Dear Editor:

Two weeks have passed since the November 6 vote on Wiscasset's proposed ordinance change that would have allowed the Twin River Coal Gasification Plant to move forward, and I have had ample time to reflect on the events of the past few months and the course of action now dictated by the voters of Wiscasset.

First of all, the people of Wiscasset have spoken loudly and clearly. The vote of 868 "NO" vs. 707 "YES" (a margin of 55% to 45%) was by no stretch of the imagination the thin margin that Twin River would like us to believe. Rather it was a resounding mandate; a mandate to Twin River to fold their tent and go home; a mandate to National Re/sources to go forward and live up to their promises at Point East and the i-park; a mandate to the selectmen of Wiscasset to recognize that under our form of government (which the last time I checked was still a democracy) the majority rules and that they have a sworn duty and responsibility to carry out the will of the people.

Webster defines the word "NO" as "an act or instance of refusing or denying by the use of the word "NO": "denial - a negative vote or decision," What part of the word "NO" do the Twin River advocates not understand?

I have attended all of the public hearings on the Twin River project including the one on Westport. I have read thoroughly the findings of the experts at the Chewonki Symposium and I have read all of the flyers written by Twin River as well as those of the Back River Alliance. And I have read all of the postings on the Back River Alliance web site including articles in Time Magazine and USA Today and several other national publications detailing the cancellation of numerous coal gasification power plants throughout this country and abroad for the very same reasons that the majority of the voters of Wiscasset rejected Twin River.

While it is true that there was an abundance of unanswered questions or missing information on matters such as the source of the 10 to 12 million gallons of water needed per day, indecision on the means of bringing in the 5 to 6 thousand tons of coal needed daily, as well as silence on the means of removing the projected 9 thousand gallons of diesel fuel produced daily and the disposal of other toxic residue - all questions that Twin River NOW promises to address - the voters of Wiscasset did not reject this outrageous project for lack of information. No, they rejected it because they took the time to consider what was known and then said "NO."

"NO" to a 230 ft. stack dominating our landscape - "NO" to thousands of tons of CO2 being dumped into our atmosphere annually - "NO" to 22 lbs. of toxic mercury being dumped into our river that could destroy our lobster industry - "NO" to clear cutting at least 50 acres of beautiful woodlands - "NO" to acres of dirty coal leaching into our water supply - "NO" to the lies about two cents per kilowatt of electricity when the costs would more likely be eight to 11 cents per kilowatt (based on the experience of existing similar power plants)

"NO" to the not yet perfected technology of CO2 capture and sequestration which in any case is not physically or economically feasible in Maine - "NO" to exaggerated promises of 200 jobs for which few if any Wiscasset job seekers would initially qualify - "NO" because the proposed heavy industry coal gasification power plant and refinery does not comply with Wiscasset's recently passed comprehensive plan which calls for light, not heavy, industry, and finally, true to one of Maine's finest traditions, "NO" to those who would seek to change "Maine, the Way Life Should Be" to life as they know it in other states.

Citizens of Wiscasset, do not let Twin River subject you to another vote with the attendant agonizing campaigning both for and against it. Do not let your selectmen ignore your will. To those who did not vote and to those who voted "yes," take these next few months to learn the TRUTH about coal gasification. The data is readily available (see www. backriveralliance.org). Learn about the reasons behind all of the cancellations of similar projects. Reflect on the integrity or rather the lack of it from the Twin River snake oil salesmen. Think about your responsibility to your family, your children, your grandchildren and future generations. Think about the impact such a project as Twin River would have on Maine's Prettiest Village. Think about the 2,340 friends and neighbors who have signed petitions calling for the defeat of the Twin River project.

I know that tax relief promised by Twin River is a formidable incentive. Everybody wants tax relief. Hold Point East's feet to the fire. Make them provide the tax relief they promised and have yet to deliver. Jobs for our sons and daughters are another strong incentive.

Where are the jobs promised in a 239-slip full service marina, or fine restaurants and boutiques and a hotel? Where are the jobs promised in the i-park that would eliminate the need for heavy industry in Wiscasset? Twin River, Point East, National Re/sources - they are all one and the same. One must seriously question their true motives. The well-being and best interests of Wiscasset cannot be among them.

