Dear Editor:

We’ve talked before about the problem of slanted reporting in the paper, whether it’s by inclusion, exclusion, or just plain ignorance of the concept of reporting a story itself, rather than just being a mouthpiece for whomever one interviews.

This time my dismay is at the reporting of the Boothbay Selectmen’s open meeting on October 9, which was to present the new plan for the town.

The very first comment expressed was from a selectman who said that, though he had voted for it before in the executive meeting, he had changed his mind and could not recommend the plan; that the warrant was asking the voters to approve a TIF with no specific business(es) in mind (and the boundaries of which were potentially changeable); as well as a blank check to support those unknown businesses via a 30-year-long Credit Enhancement Agreement; and also to approve a bond of over $2.5 million (which will be over $3.6 million with interest) for a road plan which, as presented, was known by the selectmen (who so admitted later in the meeting) as definitely not the final plan and which “would be revised later.”

Since virtually all the discussion thereafter was about the merits of the unknown geography and unknown benefits which the unknown companies could bring once unknown changes were made to the layout of the town ... shouldn’t the fact that one of the selectmen had the courage to say this in public have been high in the story, if not the lead, rather than ignored entirely?

Rhoda Weyr
Boothbay