LURC should decide sooner than later

This week, readers were asked to comment on Plum Creek’s development plans for the Moosehead Lake area, the future of paper mills in Maine, and the evolution of U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the responses, posted at the ClickBack page at bangordailynews.com, are reprinted here. Look for the next ClickBack topics in Tuesday’s editorial column, or post your own question; to participate, click on the ClickBack logo on the BDN home page at bangordailynews.com

Where should the line be drawn on Plum Creek’s development plan?

The sooner LURC makes a legally unassailable decision on where to let Plum Creek build, the sooner we can stop banging our heads with croquet mallets to keep us incensed about it. People have to live somewhere. Also, for all of you constrained letter writers, the BDN has stormed the Bastille and given us ClickBack. We’re free as birds over here on the OpEd page! The OpEd page has been liberated and you’d be amazed what you can say in a paragraph or two.

– takei

As Americans, we have the right to settle where we please. If it’s a home in the middle of the woods or on the shoreline of a lake, so be it. Of all those complaining, maybe we should look at where they live. What was displaced by their home? The BDN has a story of the state spending thousands of dollars to attract tourism to the state, so why not build resorts to make the state investment pay off?

– homer

The Natural Resources Council of Maine and Maine Audubon have offered to give 33,500 acres on the west side of the lake in exchange for the 400 units proposed on the east (more wild) side. This sounds more than fair (actually it seems overly generous to me). Plum Creek can build its resorts and housing developments in such a way as to preserve what people want to go up there for.

– siqitaqeq

Do paper mills in Maine have a bright or bleak future?

I don’t think any company has lifetime employment anymore. Companies sometimes proclaim “Our employees are our greatest asset” but bookkeeping doesn’t work that way. Employees – labor costs – are squarely in the “expenses” column; laying people off is thus a financially responsible thing to do. I think we should change that. If companies had tax deductions for each employee, much as families get deductions for children, then it would be a financial advantage to companies to keep people employed. This is something the government could do to help the situation.

That said, paper mills can and should evolve and diversify so that they don’t become dinosaurs. They are surrounded by wood pulp – why not cogenerate the needed energy? Why not produce wood pellets? Why not develop less energy-intensive paper sources? Industrial hemp (which is legal and is not a drug) makes high-quality paper in fewer and less energy-intensive steps. I think any monopoly employer has an obligation to the community that has supported it for so many years, and it should work with the government to maintain employment levels or provide infrastructure for alternative employment.

– siqitaqeq

The mills have to take some initiative themselves. The Millinocket mills should have started getting into biomass energy years ago and they should also be taking advantage of hydropower.

– homer

American troop deaths in Afghanistan topped those in Iraq last month – should U.S. policy change?

Maybe so. Perhaps we should go after Iran. They seem to be where a lot of the trouble comes from.

– cywigikos