Dear Editor:

The primary question is whose interests are being served? This project is nothing more than a last ditch effort by Point East to recoup their losses from the two failed projects they have sold to the town based on empty promises.

Does it really make sense to construct a coal based power plant in Maine? Why are there so few coal fired plants in New England? The answers are rather obvious. It is not economical to ship a low cost commodity like coal from the midwest.

The negative environmental and health impacts from coal begin at the mine and continue well beyond the smokestack. Every ton of carbon entering the plant will produce 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide. Anthracite (hard coal) contains about 90 percent carbon. Burning 7,000 tons of this coal per day would produce over 23,000 tons per day of carbon dioxide.

Point East's proposal to capture and sequester CO2 is nothing but a pipe dream. Are they going to ship over 20,000 tons per day of CO2 to Texas and pump it down a defunct oil well? I don't think so. Also, the proposed production and subsequent use of diesel fuel produced from coal generates about 150 percent more CO2 than using petroleum derived oil.

The revised town ordinance allows the facility to burn "coal and other carbonaceous materials." This sounds fine if we are talking about wood chips or sawdust. How would one feel if the other material included garbage, sewage sludge or animal manure?

I ask all Wiscasset residents to consider the absurdity of the Point East proposal and vote no on November 6.

If you want tax relief, go to the polls next June and vote no on bloated and/or unnecessary budget items. The voters have the final say on how much Wiscasset spends.

John Hewitt

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

Although I do not usually submit letters to the newspaper,  I feel the local election next week is just too important for me not to express my support.

The Twin River Energy Center is an enormous opportunity for this town. When I returned to work last year after staying at home with my daughter until she reached first grade, I realized first hand just how tight the job market is in this area. Businesses are struggling to stay afloat and job opportunities are definitely not abundant. To have the chance to create 200 high-paying jobs is an extraordinary opportunity.

I carefully considered all of the information I received, and I've read  about the technology through my own research. I am comfortable that the technology and environmental impact is much better than what is already in service today.

Pumping millions of dollars a year into the local economy would support many more small businesses that would thrive on serving the many power plant employees, and other employees of companies that do business with Twin River. The restaurants, hotels, stores, local vendors, school and town employees, doctors, dentists, lawyers, mechanics, etc. all stand to benefit as the increased activity and prosperity will circulate throughout the local economy.

It's rare that any town gets an opportunity like Maine Yankee brought to Wiscasset. And yet, here we have a second opportunity. I just can't imagine there would be a third chance with anything close to the benefits Twin River could bring to this town. So, I guess we need to decide to seize the opportunity before us, or hope for another. I am voting yes to allow Twin River to move forward and I hope the majority of Wiscasset residents feel the same.

Sincerely,

Laurel Noddin

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

While the folks at Twin Rivers are hesitant to put forth the facts regarding the proposed power plant until after the upcoming vote I found this tidbit interesting:

"Mercury is 13.5 times as dense as water. If all the mercury released into the air by U.S. coal-burning power plants in 2005, 48.3 tons, could be captured and stored in one place, it would fit into the back of a large SUV such as a Chevy Suburban or Ford Excursion. By contrast, depositing just 1/25th of a teaspoon of mercury into a 60-acre lake could contaminate the lake to the point that fish caught there would be unsafe to eat."

Sources: University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center; North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance

Why no discussion on the project except the promise of lower taxes and jobs? Sounds like the very same lingo and tactics used by the developers to hoodwink the town of Wiscasset when the Maritime Village was proposed.

Has that project been abandoned in favor of their latest folly? Where is the progress there? Any new jobs or outside investment? One vacant modular home does not a village make.

Dan O'Connell

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

In my opinion the residents and business owners of Edgecomb should be able to form their own conclusion without any outside undue recommendations or influence from other people who don't drop a cent into our town coffers.

I refer to last week's letter from the Raithel clan, from parts unknown, to Boothbay, trying to convince the voters of Edgecomb, that an Assisted Living Facility proposed to be built in their town would be bad for Nancy and Bill.

What a shame that a complex to be built that would support our elderly folks and people caring for the elderly could be in the view of these very selfish people.

As a Wiscasset resident, I respect and totally support the decision makers and tax payers of Edgecomb.

I feel Edgecomb cares about our elderly folks without being blind-sided by self righteous individuals caring about their own views. That's my view and I welcome yours.

Go Edgecomb!