At the first public hearing Scott Houldin stated that the plant would be financed by private investors whom he could not, or would not identify. Nor would he identify the organization that would actually build and operate the proposed plant. Obviously such a project is well beyond the capabilities of a small time Connecticut real estate developer.

He also stated that no public money would be involved, yet there have been rumors of millions of dollars of federal subsidies, perhaps as much as $50 million, that might be available for such an energy project. Could this be a motive? Federal subsidies come from your tax monies. It is public money in every sense of the word.

Mr. Houldin also repeatedly stated that if Wiscasset turned down his requested ordinance change he would abandon the Twin River project. Although he does not deserve it, let us give him one more chance to make at least this one of his promises come true. He should not request nor should he be granted a re-vote. He should graciously accept the will of the voters and put his efforts into making a success of Point East and the i-park.

Insist that your selectmen see to the enactment of the necessary ordinances suggested at the hearings by your citizens that will protect Wiscasset from future violations of reasonable and desirable standards for air, water, noise, light, traffic and toxic pollutants. Insist that your selectmen do not propose projects that would alienate your friends and neighboring towns whose good will and support are so vital to the economic well-being of Wiscasset. This, not planning for a re-vote, should be the focus of Wiscasset selectmen and voters in the immediate future.

Let us put this ill conceived, economically unrealistic (no investor in his right mind would put one dollar into such a proposal) and environmentally destructive plan behind us once and for always. Wiscasset, THERE IS A BETTER WAY.

Morton R. Mendes

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

The good folks at Twin River Energy and National RE/sources plan to move ahead with their proposal to build a coal gas and diesel plant in Wiscasset. This is in spite of a NO vote to change the height ordinance that stands in the way. They could not answer questions about necessary water resources, but they do plan to get the questions answered. They could not answer questions about transporting the coal, but they do plan to get those questions answered, too, and then come back for another vote.

However, they do not plan to explain how they would satisfy emissions requirements, because they already have: they said that they plan to use "cap and trade." The Federal Clean Air Act has not controlled harmful emissions quickly enough. Our federal government, instead of providing better enforcement, is overreacting and is moving away from the Clean Air Act, and is, instead moving toward the Clear Skies Act.

The Clean Air Act, as presently implemented, protects every community in the region against new power plants that would exceed the emissions limits. The Clear Skies Act does not do that. Instead, if executed properly, it only reduces the average total emissions from the region. Through buying and selling of pollution credits, Clear Skies, based on cap and trade, creates the possibility of toxic hot spots. It would be like me being allowed to smoke on an airplane, as long as I paid someone else not to smoke. If the Twin River plant is built, Wiscasset will become one of those toxic hot spots.

Letters in the Nov. 15 issue of the Wiscasset Newspaper from Anne Leslie, Dick Grondin, Karl Tarbox, Dennis Dunbar and Ron Carey seem to follow common assumptions: the battle is over, the NO vote was a final victory, Twin River cannot succeed, we should congratulate our allies, admonish the enemy, and move on. I cannot share those assumptions; I do not believe that our courageous NO vote has changed our future world at all, but that it simply delayed how our world may change. I think that Twin River has not yet begun to fight.

I do not believe that Scott Houldin, Joe Cotter, etc. are trying to insult us, to lie to us, or to avoid answering questions for which they know the answers. Neither do I believe they think we are stupid, nor that we could be fooled by half truths, distortions and promises of something for nothing. They, too, are not stupid. But neither do I believe that they care about the community of Wiscasset, and want the best for us. I think that they are simply conducting their business, which simply happens not to be in our best interest. Nothing personal. Their companies proudly specialize in dealing with community mentalities such as NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Never Again).

Follow this scenario: Rep. MacDonald could get his CO2 control bill passed in the State Legislature next year. Twin River could ask the federal government to strike it down, on the basis that it is more stringent that the Clear Skies act (a similar battle is being fought in California right now). The federal government could strike down the law. Then, due to cap and trade, there would be nothing left to stop the coal plant from coming to Wiscasset except the height restriction. Twin River, armed with their new studies on water and coal transport, could demand another referendum.

