Letters cont.

greed and profits, and the PUC paved the way for this to happen. If the corridor is constructed, CMP stands to make $5 million per month off of a contract with Massachusetts, but in order for that cash to materialize, it must first bulldoze through the very heart of rural Maine.

If allowed to proceed, my small town and small towns up and down the route will never be the same. Maine is a state of small towns and communities. Don’t let CMP get away with treating us this way. Vote “yes” to reject the CMP Corridor this November.

Kathy Barkley Caratunk

Dear Editor: Anyone who cares about the economy should be concerned about LD 167 and LD 1532, two bills in the Legislature that could cripple Maine’s energy and transportation infrastructure, increasing the cost of heating oil, fuel, gasoline and asphalt for Maine families and businesses.

Pretty much every business organization in the state opposes one or both of these bills. Even the Maine Department of Environmental Protection testified that LD 1532 would have “no measurable environmental benefit.” The American Society of Civil Engineers gave Maine roads a D on its most recent report card and poor roads cost Maine drivers $1.3 billion per year in vehicle operating costs, delays from congestion and crashes. Talk about a public health emergency!

The Maine Department of Transportation already has a shortfall of $330 million per year just to maintain the system we have. If we cannot get products like asphalt from storage tanks in South Portland, we sure would not help the environment by forcing trucks to drive all the way to Massachusetts, Rhode Island and beyond, and we could see the cost of product go up 25 to 50 percent.

Instead of crippling our liquid fuel infrastructure with these bills, we should be increasing our capacity for low-carbon renewable biofuels, which can be produced right here in Maine. If we want to increase our use of green energy and meet our carbon goals then we need to enhance, not eliminate, our liquid fuel infrastructure.

Irv Smith Eddington President, Maine Better Transportation Association

Dear Editor: In 2020, I began working in the public health arena for the first time. Most of that work is in primary prevention with a focus on obesity, resiliency and tobacco. In this role, I have been working in partnership with Flavors Hook Kids Maine to end the sale of flavored tobacco in Maine.

I always knew that tobacco was harmful. My grandfather smoked menthol cigarettes for over 20 years, starting when he was just out of high school, and both my parents smoked. My parents started smoking in high school and their addictions to nicotine also made it easier for them to use other substances. My grandfather ultimately died of lung cancer and both of my parents died because of their substance use.

So, I understood the harmful impact of tobacco products, but what I really didn’t understand was how targeted flavored tobacco is to our children. There are over 15,000 flavored and harmless sounding products that scream to kids to give them a try. The tobacco industry knows that if they can addict their consumers young, they might just have them for life. Flavors are meant to hook kids. The bill LD 1550 has the chance to end the sale of flavored tobacco products in our state. It’s hard to imagine any legislation that would have more of an impact on our children of today and the generations to come.

Sonya Connelly Aurora

Dear Editor: The proposal by American Aquafarms to build salmon pens in Frenchman Bay [Waterfront News, May 18] threatens to mar one of the most beautiful marine settings in all of North America, where boaters and kayakers take inspiration from open waters surrounded by the bold headlands of Acadia National Park. Particularly dubious is the claim this project will bring a “next-generation, ecofriendly technology.” In fact, a far better salmon system is being operated by a company named AquaBounty, which currently farms the fish in circulating tanks on dry land, on Prince Edward Island and in Indiana. Each individual salmon reaches a market weight sooner, requires less feed and produces less waste.

Robert Paarlberg Corea

Dear Editor: At the most recent Union 93 Joint School Board meeting, George Stevens Academy (GSA) proposed a 10-year contract that makes little sense for sending towns. Worse, Peninsula residents, their voices and votes would be removed from the process.

The current offer looks like this: If, and only if, towns sign a contract agreeing to 10 years of increased tuition, then they would be allowed one non-voting representative on the GSA Board. However, each candidate must first be interviewed and approved by the GSA Board and town representatives cannot, in any way, share any information from GSA Board meetings with their communities. In fact, GSA requires each representative to act, at all times, in the best interests of GSA. This would presumably allow GSA to gather information from each town, with towns receiving nothing in return. This arrangement benefits GSA far more than the towns and would lock tuition at a higher rate for the next decade, sidestepping the traditional annual review by the voters that our town meeting system provides.

To remain viable, GSA needs to better communicate with Peninsula residents, parents and future students and convincingly demonstrate it has heard, and will implement, voter concerns. Trying to quietly lock towns into a contract without public discussion will only create more doubt and mistrust.

Sean Dooley Blue Hill

Dear Editor: The pandemic has laid bare the harsh realities of our current for-profit health care system. Besides my own personal and professional story battling this impersonal, complex and expensive system, I was further compelled to work on the issue of health care when the pandemic exposed the many failures of our current system of accessing and providing health care in our country. Although health care policy is set at the national and state level, local governments must often deal with the consequences of an unaffordable and inequitable health insurance system. The skyrocketing costs of insurance premiums for municipal employees are straining local government budgets.

Now many towns are adopting resolutions calling for the state Legislature to design and implement a health care plan that will cover every Maine resident with medical care. This effort has been pioneered by Maine AllCare, an organization that promotes the establishment of a publicly funded health care system (https://maineallcare.org). In my own town of Trenton, instead of being voted on by the town selectmen, a resolution was presented for a vote at the Town Meeting on May 17, and a large majority of Trenton residents voted to support the creation of an equitable health care plan for all Maine residents. It is time for a change that will benefit all the residents of Maine and without risking personal bankruptcy. We can do better and must! And thankfully the citizens of Trenton recognize this. Starr C. Gilmartin Trenton