Dear Editor:

There are numbers of things wrong with the roundabout proposal that make it a poor choice for the situation. But there is a larger issue. As Mark Twain wrote, “tell me from where a man gets his corn pone and I'll tell you his opinions.”  The report  has been paid for by Paul Coulombe. It is not an independent and objective report. It doesn't pass the smell test or the corn pone test in its origin or details. It assumes that we need a roundabout. It does not prove that. Mr. Coulombe is in favor of a roundabout, which will benefit his development plans and advance his vision of how our town should look.  And he has some allies. He would not be paying for Mark Lentner's report without some explicit or tacit agreement that it say what he wants. In effect, Mr. Lentner is a salesman, not an objective authority hired to come up with an independent report. Don't our selectmen know this?

And what about the DOT? The LePage administration has given the agency a special fund to advance a state/local community collaboration. What are the state and agency politics at work? Does the DOT really think this a good proposal? They have never said that it is. And how trustworthy is DOT, given the politics at issue? If we are to proceed with "improvements" we need to make sure that they are actual improvements, not driven by personal and political interests. 

Our selectman should get two objective reports about our traffic and safety issues. They should come from recognized authorities who have no vested interest in the outcome. They should have real traffic data in them, not the inventions and evasions of the Lentner report. Otherwise our selectmen give the impression that they are tools in the hands of powerful vested interests. Or they are acting irresponsibly. They should, like all of us, be in favor of change, but smart change based on sound analysis from independent sources.

Fred Kaplan

Boothbay