Dear Editor

This is in reply to the person who wrote "In With the New and Out with the Old" in the November 29 issue in the "Tell It to George" column.

You actually had the guts and Kahunas the size of Mt. Olympus to say that worm diggers, clam diggers and fishermen are "whiners" who should get REAL jobs? You obviously have not tried these jobs. I have. They work their asses off for what they get and without their so-called backward life, how are you going to go to the store and get your fish, clams, etc. Maybe, the fishermen - you know, those "whiners," should take you out for a day so you can show them how easy it is, since you think they should get real jobs.

As for these housekeeping jobs in the condos that Point East, so far, can't even get built, and the grounds- keeping jobs, etc. - these are very low paying, dead end jobs. Get a life and a reality check!

As for the comment about moving away from "Our Town" if we want to maintain clean air and water - why should we have to move from a beautiful area like Wiscasset to anywhere else, to keep what we already have? Then what if someone wanted to pollute the place you moved to? How many times do we move? It seems to me that you probably work for Point East. You certainly don't care about the area you live in, if you live here at all.

Environmentally, people freak out about the amount of mercury in a thermometer winding up in landfills or in a trash incinerator, and this is only a couple of grams. Not that many people, including you, seem to care that 22 POUNDS of mercury would be released every year [from a gasification plant]. That's a lot of thermometers - not to mention the sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Yes, they have to work within the federal guidelines, but those guidelines change with the size of the plant. The larger the plant, the more they are allowed to pollute and this is before we consider the pollution credits that can be bought, allowing them to pollute even more, all legally.

As for your comment about Bintliff having everything handed to him, true or not true, I don't know, but I do know that he never polluted the areas he moved into. In fact, he improved on the already good-looking restaurant and harbor area.

Point East is one of the companies you commented about that wants big tax breaks but don't seem to be producing promised results for the concession and big loan Wiscasset gave them. Just look at the business park, you know, that nearly empty wooded area near the Maine Yankee site. It seems to me that they are looking to the gasification plant to bail them out of their other-so-far-failed projects AND didn't they say we wouldn't need any heavy polluting industry if we gave in and let them build the condos and business park? Besides, who do they think would want to buy a condo near this plant, anyway?

Gordon Scott James

Breather of Clear Air

User of Clean Water, and

With no plans to move anywhere to re-create it!

Dear Editor:

We are deeply indebted to the Damariscotta Region Chamber of Commerce for arranging to have the Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Newcastle Veterans Memorial Park.

It was the first such event, complete with caroling, since the park was created in 1990-91. About 50 attended, which we think is a good start to what we hope becomes an annual tradition.

Many thanks to Don Hunt for donating the gigantic tree; to Ned Kirkland and crew for erecting it, and to the chamber officials and staff for stringing more than 1,000 lights.

If it weren't for Allan Ray and Cal Hurdle, we wouldn't even have been able to get into the park. They shoveled the banks of snow left by the plow after the 12-inch storm and then used snow blowers on the paths and around the tree.

Chamber officials also put up a pop-up tent, decorated with lights, and served coffee and hot chocolate. It was a very nice touch.

Some children built a snowman while waiting for the 8 p.m. event. We had a countdown and then Ellen Macfarland, chairman of the Newcastle Board of Selectmen, threw the switch, so to speak.

Lyrics were distributed and Ann Pinkham led the carolling. It was a short event, given the hour, but those who came seemed to really enjoy it.

We already are discussing having the tree lighting next year on the evening before the Christmas Stroll, to kick off the three-day Christmas Fest. We plan to have it several hours earlier and to have publicity about it in the papers for two consecutive weeks before the event.

Thanks to everyone who helped and to those who attended.

It was quintessential small-town America. Don't miss it next year.

Loretta Boeche

Betsy Evans

Newcastle Park Co-chairs

Dear Editor,

To the person who wrote "In With the New and Out With the Old," but was so ashamed they didn't want to sign their name so they had to Tell It To George.

I don't intend to leave Wiscasset in order to enjoy clean air and keep clean water - I intend to fight for that privilege HERE in Wiscasset.

