Letters to the editor: Costly sidewalk choice; Bowdoin fields; mill mural

Costly sidewalk choice

The packed Dec. 5 hearing on downtown Brunswick sidewalks was remarkable. Five of eight Councilors voted for what they apparently thought was the cheaper hybrid concrete-brick option even though other Councilors and many citizens referred to numerous documents showing the all-brick option is cheaper in the long run and lasts decades longer than the hybrid. Chair Mason summed up the vote: “The savings we think we’re going to get we’re not going to get!”

The hearing was remarkable in many ways:

• The pro-concrete vote contradicts the project mission: “The town strives to preserve its historic character and to provide a vibrant, welcoming public space….” Concrete is neither historic nor welcoming.• Seventy citizens filling the Chambers and obviously favoring all-bricks was a rare display of unified, working democracy. Twenty-three people spoke in favor of all-bricks (none opposing) with warmth and pride for Brunswick and their best intentions for preserving its historic character, beauty, and a vibrant downtown and businesses. How could any Councilors doubt the wise choice of these constituents who sat for three hours and spoke eloquently in support of all-bricks?• The information provided by consultant and staff was insufficient, even after three years’ work on this project. Money-saving designs and ways to minimize tax increases presented by knowledgeable citizens weren’t seriously discussed by Council and staff.• The urgent, real issues of renter evictions, homelessness and hunger were brought into the meeting by pro-hybrid Councilors as reasons to choose the supposedly cheaper tax impact of concrete. The all-bricks option was described as “beautifying” downtown by those who can afford more taxes. This felt divisive and confused the decision process. No one in the hearing had definitive figures on tax changes, especially since alternative designs and funding were not permitted in the final vote.• Citizens were stunned by the Council’s vote. Anyone can view a video of the hearing on the town website. Chair Mason urged colleagues to think long term, 40-60 years, about infrastructure: “We’re not going to get to 10 years before we’ll regret this vote.”

Bruce Kantner,
Brunswick

‘Lighter touch’ on Bowdoin fields

I attended the second meeting that Bowdoin College held for the neighbors concerned about the college’s plans for building what can best be described as its new “athletic industrial complex” on the fields surrounding Farley field house. Many neighbors have raised questions and objections to the environmental implications of the grand project that the college has endorsed. While I have those same questions and concerns, I want to address a different issue—the basic concept of the proposed design for the fields.Before I go on, I want to be clear that I think that the baseball and softball teams should have fields for practice in the wet, wintry months and, if it is environmentally safe to do so, great. It’s the rest of the overbuilt scheme that is so wrongheaded.It is clear that the college’s plan is based solely on the wishes of athletics and the desire to keep up with other NESCAC schools. There are two other factors that should have figured into the planning: first, the Bowdoin fields as they now stand are stunning. I’d go so far as to say that at certain times on a sunny day, it is a transcendentally beautiful place, one that sets Bowdoin apart from its peer institutions and that adds to the college’s unique sense of place. Why wasn’t keeping the natural beauty of the place a key part of the planning objectives here? [Let me offer one telling detail. A new artificial turf (in addition to those for baseball and softball) is planned to the right of the current women’s soccer field, thus breaking up the continuity of the natural grass field. Placing the turf field so as to abut Harpswell Rd. instead would go a long way to keep the natural landscape intact.]The second issue that clearly did not figure into the plans were the neighbors. The number of neighbors who will be negatively impacted by the noise, lights, and ugliness of the new sports complex at least matches the number of students who will benefit from the new facilities. The college clearly didn’t give a damn beyond its pro-forma, box-checking meetings with the neighbors who received a pat “we’ll take that under advisement” to most of their suggestions or comments. The planning process should have included input from the local community directly affected by the scheme from the start. You know, the “Common Good” and all that? (I might here refer readers to a recent article in the Washington Monthly by renowned journalist James Fallows, “When Gown Embraces Town: It’s Time to Judge Colleges by their Contributions to the Economic and Civic Life of their Communities.” Hats off to Colby, who Fallows singles out for praise.)Changes to the athletic fields to meet student needs could be done with a far lighter touch and in a way that preserved some of the beauty and neighborliness of the fields. I suppose we should take heart, however. We were reassured by the college’s representatives at last night’s meeting that Colby’s new athletic facilities are far worse.

Jill Pearlman,
BrunswickSenior lecturer in environmental studiesBowdoin College

Coming together on Cabot Mill muralSome people state the present Cabbot Mill mural is not an accurate depiction of Brunswick’s history.The idea of working together sounds nice but is that what has actually happened and is happening presently?Marketing departments know how to make almost anything appear glamorous and wonderful. We know images do not always represent reality!Do we need to consider what working together really means? I would ask, are we really working together as a community or are we simply following a path laid before us by someone or by some influential entity?The word community might be used erroneously based on an individual’s concept of what community means. It means people, all members coming together, communing and then all members communicating equally.The word community is frequently used to simply refer to geographic boundaries. Many times, that word is used without discussion about human relations. Since the Mural is quite large and is alleged to represent a large number of people, perhaps more input is needed as to what this mural represents and if it represents the facts.Community also represents the Natural Environment which consists of birds, insects, mammals, water systems, the air everything breathes. These members are also part of working, functioning together. Rachel Carson reminded us of these details in her 1962 book, ‘Silent Spring’.It appears we need to give this mural further thought.

Sign In: