To the Editor:

Responding to a commentary from the Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition is an exercise in futility. They ignore what you write, distort it, argue “it logically follows” you agreed with them, or reply via expensive public relations outfit.

Chris Casey’s latest piece (OpEd: “Independent review for train facility,” Oct. 11, Page A8) nonetheless calls for clarification. He wants us to “demand” an Environmental Impact Statement. This is a foolish gambit.

“The fact,” Casey states, “remains there are several suitable sites in Brunswick that have not been considered.”

Okay, show us the proof. Keep in mind the Environmental Assessment prepared by NNEPRA (pages 4-8 and Appendix B) considered six sites. Two — Cook’s Corner and the Industrial Park — have been considered in detail.

Let us now learn from the BWNC about those “several suitable sites in Brunswick that have not been considered.”

For that statement — that “fact,” in Casey’s weird jargon — to be true, the sites must be ones other than those in the EA.

Let us read the names of these sites, and what makes them “suitable.” Go into specifics. Instead of blowing money on PR and out-of-town lawyers, hire a consultant and show us the finished report.

Since Casey already knows about the sites and what makes them fitting, he and the BWNC ought to deliver the goods right away. Note: A NIMBY would “demand” this information. I merely request it.

Absent an explicit response from the BWNC on this important matter, I will be compelled to resort to my NIMBY thesaurus for an understanding of how they use the word “fact.” In that reference book, next to “Fact” we find: “fantasy, falsehood.”

Casey would be inclined to conclude with another of his catch phrases: “It’s that simple.” But it isn’t.

When “facts” are fantasies, all calls for an EIS are baseless. This is a trying situation for Brunswick, Freeport, the Mid-coast and Maine. The blame for that can be placed entirely at the feet of the BWNC.

Jeff Reynolds
Brunswick