 2004, the city planner informed NLMS that only site plan and coastal site plan approvals were needed if the primary use of the property remained a lighthouse, but that a Special Permit was required if the primary use changed to a museum.

After NLMS obtained the lighthouse in 2009, it decided against making the lighthouse a museum and increasing the activity on the property, in part because of the disruption it would cause to the neighborhood. NLMS instead kept the lighthouse as a lighthouse, with minimal visitation and minimal physical changes to the property. In 2013, for example, guests were at the property only 0.1 percent of the time, and most of that time was spent inside the lighthouse. The rights of the United States — and NLMS, by extension — to use the lighthouse in its present form have existed since long before zoning regulations were enacted in the city, so no further approvals were necessary.

Anyone who has been party to a lawsuit knows it takes an enormous toll on those involved, and should be initiated only as a last resort. NLMS did not initiate the present federal lawsuit with neighbors to the north of the lighthouse, who filed it based on an erroneous claim that they own part of the lighthouse property, all in an effort to enhance their privacy by limiting NLMS’s access to and use of the lighthouse.

Similarly, the neighbor to the south blocked the one safe path to the lighthouse, which admittedly crosses a portion of their property, but which has been used for years by NLMS and the Coast Guard. Relations with the neighbors have not always been acrimonious. NLMS benefitted from good relations with the former neighbors, but, unfortunately, their promises and good will are not binding upon the current owners.

Like anyone who is sued or faced with actions that directly impact one’s rights, NLMS was forced to either give in to the demands of its neighbors or defend itself. In these matters, NLMS felt obligated to defend its rights, not only for itself, but for the public, which would be most affected by any restrictions on access.

As for the dock, Collins is correct that “wanting” a dock is not the same as “needing” a dock. In this case, though, the two concepts become nearly identical because of the actions of the neighbors. Access to the lighthouse from land existed since 1761 and that will need to continue; however, the current situation necessitates that NLMS find alternate access to the lighthouse so as to minimize contact with the neighbors and intrusions upon their privacy, a goal that is met by creating access from the water.

NLMS hopes to resolve all issues with the neighbors in the near future, and looks forward to working in cooperation with them to develop a plan for access and use of the lighthouse that is acceptable to all.

George Sprecace is president of the New London Maritime Society.