Dear Editor:

The town's consultant rebutted the safety claims and undermined the traffic claims of our selectmen's/developer's roundabout plan. The DOT rebuttal was unconvincing. Highway people usually want roundabouts the way baseball players want bats. And it's natural that a developer should always want what's in his interest. It may be the case that the proposed roundabout will result in even more fender-benders than our current stop signs. And it will cost 1.15 million dollars of taxpayer money. In the interest of town unity and rational planning, I suggest that our selectmen withdraw their support. It's not too late for them to get us back on track. If not, the voters should reject it in November. Then we should start again, this time in a more proactive than reactive way.

First: do we have a traffic problem? Is it safety? Is it traffic flow? Bring in a variety of objective experts, independent of any particular proposal, and be clear about the relative weight of the statistical and anecdotal evidence. If we agree that there is no problem, that's the end of it. If we agree that there is, what's the most cost effective and attractive way to fix it? Let's solicit ideas and proposals from townspeople and experts, from the grassroots up and the experts down. That's the way to avoid divisiveness. Let's include the developer's plan in the mix but make sure we're not favoring it because we want the developer's and the DOT's money or because it's the only plan on the table. Are there good, even better alternatives? Frank Helman's looks to many to be much superior to the current plan (see George McEvoy's recent letter). And there probably are other alternatives worth considering. How we finance it should come after we determine what the best plan is. It's not too late for our selectmen to do the process right. We can then move forward and make decisions on a solid, rational, consensus basis. What we have currently is a divisive mess.

Fred Kaplan

Boothbay