To the editor:

I’ve heard concerns expressed about a new comprehensive plan (Plan) being considered in the Town of Somerville. Some worry that passing the Plan gives selectmen the right to change regulations for things suggested in the Plan, or to vote whatever they want to do if the Plan isn’t specific enough.

Fortunately, that’s not how ordinances and comprehensive plans work. Ordinances are the documents that implement regulations in municipalities. Somerville has a number of ordinances already:

• Cemetery Ordinance;
• Floodplain Management Ordinance;
• Holding Tank Ordinance;
• Land Use Ordinance;
• Planning Board Ordinance;
• Shoreland Zoning Ordinance;
• Site Plan Review Ordinance; and
• Subdivision Ordinance.

By state law only certain ordinances such as traffic ordinances can be adopted by vote of the Selectmen. Other ordinances by Maine law require a vote of townspeople, either at town meeting or secret ballot. That won’t change.

A comprehensive plan is a vision of what challenges the town faces and what can be done in response to those challenges. Passing a plan doesn’t give Selectmen any new authority. It merely provides a vision to guide the Town’s future, including what needs to change such as better broadband, and what shouldn’t change, such as the rural nature of Somerville.

Passing a comprehensive plan does NOT alter who has authority to adopt ordinances, nor the process, as set in Maine law, Title 30-A, Chapter 141.

The Plan we will be voting on suggests ways to be more farm and business friendly and it seeks to make our town a place where young and old can better afford to live, and to thrive, together.

If you haven’t already done so, I urge you to visit the Town office to get a copy of the comprehensive plan to see for yourself what the Plan really says before the vote on it at Town Meeting, this Saturday, June 23.

Chris Johnson
Somerville

To the editor:

Last fall, the voters of Winslow handily (54 percent to 46 percent) defeated a bond that, had it passed, would have have allowed for the construction of a Performing Arts Center (PAC) and add a seventh and eighth grade wing to Winslow High School. Unfortunately, the Winslow School Board did not heed the powerful message sent by voters. The board decided to make no changes to the membership of the building committee created to devise a plan of action and to retain the architect who designed the failed renovation. Unsurprisingly, the building committee school board, and architect have engineered a new plan (PAC PLAN II) that is essentially the same as the one soundly defeated in November. Despite the fact that the Winslow Town Council voted that PAC Bond II “ought not to pass,” the school board is asking the voters of Winslow to approve an $8.1 million bond (over $10 million when considering interest payments) to build a PAC and renovate the high school. There are many reasons why this is an idea the voters of Winslow should not embrace.

Since November, the building committee, school board, and town council have all been working very hard to come up with a solution to our school infrastructure issues. Regrettably, the members of the building committee and our school board appear far more concerned with doubling the seating in our Performing Arts Center than providing state of the art school security measures, Advanced Placement labs, seating in the renovated gym, technology and cafeteria improvements (to name only a few). These are major mistakes. Prioritizing seats in a PAC above needs that would improve education for the entire student population in Winslow is not the direction we should be moving in. We need a plan that supports ALL students in Winslow, not just a select few.

Many of us here in Winslow would prefer to renovate Winslow Elementary School and to create a K-8 school. This belief is based on the very different needs and stages of development of adolescent and pre-adolescent students. Young adults should not be attending the same school as seventh graders. The K-8 alternative is a viable opportunity that has been estimated to cost $12 million at one point and $9.7 at another point. In fact, architect Stevie Blatt even said “We probably could build a K-8 building for $7.83 million” at one one building committee meeting. Since none of these cost estimates were analyzed by an independent third party, we really have no idea what we could or could not do given the budget set by the town council. The K-8 option is an opportunity that needs to be explored in full but unfortunately has not been given a fair hearing due to the fact that it would not allow for the building of a PAC which is the driving motivation behind the current masterminds of this project.

One major difference between this bond and the one we voted on in November is that this bond allows the building committee and school board much more flexibility in spending the funds as they see fit. There is nothing in the PAC Bond II ballot question that forces the school board and building committee to spend the money on the building specifications the building committee has outlined to the voters. It is not a prudent idea to allow spending of this magnitude to be unchecked by the town council. A blank check allowing carte blanche to the building committee spending is a scheme far too risky for the voters of Winslow to endorse.

PAC Bond II does not provide the best path for us to move forward as a community. We need to go back to the drawing board, form a new building committee, hire a new architect, and take a fresh look at our school configuration options. These options should not include seating in a PAC at the expense of other, more worthwhile, educationally related items that enhance all students’ learning. The K-8 option should also be fairly and fully vetted by the new building committee and new architect. For these reasons, I urge the voters of Winslow to reject PAC Bond II on June 12. We can do better.

Phil St. Onge
Winslow

To the editor:

To China residents, and everyone else. When China Selectman Irene Belanger’s article, recruiting town folk to volunteer to pick up trash along our roadsides in honor of Earth Day appeared in The Town Line several weeks ago, my wife Nan and I were excited. Accordingly yesterday, Saturday April 21, we headed to our rendezvous point, not knowing I’d messed up the timing; there was no one at the South China Community Church at 9 a.m. Not giving up, we drove up to the transfer station, got some trash bags and headed out. We decided to cover a stretch of the Alder Park Road from the entrance to the station down toward Lake View Drive, and ended up doing both sides between there and the house with the white picket fence – about three-eighths to one-quarter mile by my estimate. The results of this search were, literally, staggering.

In this distance, we filled two of those massive trash bags to the point where I could barely lift them into the back of our Ford Escape. The variety of garbage was incredible. We got broken bottles (almost exclusively Bud Light), crushed cans, cardboard, cigarette packs, plastic bags, styrofoam packing “peanuts” and food containers, milk jugs, “nip” bottles and interestingly, an exposed roll of 35 mm film; I wonder how long that had been there? Personally, I also disrupted a number of earthworm housewarmings as I extracted crap from the mud and wetland areas. And possibly most disturbing, was the huge amount of fast food residue. I don’t believe there are any McDonald’s or Wendy’s in town, although Dunkin’ Donuts was well represented. Fortunately, I guess, we found only one, capped, injection needle and no used diapers. So all of this again raises the question, “how can any human with a grain of intelligence and concern for our environment discard waste in this fashion?”

If you’re a regular reader of this publication, you may recall several of my previous letters about roadside trash from the perspective of being an enthusiastic bike rider who, thus, sees a lot of it as I tool about our local towns. Already this year, the Weeks Mills Rd., Rte. 3, the Dirigo Road and many sections of Rte. 32 are infested with junk. If you want some exercise and weight training, grab a couple of trash bags and take a walk in almost any direction. And, of course, this is not just true here in central Maine; it is a world-wide issue with very few exceptions. Something must be done to limit and deal with waste in all forms before we as a planet are totally destroyed by this “plague.”

I know, change can be hard – just ask my wife about me. But for the local situation I addressed above, a few additions or alterations can be easy as well. Keep a bag of some sort in your car for any waste you generate while driving. Keep your hands inside the vehicle when handling that stuff. When you get home, place the junk in your trusty waste basket or trash bin. For home owners. or anyone else really, police the roadside as you move around outside. It really isn’t that hard to be environmentally friendly and I hope you’ll feel better about yourself as well. If folks follow these simple suggestions, maybe the turnout for Irene’s request next April will see a marked reduction in the amount of waste they have to pick up. I’ve gotta think positively!

Bob Bennett
South China