The selectmen could hold another referendum. We could vote it down again. But Twin River could put a Plan B into effect. They could sue Wiscasset, claiming the height restriction unfairly impedes their right to develop their property. Could they win? (What came first, the height restriction, or the purchase of the site by National RE/sources? I don't know, but the point is, they may find some basis for a lawsuit that they could use to strike down the ordinance).

We should have more protection than the height restriction. I have written to Rep. MacDonald, and to the Maine DEP, asking if a state or local CO2 or mercury emissions law could be written that could not be trumped by a Federal cap and trade- type law. Rep. MacDonald referred my question to the Conservation Law Foundation, which has not yet responded. Maine DEP has not yet responded.

Sen. Susan Collins recently proudly announced passage of the Clear Skies Act in the Senate, touting the wonderful advantages of cap and trade. I have written to Sen. Collins and to Sen. Snowe, explaining how cap and trade could hurt Wiscasset, and asking them to take some sort of action to protect us from it.

And oh, by the way, special thanks to Skip Taylor for his wonderful cannon regulation (ordnance ordinance) story. Get your word processors revved back up again, Anne, Dick, Karl, Dennis and Ron. And get that 6-pounder cannon primed, Wiscasset, the coal gas and diesel plant steamroller is still heading our way!

Jim Simonetti

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

Having attended the first of the so called informational meetings with MDOT in Boothbay Harbor about the proposed bypass for Wiscasset, I would urge those of us who are concerned about such a thing splitting this town in two to make your comments to MDOT known that we don't need a bypass.

It's interesting that in last week's paper there was an article to Mr. Houldin about "NO means NO." If this town voted down a bypass three times, why is the state so determined to shove this down our throats like everything else they do (mostly in the form of taxes, which this will surely be raised in some shape or form).

Doesn't "NO means NO" also apply to these people?

For 50 years there have been traffic issues on Route 1 all along the coast. That's what makes the area unique. You expect that in the summer. However, during that time MDOT has made no attempt to do anything to improve the situation, like redo the poorly designed intersection at Route 27 and Route 1 in Edgecomb, do any kind of study with some well placed traffic lights in Wiscasset (I know, you had one!). It would take several at strategic points like Route 27 and Route 1 in Wiscasset, Route 218 and Route 1 in Wiscasset, and maybe one more at Route 1 and the Old Bath Road (synchronized of course).

Even Damariscotta now has traffic lights. Also some pedestrian walkways over the road that would blend in with the setting might be tried. Lots of towns have these. Point is, nothing has been tried to this extent.

The state spends all our money to do a study about why a bypass is needed, but does no field work for a few summers or years testing traffic lights, better and more parking, pedestrian walkways over the road, etc.

We don't need a concrete city coming through our town. The MDOT representative who at times acted like he was fishing for answers, or didn't have answers to questions admitted that even the traffic counts weren't done for any length of time, and weren't compared month to month or year to year. How can that be?

Also he added that the traffic projections for people coming into the state are going to rise over the coming years. We get a monthly report from the Maine Tourism Bureau that shows the MDOT traffic figures. They have been down for quite some time. With gas prices going up, we believe the traffic figures will continue to go down.

Some improvements are certainly needed, but not to the tune of $79 million dollars. Everything should be tried within reason before even considering a bypass and it hasn't been. MDOT has just plodded through with its blinders on saying a bypass is the heaven sent cure all. Not for a "two month out of the year" inconvenience it isn't.

Some of our neighbors in Boothbay Harbor would like to blame their economic woes on Wiscasset. I hate to tell them, but turn on your TVs any day and listen to how bad the economy is across the country and that includes tons of places that have bypasses.

I would hope that there are people here who also feel that a bypass is not needed. It certainly does nothing to improve the look of our environment or town. We're trying very hard to buy into this community and trying to start a successful business, so we want people coming through this town, not around it.

We moved away from all the bypasses because we wanted to enjoy life in the slow lanes. People will not see the "Prettiest Little Village" at all whizzing past it at 70 miles an hour. We need them coming through our town, not around it. Please make your comments known to: www.wiscassetroute1corridor.com and if that doesn't work, try cmorris@morriscomm.net.

Also you can write to: Ed Hanscom, Bureau of Planning, MDOT, 16 State House, Station, Augusta, ME 04333

Frank Risell

Wiscasset