Addressing Orono

Orono residents are learning about the requirements and effects of the addressing ordinance that was enacted last year and that will be implemented later in this year or early in 1998. The ordinance generally conforms with guidelines issued by the state’s E-911 addressing coordinators. However, in many details the ordinance departs from those guidelines, most significantly in requiring new addresses for stable and established streets and neighborhoods that already have consistent numbers in place.

Many residents, including myself, do not see the need to put new numbers on our homes when addresses in our neighborhoods already conform substantially to the state’s E-911 guidelines. The ordinance enforces a new system which is formally rational and self-consistent, but which lacks common sense. No public safety requirement has been offered by the town in its demand that my address must change from 13 to 11. Further, of the 22 structures on the two streets in my neighborhood, no fewer than 14 are involved in a “neighbor-number swap,” reassigning existing addresses to nearby dwellings. Doesn’t this situation, unforseen in the ordinance, have potential public safety implications?

Several myths have been propagated by officials at various times in this process. I have heard the changes are “required” by E-911; they are not. I have heard we are conforming to a “national” system of addressing; there is no such system. Town officials have placed the burden of unneeded changes entirely on residents and business owners. This ordinance should be revised.

Many of the changes mandated in the ordinance may be needed. If rural route numbers now need street addresses, all right. If some confusing street names may need to be changed, OK. These are the changes we were led to expect from this process. However, the proposed changes go well beyond reason, and are unwanted by many residents. What is needed now is a simple amendment to the ordinance that will allow for flexibility when warranted, permitting continuation of existing addresses unless overriding public safety needs can be demonstrated. Paul Schroeder Orono