You almost sound like you might be the person I spoke to when I called the Town Office and asked, "What part of NO doesn't Point East and their parent company understand?" I explained that even after we, as a town, voted NO - they said they still planned on moving forward with their gasification plant, and I asked how they plan to do that.

The lady's answer was, "By better educating the townspeople about gasification plants." She also said that the people who had voted no should've contacted some of the other plants, like the one in Florida. I asked her if she had a phone number and was told NO, but that if I left her my number, she would get me a number and call me back with it. So far, I have not heard from her.

Apparently, it must've been the one that was VOTED OUT in Florida. Both in Orlando and in Tampa they were voted OUT! Aren't we at least as smart as the people in Florida, who, although they may have had problems with voting and hanging chads, they DIDN'T have any problem voting no on a gasification plant. I guess they got educated!

Also to criticize the fishermen, worm diggers and clam diggers and implying they are backwards in wanting to protect their way of making a living is NOT a good way to make friends in this town.

Without them, where would you be the next time you went to a fish market for fish, clams, lobsters, shrimp, crabmeat or scallops or to a restaurant to offer a seafood platter? They work under VERY HARSH and DANGEROUS conditions, unlike someone like you who probably sits on your cushy tushy.

Be careful what you're wishing for, because if you want mercury in your water and fish and dirty air, YOU move and fulfill YOUR wish elsewhere, because we LIKE our town the way it is, and unlike you, I'll sign my name.

So far, Point East hasn't been educating us, but rather IGNORING our questions as best they can. For example, as to where they would get all that water they need and don't people realize it doesn't matter if all that carbon dioxide got stored underground, it would eventually get into the groundwater and then into our water supply, not to mention the pollution from those tall stacks.

Sandra E. James

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

As someone who was intensely involved with the bypass debate for a number of years, I have naturally read the DEIS from cover to cover. This is a much improved document over those the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) has produced in the past. The one glaring weakness is that given MDOT's primary concern to keep the traffic moving, once that is accomplished little attention is paid to the different impacts of the route options on Wiscasset.

To understand these issues better, I obtained from MDOT a summary of the traffic modeling from which the various traffic projections have been developed. This shows that in 2030 the projected traffic numbers through Main Street and over the Davey Bridge in the summertime are:

• N2/N8c: 5,449 cars

• The two N2/N2f routes: 9,638

• N2/N2h: 15,520

• N2/N2a/N2h: 16,953.

In other words, while all the routes will solve the congestion problem, some of them, notably N2/N2h and N2/N2a/N2h, will leave an awful lot of traffic still passing through Wiscasset. In contrast, N2/N8c will reduce it to an absolute minimum.

I did some more research. The summertime traffic in 1980, when people were already complaining about the traffic, was 15,437 cars. By 2030 N2/N2h and N2/N2a/N2h will both exceed this number. Although they may keep the traffic flowing, from the perspective of restoring `livability' to Wiscasset, they will be a failure. N2/N8c, on the other hand, will reduce traffic in Wiscasset to one third of the 1980 level.

I dug a bit deeper. I discovered that the N2/N2f routes, N2//N2h and N2/N2a/N2h only start to divert traffic from Wiscasset once traffic flows are up to relatively high levels (300 cars an hour for the N2f routes, 700 cars an hour for N2/N2h, and 900 cars an hour for N2/N2a/N2h). This is because the longer travel distances created by these routes will deter people from using them until the traffic starts to build up in Wiscasset. In contrast, N2/N8c diverts traffic at all times.

What this means is that for most of the year the N2f routes, N2/N2h and N2/N2a/N2h will hardly be used, putting a considerable amount of traffic through Wiscasset that will not be there if N2/N8c is built. Once again, all the routes will keep the traffic moving, but N2/N8c will have by far the most beneficial effect in terms of year-round `livability' in Wiscasset.