Art Ethier

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

I am writing this letter from two perspectives, one as a father and grandfather and the other as a lobster fisherman. I own a lobster boat and fish 600 traps on the Sheepscot River, ten months out of the year. I also hold a commercial shellfish license and dig clams the rest of the year.

The Sheepscot River is my livelihood. I have thousands of dollars invested in my boat and gear. A few years ago, when a fuel barge came to the Mason Station, lobstermen were forewarned, and we all spent a week moving gear from mid channel to the sides of the river to prevent our gear from being destroyed. I followed the barge in, and it was all over the river collecting lobster traps as it went. It dragged these traps until they broke free leaving behind massive tangles of traps. When the barge docked at the Mason Station, I went up under the stern and saved what traps I could that were still hanging there. All the fisherman lost a considerable amount of traps and it took another week to untangle the traps that we saved. That was one barge-one trip.

I want my children and grandchildren to be able to continue to breathe clean air, eat fresh, not polluted seafood, go fishing, go clamming and lobstering etc., without worrying about whether it's safe or not, due to mercury and other contaminants. Our children are our future; let's leave our children the Maine that we were fortunate enough to grow up in. Look ahead for them.

Tourists come to Maine and a lot of you folks came to live in Maine because it's, "The Way Life Should Be." Please keep it that way. Vote NO on Questions 2, 3, 4, and 5 on Nov. 6.

Sincerely,

Wilson Rex Collamore

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

The CleanCoalUSA Web site, a new initiative of the Coal Based Generation Stakeholders (CBGS) Coalition, is pro-coal and proud of it.  However, CleanCoalUSA is telling us that the technology necessary for a clean burning coal plant cannot be ready for another 20 to 30 years.

Here are some exact quotes from the site:

"Significant efforts SHOULD go into the development of cost-effective processes to capture and store carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from integrated gasification combined cycle technologies."

"According to studies commissioned by the National Coal Council and conducted by Penn State University, the full development and implementation of these advanced generation and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies COULD generate significant socio-economic benefits for the nation by 2025-2035."

So there they are, the SHOULD and COULD of the issue.

Wiscasset cannot expect that a clean coal gasification plant WOULD possibly be built here anytime in the immediate future. Significant efforts have not yet gone into the emissions capture process.

Full development of carbon capture and storage process has not yet been achieved. We are now living in the year 2007. A vote for a coal gas plant in Wiscasset should be postponed for two or three decades. We must vote down this proposal now, and ask Twin River Energy to come back with a better idea.

Jim Simonetti

Wiscasset

Dear Editor,

Will Wiscasset, Maine's "Prettiest Village" become Wiscasset, Maine's "Village of Idiots?" We have plucked the Golden Goose clean, but some still want to spend money like it's going out of style rather than tighten their belts.

Instead, they are willing to have a sick, noisy vulture named P.E. Vermin from Greenwich, Conn. wrapped up in a pretty package of deception. With blasting shrills from its huge turbines which will be heard up to eight miles a way, and its gasps of deadly pollution 24/7, Wiscasset's new bird will quickly be revealed for what it truly is - an industrial nightmare. We better wake up and smell the roses while they are still able to grow here.

The "sick vulture" has done nothing but cough up empty promises from the time it "barged" into our village. This fat friendly vulture (vermin) and his hide and seek conspirators have already admitted they cannot put anything in writing. They are hoping to storm the less informed and the naïve by showering them with outrageous lies, half truths, political deception and fairy tales, and stories of huge financial relief, which they refuse to put in writing.

I've been informed that this nasty, "gassy" bird has already devoured 380 of our neighbors with its political schemes, but I have faith that the majority of our "not so naïve" village residents can save our village. Vote no on questions 2, 3, and 4 and find a more suitable village-friendly business.

Respecfully yours,

James A. Hammon

Proud Wiscasset resident

for 65 years

Dear Editor:

It is absolutely irresponsible for the Wiscasset Board of Selectmen to present a 230-foot coal plant ordinance change to the voters. Chairman Goud turned to a fellow selectman and said "This ordinance lets them build the plant." It is irresponsible and outright bizarre for any Selectman to promote a refinery plant with grave environmental implications in the Rural District with NO ordinances.

Town of Wiscasset ordinances? WIDE OPEN and NO CONTROLS.

The Rural District Ordinance regulating this site is only three sentences long and permits:

"Any use permitted in the Resource Protection, Residential or Business Districts, Any other building or use, unrestricted."

Read that again… unrestricted. Don't bother with Wiscasset review, just build it!

