Dear Editor:

Apparently I have touched a nerve; a full-page ad in the Oct. 6 edition of the Register is devoted to trashing the “Helman Plan.” (Although it’s flattering to hear this plan referred to as mine, I can claim no credit for it. The person who thought it up did not want to get involved, but gave me permission to put it forward. I therefore prefer the designation of “comprehensive plan,” which focuses attention on the plan and not on me.)

I find it difficult to respond to the “5 important reasons why the [comprehensive] plan does not work” listed in the ad, since they are riddled with unwarranted assumptions and unsubstantiated claims. I will only mention that the “stop” and “yield” signs in the reproduction of the comprehensive plan shown in the ad are not part of the original plan, but were inserted by the creators of the ad, and show a complete misunderstanding of the roundabout concept.

I do not claim that the comprehensive plan is the only or best alternate to the issues raised. What concerns me is the apparent intention to push the half-way plan proposed by Paul Coulombe and the selectmen through without adequate analysis and consideration of alternatives. 

Everyone who lives or works in the Boothbay region will have to live with the outcome of this process for the rest of their lives, as will their children and grandchildren. A project of this magnitude should proceed only after impartial consideration of all the alternatives, and not on the basis of the first half-way plan that comes along.

I urge the citizens of Boothbay to vote “No” on Articles 2, 3 and 4, to allow this project to receive the careful analysis and consideration it deserves.

Frank G. Helman

Boothbay Harbor