I dug even deeper. I found that MDOT defines Route 1 traffic in terms of `northern' traffic (6.3%), all of which will take any bypass route, Wiscasset traffic (13.3%), that will go to Wiscasset regardless, and `divertable' traffic (80.4%), which potentially can be "captured" by the various bypass routes. Using the projected 2030 summertime numbers, I discovered that of the "divertable" traffic:

• N2/N8c leaves 1,073 cars going through Wiscasset that don't need to be there;

• The two N2f routes leave 5,252 cars going through Wiscasset that don't need to be there (almost five times as many as N2/N8c)

• N2/N2h leaves 11,144 cars going through Wiscasset that don't need to be there (10 times as many as N2/N8c)

• N2/N2a/N2h leaves 12,577 cars going through Wiscasset that don't need to be there (almost 12 times as many as N2/N8c).

It doesn't matter how you slice or dice these numbers, if you want to restore "livability" to Wiscasset, N2/N8c is dramatically more effective than any of the other route options. It also impacts the least number of residences and businesses, and has the lowest environmental impacts.

Although these facts may be unpalatable to some people in Wiscasset who have campaigned vociferously against N2/N8c, it is, in fact, by far the best option for the town.

Nigel Calder

Former resident of Alna

Dear Editor:

I serve as Lincoln County Planner and, in that capacity, I am a member of the Wiscasset Bypass Task Force. In my work as county planner, I frequently meet with selectmen, planning boards, comprehensive plan committees and other groups throughout the county. When these meetings coincide with news on the bypass study, I am invariably asked questions on the status of the bypass project and whether it will eventually be constructed.

There is probably no other regional project that is more on the minds of county residents than the bypass. Yes, we have all heard that the traffic is a problem only (pick one: two, three or four) months a year. But these are critical months for a businessperson who may be deciding on whether to build a new warehouse or machine shop or distribution facility in Damariscotta, Waldoboro, Boothbay or some other community on the "wrong" side of the Davey Bridge. Who is going to make a job-creating investment with the assurance that they can ship or receive their product efficiently only nine months a year? And make no mistake about the jobs. We need steady, good paying jobs for our families and our young people everywhere in our county.

Of course, this bypass issue is not only about jobs. It is also about reclaiming "The Prettiest Village in Maine" from the grip of a traffic monster that divides the village in two with a continuous stream of cars and trucks and exhaust during our short summer months. It is about making the village more accessible to those who want to be there, whether they are tourists or those who have business in Wiscasset or locals who want to enjoy Maine's prototypical riverfront village.

Unfortunately, as we well know, creating a new bypass will not be easy. If it were, it would have been completed long ago. The study is now at the point where Wiscasset and Edgecomb are being asked to recommend a route for the bypass through their communities. It is clear from the information gathered to date that any route will have at least some adverse impacts and it is also clear that some homeowners and business owners will be asked to shoulder a significant portion of the burden of a new, limited access alternative to Route 1.

I attended the two most recent bypass meetings in Edgecomb and in Wiscasset. At both meetings, much of the discussion was reasoned, sometimes impassioned. Comments from homeowners who might be most directly affected were especially heartfelt. With the exception of those who just want to delay the inevitable or who insist that the traffic is not really a problem, most folks acknowledged that something in the way of a bypass will have to be done.

Based on conversations with many from around the county, people understand and empathize with Wiscasset and Edgecomb as they reach the point where they must recommend an alternative to the Department of Transportation. They are also very hopeful that the recommendations will be constructive and consistent and will lead to an actual bypass in the not-too-distant future.

I hope that once both communities make their recommendations, we can move on to the issues of minimizing the potential adverse impacts of a bypass on property owners and planning for the revitalization of Wiscasset village and, potentially, the creation of a new Edgecomb village. The former might be achieved by urging the Department of Transportation to take a more expansive view of noise and traffic-related impacts on homes and businesses. The latter is really up to the communities to determine themselves.

With traffic that does not really want to be there removed, perhaps some local services can be re-established along Main Street and a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere created. I can envision a future Wiscasset village with the vitality and activity of downtown Damariscotta, conditions which were made possible by its own Route 1 bypass many years ago. As for Edgecomb, it has never really had a village center. Perhaps Davis Island might serve that purpose in the future.

Bob Faunce

Lincoln County Planner