This is an opportunity for the town to step back and put some ordinances in place before someone tries to do a mega-development that is the wrong type and scale of project for our town. What is the highest and best use of Wiscasset's resources?

This coal plant will be defeated regionally even if the Wiscasset voters pass this out of greed. There is no environmental or economic sense in the Twin Rivers request.

My NO VOTE will cancel Duane Goud's yes vote. Halleluiah!

Vote NO on 2, 3, 4 and 5 for Wiscasset's Future.

Bill Phinney

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

October 18, 2007 the department of environmental protection in Kansas denied an air quality permit for the construction of two 700 megawatt coal-fired plants on the grounds that "it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health…" 

Wiscasset residents will be facing a similar choice on voting day regarding the fate of the proposed coal gasification plant. The plant would release more carbon dioxide than all power plants in Maine combined. This is worrisome in the light of a recent report from the UN panel studying climate change which asserts that it is " very likely " that greenhouse gases released from fossil fuels are causing global warming. Forecasts for the next few decades describe severe weather changes, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, species extinction, and disease spread. 

Steven King, Maine's master of the horror story, has called global warming the "scariest monster of all time." California's Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has perhaps summed it up best when he said, "If 98 doctors say my son is ill and needs medication, and two say no he doesn't he is fine, I will go with the 98. It is common sense - the same with global warming, we go with the majority, the large majority. The key thing now is that since we know this industrial age has created it, let's get our act together and do everything we can to roll it back."

Does Wiscasset want to risk leaving a dramatically altered climate as a legacy to our children and grandchildren? Please consider speaking out on voting day against the construction of a giant coal plant in our back yard.

Paul Perkins   

Cool Communities Group

Bath

 Dear Editor:

The Back River Alliance was formed by Wiscasset residents: lobstermen, clam diggers, worm diggers, farmers, construction workers, teachers, restaurant owners, fishermen, guides, doctors, real estate professionals, business owners, retirees and working people; and friends and neighbors just over the bridge and down the road.  We question the proposed coal-gasification plant in Wiscasset.  We collected information and facts about these industries.  

Many of us have served on many town committees for years - and agree that we have little protection under our ordinances against such a domineering industrial complex.

We understand the need for economic development, but also know that there are tradeoffs - negative or positive.  Point East/Twin River (PE/TR) says the project is positive for everyone and everything - impossible, and one-sided.  PE/TR never admits any negative side of their proposal.

There are many tradeoffs to this proposed coal gasification industrial complex, and many misrepresentations about many aspects of this project.  PE/TR is using promises to offset the negative impacts.  In reality, who will build this - will promises mean anything to them?

PE/TR has failed to provide the fact that many of these plants are being closed down, yet PE/TR makes no mention of it anywhere. 

We welcome economic development without damaging the environment and health of all of us in the region. We welcomed the concepts of the Mason Station Maritime Village and the iPark as promised - diversified businesses - a variety of jobs, a clean environment, and like-minded businesses. 

Promises that can't be kept or won't be kept means we all stand to lose. Visit www.backriveralliance . org for information updates.  We seek the truth and care about the preservation of our health and the health of the entire Sheepscot River system.

Larry Lomison,

Board of Directors

Back River Alliance

Dear Editor:

The Friends of Midcoast Maine works to promote prosperity and quality places in the Midcoast. Our mission is to enhance the Midcoast quality of life, including its natural resources, social and economic vitality, small-town character and historic assets. We accomplish this by promoting a sensible growth approach to regional land-use and transportation planning, decision-making and resource management.

As active members of our Midcoast communities, we hope to see a review process for Point East's proposed Twin Rivers Energy Center that is regional in scope and adequately addresses the concerns raised by the experts, community groups and the concerned citizens that will be directly affected.

This is a regional project, with potentially enormous positive and negative effects. It is a prime example of why local decision-making alone is not adequate since it cannot possibly reflect the costs and benefits to the region as a whole.

Large regional projects deserve a regional discussion, a regional debate and a regional review and decision. Abutting towns, and the towns that will experience any effect from this project, must have standing in the review. Neighbors, fishermen, and the towns through which coal must travel should all have a say. This is clearly more than an economic development project solely for Wiscasset, and it carries with it regional, state, national and even global ramifications.

Midcoast Maine deserves careful, thoughtful development that respects our heritage, character and quality of place. We need quality developments to bring good jobs and opportunities, but those developments need to take into account all that will be affected. We must talk as a region about our needs and plan for the future, together, with adequate information to make well-informed decisions. The outcome is too important for anything less!

