Dear Editor:

This letter is in response to the comments made by the EMA director during the county commissioners' meeting a couple of weeks ago:

"The EMS and law enforcement in Lincoln County are superb. It is the fire service that is the weak link."

First of all as fire chief of the Wiscasset Fire Department I take offense to anybody equating our department as a weak link knowing first hand how much time and dedication our members contribute every year. For this comment to come from an individual who is supposed to be helping to improve the overall fire operations and training programs within the county is puzzling to me.

While I can speak firsthand for the members of our department, I feel I can safely assume that all the other departments in the county are as dedicated as we are and therefore do not deserve to be categorized as a weak link. The job of a volunteer firefighter is to maintain a high level of training and readiness along with meeting an ever-increasing amount of state and federal standards. We as volunteers do this year in and year out with little or in some cases zero compensation. I'll be the first person to admit that none of us is perfect, and we struggle to stay in compliance with all the standards we are taxed with every year, but that doesn't stop us from answering the call whenever our public needs us.

I've only been on the Wiscasset Fire Department for 30 years, so I may be speaking out of turn. I'd like to think by now I know a little about the fire service and the dedication it takes to be a volunteer.

I would sooner let the citizens and taxpayers of our county be the judge of their town's fire department rather than an individual who couldn't possibly know the character and inner workings of every single fire department in the county.

Tim Merry, Fire Chief

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

The Wiscasset Middle School fifth grade students and teachers would like to thank the many people who were involved with our Scholastic Book Fair last week. We raised a lot of money for field trips and supplies, thanks to you.

We would like to thank Big Al's for donating all the wrapping paper, and Scholastic for donating $100 worth of books so we could raffle off $25 worth of free books each day.

We would like to thank the parents for working at the fair, fulfilling teacher wish lists, and for baking cookies. We would especially like to thank Mrs. Molly Carlson for organizing the entire event.

And we could not have done it without you, our community, for buying our products.

Thank you again.

WMS Fifth Grade Students/Staff

Editor's note: a copy of the fo l lowing remarks, presented at last week's Midcoast Bypass Task Force meeting in Wiscasset, was sent to the newspaper

Submitted By John VanOrsdell

I'll keep this short and  to the point.  First, a couple of questions:

How many of you would like to see NO bypass built anywhere?

And how many just want to see some bypass built somewhere?

Unfortunately, it's the first group that's likely to get its wish - despite MDOT having ruled out the No-Build option for failing to meet the needs and purposes of the project.  And why won't a bypass be built?

Because money being as tight as it is, especially in Washington, no one - but no one - is going to pony up $70 million or $80 million to fund some ill-considered highway project which the host community opposes - as was evident at last week's public hearing.

What to do then? 

Simple: send MDOT back to the drawing board to come up with a proposal the people of Wiscasset can embrace.  That, sadly, is what's become the primary task - and responsibility - of this Task Force.  You serve no purpose... and perform no public service.

All you do is meekly acquiesce to whatever flawed, short-sighted, bargain-basement bypass plan MDOT presents you with. Choose one of the over-water routes which I proposed - such as a southern, straight-shot two-mile run from Pottle Cove to Cod Cove, with a tunnel or drawbridge out in the mid-river channel. Either that, or perhaps a 10 mile, over-land bypass, built well north of the village - meaning one which does not bi-sect it -- and, whichever one you choose, it will enjoy far greater support from the community than any of MDOT's  current proposals.

Granted, either route will cost twice what MDOT wants to spend - but then they'll have years in which to find the money!  Now, here's something to reflect on:  Without doubt, the price tags for the Lincoln Tunnel and the George Washington Bridge over the Hudson must have looked enormous when first proposed -- but who'd argue today that they weren't necessary, and well worth the money!

You are the Wiscasset Bypass Task Force!  And MDOT cannot simply ignore you - or dismiss you, just because they don't happen to agree with you! In closing, permit me a few observations:

I think MDOT takes you for granted;  

They expect you to agree with them;

They expect you to do what they ask;

They do not expect you to balk;

They do not expect you to criticize them;

They do not expect you to assert yourselves;

They certainly don't expect you to substitute your judgment for theirs;

And the last thing they expect is for you to rise up in open rebellion. Nor should you.

Simply send them back to the drawing board!

Editor's Note: a copy of this letter to the state's Congressional members was sent to the newspaper.

Honorable Members of Congress from Maine:

As a current member of the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) for decommissioning Maine Yankee and former town planner for Wiscasset, I am alarmed at the following report by Charles P. Pray. Many decades ago the nation chose to handle spent nuclear fuel in a responsible manner.  Since then special interests and, evidently, loss of institutional memory, have conspired to weaken a focus on the goal of a central, federally-controlled repository for all the spent nuclear fuel from civilian power plants across the nation… about 100 of them.

Imagine if the former Soviet Union had had one hundred puppet states all armed with weapons-grade nuclear materials… and then they were all left to manage them after the break-up of the Union on their own!

