I fully agree with your call on May 26 for the Legislature to consider making changes to the Land Use Regulation Commission rather than focusing on the governor’s campaign pledge to abolish LURC (“Legislature should take more time on LURC’).

I wish, however, that you had included some basic facts and figures about the vast areas of Maine that are in question.

According to the Maine Revenue Services, the unorganized territory’s “land area is slightly over one half the area of the entire state” and “year-round residents number approximately 9,000.”

That number changes once part-time residents are added in, but the total still is less than 1 percent of Maine’s total population.

Handing over control of half our state to county commissioners representing so few residents in their counties’ rural areas is hardly fair representation.

We can surely find a way to provide more input for UT residents into decisions that directly affect them without taking away the rights of the vast majority of Maine residents who happen to live elsewhere but who also have vested interests in the unorganized territory.


Jo Coyne


New Balance most helpful as it offers narrower sizes 

Thank you for the interesting article in the May 22 Maine Sunday Telegram about the shoe company New Balance.

Besides producing comfortable and durable shoes, they also make them in narrow sizes for women.

Although I have not found any stores in the southern and midcoast areas of Maine that carry these shoes in narrow sizes, I have found them in their factory stores. They certainly have been a good deal for me and I appreciate this amazing company!


Ann T. Bonang


Save money by cutting overseas bases, foreign aid 

When are the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government going to learn by their past mistakes? They are trying to buy, with taxpayers’ billions of dollars every year, friends, allies and support of other countries all over the world.

All the government has accomplished so far is lined the pockets of corrupt leaders of countries with the aid not filtering down to the people who need it. It is like pouring money (taxpayers’) down a bottomless pit.

If the U.S. government is serious about cutting spending, here is one way to accomplish the goal: Stop foreign aid.


Examples of this practice is the money we send to Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, just to name a few. These countries will gladly take the aid money while hating the U.S. government and its people — just watch the TV and the demonstrations and flag-burning. Yet the United States is still there the next year with some more aid.

Too bad the American people do not have a say in where the money goes. Contacting your delegation is a waste of time. The president does anything he wants. Congress has lost all control of spending.

It’s bad enough that we have military forces in bases all over the world that are partly supporting the economy of the country. The Cold War is over — wake up and start closing these bases and bring some of this military force home. What a saving that would be!

The United States cannot afford and continue to be the cop and protector of the world. That’s the United Nations’ job. The United States spends enough money supporting this organization.

Raymond Chadwick



Don’t ignore damage that wind turbines would do 

I would like to respond to the May 4 editorial concerning wind power (“Nothing to cheer about in wind-power setback”).

In our discussions on the environment, we need to address more concerns than just the hot-button issue of climate change. Although climate change is a major issue, so are many other environmental concerns.

Certainly not the least of these is biodiversity, a word which describes the interdependence of all of Earth’s species on one another.

The demise of any one of them might ultimately lead to our own extinction. To dismiss the importance of the mayfly or the lemming might be as serious a mistake as not addressing the issue of climate change in the most practical way possible.

Unfortunately, industrial wind energy is one of the most inefficient and impractical means of dealing with the problem of climate change. That, combined with the substantial damage that these industrial wind developments do to other facets of the environment, makes them a poor choice when considering our options.


As for the developers, why are their concerns of greater importance than those of the people who derive their livelihoods from the tourism-attracting qualities of our environment, which would be diminished or destroyed by these developments?

Given the limited scope of the jobs created by these developments, we would be better served by protecting the long-term opportunities which now exist because of the pristine, unspoiled conditions now found in many of our mountainous regions.

This paper does us all a disservice when it takes a biased position on a subject of this importance, and prints opinions that blatantly reflect that bias. I hope that you will take a more appropriate and balanced position on this controversy in future publications.

Rebecca Sanchez


I would like to respond to the letter written regarding the idea that Maine should be embracing forests of windmills.


Yes, alternative energy sources need to be carefully considered. Note the word “carefully” — the proposed Bowers Mountain Wind Project hovering over the Downeast Lakes, overshadowing a virtually unspoiled area of Maine wilderness, lakes and wildlife, is untenable.

These lakes are popular with those who seek a quieter part of Maine where the pace is natural and slow. This project will ruin permanently beautiful views from many lakes where the stars and planets are easily seen at night. From one’s dock you will see white and red flashing lights all the time! How does a sunset canoe ride with red flashers sound? Not very soothing to me! These towers are 43 stories tall.

This project will provide very few permanent jobs once the destruction and building is done. To the polticians: Stop this project before a wonderful part of Maine is lost!

Patricia McKay Verbeeck


GOP gets criticism paper never offers to Democrats 


Upon reading the May 1 editorial “Gov. LePage acts like he’s in over his head,” I was reminded that I had never seen as long a piece condemning our previous governor or the Democratic Legislature.

That they had gotten our state some $13 billion in debt seems to be expected. Nor do I remember anyone suggesting that both governor and legislators might be in over their heads in running the affairs of state as you now have, with Republicans in charge trying to get us out of the mess that all those years of Democratic rule created.

Maybe you’re letting your prejudice show?

I admit that the current leader has been somewhat cavalier, but that he should be blamed for others’ foot-in-mouth disease is a bit much.

Everyone should be held responsible for their own remarks, which the governor acknowledges. As for Commissioner Darryl Brown, our law did not follow federal law that permitted some exceptions. Again, the governor is acting to correct the situation.

I’m of the opinion that only a Democratic view of state issues is worthy to be the guiding light for the current administration in the minds of your paper and its staff. But haven’t those views caused enough red ink?

Laurent E. Senechal



Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.