Jane B Lafleur

Executive Director

Friends of Midcoast Maine

To the citizens of Wiscasset:

Please wake up and smell the roses, so to speak, before it's too late.

Shortly we will be voting on the coal gasification plant (and we are the only ones with the power to decide a regional issue). No other towns have any say, even though they are greatly impacted by our decision.

Its been said the plant will produce $50 million in benefits to the area, but it will also hurt a $100 million fishing industry - that's a potential $50 million dollar loss, not gain.

Also there is the clam industry, and let's not forget the worming industry. We have some of the most productive lobstering, fishing and clamming in the area. My father, who worked hard all his life to fight for the digging industry, would turn over in his grave at the thought that something he fought so hard to protect could be wiped out so easily.

We have a great town, it looks good and smells good and has a fairly clean river, and other great natural resources. Is it really worth the risk? Just look at the Androscoggin River. The paper and other industries have polluted it so badly it may never recover in our lifetime. Don't fall in, you won't like what you smell.

We can keep what we have nice, or sell it cheaply when the return vs. cost and loss are considered.

Vote "NO" for our town and our children's future.

Scott James

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

After 50 years of failed efforts, the Maine Department of Transportation is determined to build a bypass for Wiscasset this time around, no matter what!

Only one problem, the routes they're insisting on are vigorously opposed by the people. Why? All kinds of valid reasons: the bypass MDOT wants is a misnomer -- because it wouldn't bypass the town at all… it would plow right through it , effectively cutting the village in half. It would mutilate the countryside… confiscate miles and miles of private property… destroy homes and businesses… and bring noisy, ugly, smelly traffic roaring through neighborhoods night and day! In short, it would destroy the tranquil way of life in the community forever.

Fortunately, there is a viable alternative: build the bypass over w a ter instead of land. It's so simple. For northbound traffic, begin at Pottle Cove Road (where the Mason Station power lines cross Route 1), and follow it down to the water… then onto a causeway running out across the Sheepscot River - passing between the northern tip of Westport Island and the south shore of Davis Island - then cross the Eddy Road and Cod Cove to rejoin Route 1. (The ideal location for the causeway, to protect navigation, can best be left to the Army Corps of Engineers.)

Not surprisingly, MDOT is balking - presumable because they're already so heavily invested in their three infernal routes.

Fortunately, there are certain people in a position to block MDOT's efforts - the adversely affected property owners themselves. How come? Because there exists a perfectly viable alternative - with which they can take the DOT to court, and hopefully stop them in their tracks.

And that's precisely what the property owners must be prepared to do, to save both the town and their land.

John VanOrsdell

Boothbay

Dear Editor:

I would like to thank you for publishing the press releases for the Pemaquid Paddlers this past summer. 

We had a very successful season with 558 paddlers coming on the 25 Tuesday trips, we had one rainout. This averages out to 22 paddlers per trip. 

Both numbers were new highs for the Pemaquid Paddlers.

Thank you again for your assistance.

John Will

Founder, Pemaquid Paddlers

Pemaquid

Dear Editor:

I am writing this letter in response to the proposed coal gasification plant. I have attended every public meeting held. There's no information on who is going to build and operate this facility.

Point East has stated that as part of the proposal they plan to utilize a portion of the iPark as a research and development center to study the potential for carbon capture. Shouldn't this be done prior to constructing a massive coal plant? As a geologist, I can tell you that the potential for bedrock storage in this region does not look promising. If carbon capture and storage is going to be evaluated, common sense would seem to indicate that it should be done before the facility is in place. Seems to me Point East is putting the cart before the horse at the expense of the mid-coast region. Why not utilize a portion of the iPark to study wind, solar, tidal, and other alternative energy sources. There are plenty of companies out there that do just that. We all know there is plenty of space in the iPark… which leads me to my closing.

At the recent town meeting in which the ballot questions were explained, a gentlemen urged everyone in attendance to "give them [Point East] a shot." Point East promised housing, a marina, and shops along the waterfront. They promised new businesses in the iPark. They promised a tax reduction of $625 per household. They even promised to remove heavy industry from Wiscasset. As far as I can see, they've been given "a shot." To date, they have failed miserably. How anyone would consider supporting a proposal like this given the information available and Point East's past performance astounds me.

Kevin A. Hardwick

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

Our need for electricity will continue to grow, don't you know?

But the need to breathe clean air is also clear, and is already here, dear.