Further, science now tells us that the planet only has so much petroleum and so much uranium.  For generations following us, those facts will dominate the energy needs of humans on the planet.  When I was with the CAP at Yucca Mountain a few years ago, I was very favorably impressed that the storage is not to be an out-of-sight-and-forget-it affair; rather, the canisters are planned to be recoverable so that future generations would be able to benefit from reprocessed fuel… a long-term, responsible, recycle program!  This cannot be achieved with 100 separate sites scattered around the nation!

My four children and eight grandchildren all live within 30 miles of Wiscasset.  We all have a great stake in the future of how the nuclear waste storage facility at Maine Yankee is to be handled.

What is before Congress now is not practical.  It is not prudent.  Therefore, please urge your fellow members of Congress to look at the history, consider the special interests behind the closed-door plan in progress, and keep this cut in funding from happening.

Very sincerely,

Daniel H. Thompson, President

Advanced Management Catalyst Inc., Wiscasset

The following alert written by Maine State Nuclear Safety Advisor, Charles P. Pray on December 17, 2007 was printed in Nuclear Waste News:

"Late Sunday night, early Sunday morning House and Senate Appropriations Committees filed their omnibus funding bill covering all government agencies excepting the Department of Defense (already enacted).

"Under Energy and Water Congress cut the Nuclear Waste Program from the $494.5M the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management sought, cutting the Yucca Mountain national repository program to $390 million - most likely delaying the already decade late repository license application filing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that had been scheduled for June 30 of 2008.  Current federal statutes required the Department of Energy to initiate retrieval of high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants by January 31, 1998, a decade ago.  The Department was expecting a 2008 license application would allow a possible operating facility to store the national high-level radioactive waste by 2017 to 2020. 

"The nuclear industry got most of what they wanted, loan guarantees to pay for new plants, waste confidence so the question of not having any place to store waste can not be an issue in new plants, moneys from the ratepayers to study recycling and new-generation systems.

"Report language has not been made public, but a handful of members of Congress and industry lobbyists have dribbled out some details.  The wording at this point is being kept under wraps. 

"Sources have related House language regarding decommissioning facilities has been included (language from the earlier House bill: "The Department is directed to develop a plan to take custody of spent fuel currently stored at decommissioned reactor sites to both reduce costs that are ultimately borne by the taxpayer and demonstrate that DOE [Department of Energy] can move forwards in the near term with at least some element of nuclear waste policy. The Department should consider consolidation of the spent fuel from decommissioned reactors either at an existing federal site, at one or more existing operating sites, or at a competitively-selected interim storage site.  The Department should engage the sites that volunteered to host Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) facilities as part of this competitive process.)

"Industry representatives are talking with Department officials to discuss their plans for follow-up to the Congressional directive -- assuming of course that the bill passes in its current form as expected, though unless agreement is reached between Congress and the White House the President has said he will veto the bill, unrelated to this issue. 

"Taking custody does not in and of itself remove the high-level radioactive nuclear waste.  DOE could just take over the site and its operation, thus becoming a "federal site."  Maine Yankee, under this language, could become a storage site, or a collective site, where waste from other plants could be relocated to Wiscasset. This, of course, is true for other closed plants, of which there are three in New England as well.  There are no GNEP volunteer sites in New England.  In addition there is concern language may allow the use of the Nuclear Waste Fund for interim storage.  This will bankrupt the funding for the eventual costs of permanent storage.

"As I have expressed throughout this undertaking, actions in our national capitol points to nuclear waste being stored in the individual states for an extended period of time, decades into the 21 st century at best. 

"The absurdity of this - these sites sit on major waterways, rivers, ocean frontages, the Great Lakes and other watersheds.  I am disappointed in this action, which I feel could endanger tens of millions of people in the country as a whole, and of course, gives us no clear sight of removal of high-level radioactive waste here in Maine."

Editor's Note: a copy of this letter to Route 1 bypass project manager Ed Hanscom at the Maine Department of Transportation, was sent to the newspaper.

Dear Mr. Hanscom:

I spent a bit of the weekend reading the Wiscasset Route 1 Corridor Study.  As you well know, it is a comprehensive review of the traffic problems affecting the midcoast from Bath to Edgecomb. As one who has come to the area recently, I especially found valuable the study's history and evaluation of dozens of alternative routes.

Up front, I should disclose that we purchased a house on Clark's Point in the fall of 2005.  The builder was Doug Fitts.  As you know, he is building an upscale development of condominiums and single-family homes along the Sheepscot. 

I have read many criticisms about the need for a bypass. "It's only a two-month problem." Easier and more quickly implemented options have not been tried, such as traffic lights, prohibiting parking and left-hand turns on Route 1, or moving Red's Eats. You, yourself, could list dozens of objections you've heard, too.

Personally, I'm in the "two month problem" camp.  Traffic congestion is a fact of life, albeit a very unpleasant one.  As a full-time resident in northern Virginia, it can sometimes take me 90 minutes to travel the 22 miles to downtown Washington, DC.  So, by comparison, sitting in an occasional backup from Shaw's on Old Bath Road to Federal Street in Wiscasset is no big deal. 

