Highway clear-cut harm irreparable

Thank you very much for Larry Grard’s article (May 13) on the hideous, environmentally destructive and unnecessarily aggressive recent clear-cutting along I-295. This significant state action, apparently undertaken without any public notice or opportunity for comment, has scarred the landscape and substantially and irreparably harmed many property owners. Even though I am not personally affected, the sight of large-scale destruction of trees makes me sick to my stomach and truly pains me.

One thing that really stuck in my mind as I read the article was the quote from the Freeport town engineer, Al Presgraves, as he quoted officials from the state who failed to notify him or residents before embarking on this project, which has resulted in major local environmental impacts. When Mr. Presgraves asked them, “Don’t you want to leave a buffer?” he said the official replied, “…well, they’ll think about it. But this way it’s more trees for the tree harvesting company, and that makes the project less expensive …”

As a concerned citizen, I would very much like to find out exactly which tree harvesting company that might be, and I would also like to know exactly what is done with those trees after they are clear-cut. I am particularly disturbed that this state action seems to echo the governor’s apparent policy goal of increasing timber cutting on state lands, a policy objective that he has attempted to ram down the throats of Maine citizens by trying to illegally force the Legislature to approve increased timber harvesting as a quid pro quo for getting him to release money for voter-approved bond initiatives. At minimum, this matter warrants a thorough investigation.

It is unacceptable that a public project with such major environmental impacts would be allowed to go forward without at least public notice and opportunity to comment. For a project with such major impacts, an environmental assessment, if not full environmental impact statement, should have been prepared and made public. There is now little recourse for those homeowners in the direct vicinity of the clear-cut, who have suffered real and substantial harm, through significant loss of property values and a marked decrease in their quality of life. The environmental harm suffered by the abutters is irreparable.

However, the property owners who have been harmed by this action should have access to a legal remedy to be made at least financially whole after this devastating and unnecessary environmental disaster.

From the state’s response to Mr. Presgrave’s question regarding the possibility of leaving at least a small buffer, it is apparent that the unnecessary width of the clear-cut was not warranted from a highway safety perspective, but rather that the decision was financially motivated. Yet the substantial decrease in property values and associated harms suffered by the abutting property owners as a result of the state’s action were not taken into the slightest account when the decision to clear-cut such a broad swath without buffers was made. These abutters should not have to shoulder the financial burden thrust upon them by a state agency which made a private agreement with a “tree harvesting company” without even basic public notice and opportunity for public comment, let alone a formal public environmental review process. In a smaller but also tangible way, all motorists who use I-295 and have heretofore enjoyed the views are also harmed. As a motorist and a person who cares deeply about our state’s environmental health, I would at the very least have expected an opportunity to make my voice hear on this project before the irreparable environmental damage was done.

Janet Lynch

Pownal

Elevate the budget conversation

An open letter to the superintendents and board members of RSU 5:

In the lead-up to this year’s town meeting, I write to publicly encourage you to consider your customer – the taxpayer. I mean really consider them as people.

Take for granted our diverse views on politics, public finances, and education for a moment and look at this year’s budget process from the eyes of a taxpayer.

At the beginning, you asked each of the professionals we’ve entrusted to run our schools to create a budget reflecting the needs of their institutions. Each principal made compelling presentations – there were few requests that could be considered “fat” when considered on their own. When aggregated, these requests resulted in a district-wide budget reflecting a 9.15 percent increase over last year’s budget. Unfortunately, this budget was presented to the public without the benefit of a compelling narrative, one that could give a district-wide context to the requests.

With the benefit of a longer time horizon, a shared goal or an optimistic future, our role as taxpayers inevitably narrows to strategies that will either minimize short-term pain or try to get the biggest budget possible under the circumstances.

With choices like “mission critical,” “necessary” or “reasonable” (which leaves the original requests by our professionals dangerously open to the characterization “unreasonable”), you’ve polarized the average taxpayer. Because we have no narrative to fall back on, you’ve put us back into the familiar position of either being for education or against high taxes.

In preparation for the town meeting and the votes you will ask us to cast, I ask you all for leadership. What does “reasonable” mean given RSU 5’s history and where does this “reasonable” investment in education point us toward as a future goal?

We, your taxpayers, are all in a state of information overload living in a fast-paced world, often with too many responsibilities. Transparency and raw data are necessary but not sufficient. We require meaningful context.

We’ve entrusted you to guide our district, not just to enforce Robert’s Rules and be efficient at school board meetings, but also to be effective as leaders.

I implore you, elevate the conversation in a way that invites our confidence and participation.

Betsy Peters

Freeport

Lessons from RSU 5 summit

On Monday, May11, there was a summit meeting with members of the RSU 5 Board, the Freeport Town Council and the selectmen from Pownal and Durham. The goal was to discuss the RSU 5 budget and its implications for the three towns. It was/is a great idea and the Pownal selectmen are grateful for the opportunity to connect with our neighbors in an attempt to integrate the fiscal impact of education upon the municipal budgets in order to present a responsible tax bill to all our property owners.

Two things became quickly apparent. There were multiple mil rates assigned to differing valuations leading to confusing percentages. I struggled to understand why all the partners in the RSU had not come to consensus about valuation figures and mil rate estimates. In order for citizens to have a fair crack at what the budget includes, all partners should be using similar accounting practices. On top of that, the town of Durham finances on a calendar year, as opposed to the fiscal years of the RSU, Pownal and Freeport. It must be most confusing for a resident of Durham to make sense of the RSU budget. I would propose that an agreement be crafted that all parties agree to similar accounting practices, which might led to a better understanding of the RSU 5 budget.

I was surprised to hear that there has been little attempt to contact parents of students who have left the district for other schools. Some sort of exit interview would be helpful to determine where perceptions of inadequacies exist. Students leaving for other schools erode the sense of community among their peers and cost the RSU a lot of money.

Also, I walked away from that meeting thinking that there were some folks who were “not fond of each other.” Perhaps rectifying accounting practices might help those strained relationships. However, from my perspective people who hold municipal/school board office need to hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior. It all starts from the top.

Jon Morris

Member of the Board

of Selectmen

Pownal

Copy the Story Link