They'll pay 80 percent of the tax base.

Then they will own our town, and when they leave, we'll be much let down.

It will be a clean coal plant, no matter those who rant.

I wouldn't take that bet.

They can capture carbon, but can't do a thing with it yet.

Mother Nature doesn't need more CO2, she has so much, she knows not what to do.

Already it's not such a good idea to put too much fish on your dish. Imagine what adding 22 pounds of mercury each year to the current chemical Sheepscot stew will do.

We need the jobs, honey.

Sweetheart, we can't eat money.

Susan van Alsenoy

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

The upcoming vote looms near. Should Wiscasset approve an ordinance change that would invite the coal gasification industry into midcoast Maine? While the vote is exclusively the responsibility of Wiscasset residents, the repercussions extend far beyond our township. Today, our towns, states, and countries are all bound in an interconnected web of economics and environment. We are currently presented with a question that, pending community response, will have longstanding effects within our lifetime and that of our children.

The debate is dividing people who prioritize either economic development or environmental protection. The proposed plant presents a paradigm in which we must choose between school funding and organic farming; between reducing foreign oil dependency, and protecting our own watershed. We have a unique opportunity, as a community, to break this paradigm and do something truly innovative.

With both carbon sequestration and tidal turbines being in their developmental infancy, we can choose which modality to cultivate in our backyard.

While the geography of our granite coast may not easily lend itself to carbon sequestration, it does provide topography conducive to tidal turbines and other alternative energy sources. In 2006 the Electrical Power Research Institute conducted a feasibility study of tidal flow power in Maine. Cowseagan Narrows, between Wiscasset and Westport, was listed in their top 10 sites in Maine.

The remaining infrastructure of the Mason Station and nearby bridge access were both cited as strong attributes in utilizing this area. And so, the geological and industrial past may create a framework for a brighter future. Will we use this proposal as a catalyst to do something truly revolutionary? Can we be the change we want to see in the world?

Respectfully,

Mary Rafter

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

It's no secret that I fully support the Twin River Energy Center. I will vote `Yes' on the height amendment on November 6 to allow the project to begin the intense permitting process and review. It is important to remember what exactly we are voting for --- a change in height to move the project to the next phase, not a carte blanche final approval.

Twin River Energy brings new hope at a time when there is precious little. The majority of residents in this town and, from what we've heard from the experts over the years, have long believed the former Maine Yankee site would again be the site of a future power plant. The future of energy is coal gasification and it is here now.

It is inconceivable that the numerous review agencies would allow anything adverse to public health to be built in this day and age. Ask any business what it is like to go through the permitting phase and you can be assured it is a very intense and thorough process.

The highly efficient plant will put downward pressure on electricity prices and use a home grown fuel source to reduce our dependency on the very high cost of foreign oil. The price for a barrel of oil has risen every day in the last week and set a new all-time record each day it has risen.

The reality has struck home and we have a golden opportunity to help ourselves prosper and strengthen the economy. Or, we can choose to lie down and hope someone else will solve our problems. The choice is ours. I urge you to vote `Yes' for Twin River Energy on Questions 2, 3, 4 and 5 on the local ballot.

Sincerely,

Katharine Martin-Savage

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

Maine is trapped in a vicious economic cycle where environment friendly commerce is often trumped by short-sighted policies which render Maine desperate for job creation.

The stock market boom of the 1990s was partly fueled by a transfer of industrial earnings from hard working American employees to Wall Street investors. These transfers were billed as " efficiencies of the new economy " and were created by moving safe and clean regulated American industries to developing countries where environmental laws are rarely enforced. This fact is a painful reminder that we the waterfront property owners have no legitimate claim against investors who dare to build industries in compliance with our state and federal laws and regulations.

It is high time we stopped the ineffective NIMBY complaining and started putting our money where our mouth is. PLEASE do your children and grand children an enormous favor. Conduct an internet search for `socially responsible investments.' Having educated ourselves on this practical alternative to futile NIMBY exercises, we can then take effective action and demand that our brokers withdraw our funds from the very polluting industries of developing countries.

In the end, I hope we can all agree on one thing. If the only " acceptable Maine business " is " no business ," then Maine will continue the vicious economic cycle in which short sighted policies and self serving attitudes undermine environment friendly opportunities for commerce and job creation.

Sincerely,

Dan Schweitzer

Westport

 Dear Editor:

Fellow citizens of Wiscasset, please think clearly about the facts when you vote this Tuesday on allowing the Twin River energy facility to go forward to the next step in the environmental review process.