Irritating, sure.  A nuisance, yes.  A reason to better budget my time running  errands, certainly?  But a cause to undertake a 60 million to 70 million dollar building project which will displace dozens of residences, businesses, and jobs? I don't think so.  Not when there are so many options not requiring heavy construction equipment.

The  alternative of not building a bypass deserves much more serious consideration.  Moving Red's Eats and eliminating Route 1 street parking would eliminate a substantial amount of the summertime traffic backup.  This would cost significantly less than $60 million, and would not displace scores of taxpaying homeowners.

But, I understand there may be a bias to action on the part of DOT, after so many years and so much work evaluating build options.  It appears to me that N2/N8C is the best choice of a bad lot, I think.  According to the report, this route would:

• Require the fewest residential and commercial displacements

• Generate the greatest amount of travel time saved

• Yield the greatest reduction of traffic through Wiscasset

• Have the least amount of impact on job losses

• Improve traffic safety and reduce accidents

There is another factor which I think should be considered in making a bypass decision: the financial stability and quality of life of the village of Wiscasset.

You are aware of the wrenching changes since the decommissioning of the nuclear power plant. The resulting loss of property tax revenue has terribly impacted the residents.  Efforts to develop the Maine Yankee site are proceeding quite slowly.  A recent village-wide property value reassessment, ascribing values inflated by the "good old days" of the national real estate boom, have resulted in dozens of "For Sale" signs and any number of property owners in fear of losing their homes.

One bright light, though, is Doug Fitts' project on the Sheepscot.  He estimates it will generate 10 percent of the village's property tax revenues.  (I estimate the three dozen residences and improvements would be worth almost $500,000 to Wiscasset.)   There would also be jobs created by construction of those homes and condos, plus the continuing purchase of goods and services.  There appears to be at least one other residential development underway, on the Edgecomb side of the river, whose success could be similarly jeopardized. Construction of a northern bypass route could torpedo his project and deal another blow to the village. 

It seems to me that a healthy Wiscasset is both a responsibility, and in the best interest, of the state of Maine. Just as a physician should "do no harm," surely the state should not endorse an action, such as bypass construction, which would deliver another blow to the community and financial underpinning of our town.

And at the least, construction of northern routes would have a destructive, noisy and unsightly impact on the beauty of the Sheepscot from Westport Island to Alna.  Obviously, these two issues are of great importance to me, given the location of our property and the impact such a bypass route would have on our view. But that is no reason to discount them.  

I appreciate your invitation to submit my comments.

Sincerely yours,

Donna and Frank Barnako

Wiscasset and Virginia

 Dear Editor:

With President Bush stumping for extension of the Protect America Act indefinitely, Americans should examine how this legislation would affect our privacy rights. The Protect America Act (PAA) allows for warrantless monitoring by the National Security Agency. Sec. 05B. (3) Of the act states" the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign intelligence from or with the assistance of a communications service provider, custodian … who has access to communications, either as they are transmitted or while they are stored, or equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store such communications." The PAA further states "A certification to conduct a search under subsection (a) is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which the acquisition of foreign intelligence will be directed."

Contrast the search-warrant process protection under the Fourth Amendment "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be seized." We Americans should consider the warning given by James Madison, "if tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." Our Fourth Amendment protections are being stripped away to protect us from foreign threats; meanwhile our supposed protectors are leaving us unprotected with wide-open borders.

Our founders were jealous guardians of our privacy because of experience with British authorities issuing general search warrants without Oath or Affirmation. Go to JBS.org and search "Protect America Act" for more information on this dangerous legislation, also, contact your representatives and demand they oppose this act.

Larry Swanberg

Victorville, Calif.

Dear Editor:

Since 9/11 our federal government has significantly destroyed many of our rights under the pretense of stopping terrorism. Most Americans are unaware that because of these unconstitutional acts, we are becoming a police state. Both Congress and the President are responsible. However, the ultimate responsibility rests with us because we are not paying enough attention to what our elected officials are doing.

The 2006 Military Commissions Act grants the President power to suspend habeas corpus, the right to face criminal accusations in a court of law. If the President designates a citizen as an unlawful enemy combatant because of opposition to his policies, habeas corpus could be suspended. This means that the citizen is not entitled to a speedy trial, a lawyer, bail, the charges against him, and visitors. The citizen can even be kept in a foreign prison. This is just one example. There are many others such as torture, secret evidence, warrantless seizures and searches. Go to www.thenewamerican.com for details.

Fortunately, Congressman Ron Paul has introduced H. R. 3835, the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 in the House of Representatives. If passed, it would repeal the unconstitutional destruction of our rights. Concerned citizens should contact their congressional representative to support this legislation and urge their two U.S. Senators to introduce similar legislation in the Senate.

Mark Brent Weiss

Santa Clarita, Calif.