Recent grants to study Yarmouth’s dams have been slanted toward dam removal because that’s what the funding sources want to have happen.

At the Town Council’s January meeting, two councilors were of the opinion that there ought to be a more balanced exploration of options regarding the dams, and that we should consider not just the possibility of removing them, but also the prospect of preserving and maintaining them.

Additional Photos

Yarmouth’s Bridge Street dam, above, and Elm Street dam perform “scenic, recreational and historical” functions for the town, a reader says. 2011 File Photo/John Ewing

The bodies of water created by these dams perform functions that are central to Yarmouth’s character.

The lower (Bridge Street) dam creates a spectacularly scenic body of water in the Royal River Park known as the Mill Pond. This dam also generates some hydropower.

The upper (Elm Street) dam creates a body of water that is an invaluable recreational resource. The canoeing, skating, cross-country skiing and snowmobiling that take place on the river would likely no longer be possible if this dam is removed.

Also, the upper dam is a historic and scenic gem. It is the only remaining dam of the original four Royal River dams. It is magnificently built out of massive granite blocks that interdigitate with the ledge in an unusual angular fashion.

The upper dam is the sort of historical landmark for Yarmouth that the razed railroad station was for Portland. Once destroyed, there is no bringing back such a landmark.

All of us would like to enhance the natural resource aspects of the river to the greatest extent possible. However, for many of us, the scenic, recreational and historical interests served by the dams may take precedence over increasing the river’s fish population.

Given that many residents may believe that the preservation of these two dams is vital to Yarmouth’s identity and culture, we should take a balanced approach in exploring options regarding their future.

Gordon Clark

Yarmouth

Anti-butt ordinance seems to have smokers in its sights

About the story “City: Kick butts problem” (Feb. 8): This is nothing but an attempt by the political correctness police to stop folks from smoking.

Do we not already have littering ordinances? Why would the city even bother with this type of ordinance unless it was created to try to stop folks from smoking?

And how much is the fine for littering? Is it as much as the fine for cigarette butts? If not, why isn’t it?

Once again, the liberal city of Portland is trying to do away with something that is not on their PC list.

Fred Darling

Westbrook

Obama says one thing, does something quite different

President Obama panders to constituent groups whose support he believes would guarantee his re-election or at the least bolster his class-warfare strategy.

The latest example would “rescue” distressed homeowners not backed by Freddie and Fannie. The $5 billion to $10 billion needed for the initiative would come from a tax on the hated large banks, although he’d probably try to add the cost to the deficit if he thought he could get away with it. These are the same banks that his administration bailed out a few years ago and some of the same big-bank executives who financially supported his first bid for the White House.

Since Congress has already rejected a similar and earlier concept by this administration, it is obvious that once again the goal is to paint the Republican Congress as against helping the middle class.

Republicans should counter with clear and compelling examples of his hypocrisy by highlighting the endless initiatives peddled by this administration that have impeded the recovery, added to the national debt and have done little to productively and lastingly stimulate the economy.

Obama favored the big banks in 2009, and we should be asking what’s different this time. This bailout is nothing but an election-year ruse concocted by a very crafty politician who views 4 million to 5 million distressed homeowners as nothing more than a means to an end.

John L. Ross

Edgecomb

On the heels of President Obama’s recent decision to sign into law a bill that gives the U.S. government the authority to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone — including U.S. citizens — suspected of “terrorism” as the government defines it, without trial, comes an alarming, if not altogether surprising, presidential admission on a Google Plus chat forum: The United States has been continually bombing terrorist suspects inside Pakistani borders through the use of drones, which are unmanned aircraft piloted by military personnel thousands of miles away from the bombarded areas.

The president attempted to reassure those who raised concerns by stating, “This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list.” He also said, “We have to be judicious about how we use drones.”

These attacks are anything but judicious. There is no judicial process to decide who makes the list of permanent prisoner or drone target. As citizens of the United States, we have the constitutional right to due process and a right to a fair and speedy trial (the Fifth and Sixth amendments).

No president has the authority to abrogate these fundamental rights. Who gets to decide when a citizen is a threat and condemned to death as a “terrorist”? Do we not have courts to make these weighty judgments?

Once we as a nation begin to travel down this dark path of secret arrests, indefinite detentions of citizens and assassinations of people on undisclosed lists compiled by unknown and unaccountable committees, the founding principles upon which our country was built and for which so many have sacrificed to preserve begin to crumble.

Terrorists despise freedom, democracy and the rule of law. We must never let our fear of them cause us to dismantle the very constitutional rights that distinguish us from them.

Scott C. Tilton

Rockland

Related Stories