Don't be swayed by false emotional brochures showing black smoke pouring from tall smoke stacks. These photos have nothing to do with the Twin River proposal. The Twin River Energy Center will be 300 times cleaner than the Mason Station power plant that was part of our community for so many years.

Many of my friends and relatives as well as yours worked at Mason. A clean well run industrial facility can continue to be a backbone to our community, providing jobs, tax base, and a way to participate in the future.

Maine has some of the toughest environmental laws in our country. The Energy Center will not be built if it cannot meet the high standards it has set for itself.

Growth and vitality is the best way to preserve the history and beauty of our community. Vote yes.

Don Jones

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

I live in Vermont, have since leaving New York back in 1972, after my tour of duty in Vietnam. Taxes here have become incredibly high due to our intelligent legislatures having "rich" towns give to "poor" towns to fund education. 

I have been thinking about moving to the Wiscasset area.  I would bring money, a new private residence the town could be proud of and my new boat purchased from Wilbur, Robinhood, Ellis... one of your wonderful boat maker families... dump hundreds of thousands into the coastal community for the next several years employing everyone local to build our new downeast home... then live peacefully amongst the community of lobstermen, "from awayers" and visitors until death... paying taxes, buying groceries, new cars, Carhart clothing... feed for our horses and an occassional lobster roll from Red's... but not with a coal plant on Point East or anywhere else!

My $38,000 dollar property tax bill here in Vermont will go a long way in Maine but not at the risk of my health, depreciating property values and a community torn apart by the most stupid move anyone could possibly make in an intentional effort to destroy one of the most beautiful coastal regions in the country!

We will stay right here thank you... and maybe visit once in awhile... after-all, Five Island Lobster Pound couldn't possibly be serving up polluted catch, now could they?

Lee Gary Garsh, RFC

Barnard, Vermont

Dear Editor,

As I have listened to the folks from the Twin River Energy Center, Point East, or National RE/Sources (pick which ever name is most appropriate), I've been finding it hard to actually pick out the actual facts regarding this proposed facility.

I attended the Chewonki conference as a concerned citizen who might have to live near such a facility, and as an engineer who has significant concerns with other potential risks of such a facility that have nothing to do with polluting the environment - at least not initially.I've read with interest a number of letters from other engineers that have commented on what a great opportunity such a facility would be for this area; mostly however, from those who would not have to live in its shadow.

The various processes and materials associated with the coal gasification process are quite similar to many of those associated with a refinery. In terms of the various building and fire codes that will ultimately be applied should this project proceed, this facility will be classified as a "high hazard occupancy."

During none of the various discussions and "informational sessions" presented by Twin River Energy have I heard anyone address these risks. In fact, when reviewing the "artist's rendition" of how the proposed facility is to look, I would argue that this would be better put in terms of an artist's "dream."

Too often the response to specific questions has been "we'll work it out." Not a real encouraging answer, or at least not one that will engender confidence that they have really done a "due diligence" investigation and fully understand all the risks that may be involved. For a project of this magnitude, shouldn't they… or someone they've hired… be doing their homework on just what will or will not work for this site?

W. Mark Cummings

Westport Island

Dear Editor:

Most of us have many unanswered questions about the proposed coal gasification power plant and diesel refinery. Our questions concern the impact to our town, to our economy, to our health and to our environment. We all want to leave our community a better place than we found it - more prosperous, cleaner and a better place for our children and grandchildren to raise their families. And, of course, we all want lower taxes and more opportunities for jobs.

On November 6, we must decide if we want to give the "green light" to a major project that we know little about. Our questions just haven't been credibly addressed. We are told that if only we vote "yes" we will be given the answers we need. Just trust us. It is understandable that Point East is in a rush to get past the voters of Wiscasset and start on the path toward state approval. But why are Wiscasset's voters being told they have to rush this through? Selectman Bill Curtis said it best when he replied to a question about the plant's impact with "we don't have the answers, and neither do you." So, why not tell our leaders to go do their homework and get the answers?

Why the headlong rush? Is Wiscasset being "railroaded"? If you feel frustrated that you just don't have all the answers you need, or if you have any doubts that the promises made will not be kept, you should vote "NO" on questions 2, 3, 4 and 5 November 6. A "NO" vote is a vote to get your questions answered first.

For more information, please visit www.backriveralliance.org

Dennis Dunbar

Back River Alliance

Westport Island