To the Editor:
Some corrections to Mr. Jones’ statements in your article “Wiscasset Transportation Committee Wants Corps to Reconsider Bypass Route.” (LCN, 7/15/10, Page 3)
1. “Unanimous consensus” concerning selection of alignment N2a (northerly) is misleading. Bypass Task Force unanimity concerned proceeding to the next step in consideration of the remaining three alignments. These represented a winnowing of many more possibilities.
DOT has always stressed the final route must be environmentally acceptable. In the spirit of community involvement, DOT presented the Task Force’s stated choice as the Department’s first choice. The Corps is charged with evaluating impact on the environment and apparently finds substantial differences among the three routes.
2. It is not true that “the only Edgecomb property in the path of the bypass already belongs to the DOT.” There are 10 Edgecomb parcels totaling 96 acres and $1,799,450 in assessed value in the path of N8c (long bridge) or 12 parcels totaling 216 acres and $3,266,640 a.v. in the path of N2a. (The area of the DOT maintenance facility, three acres, is included in N8c, but not its fully exempt assessed value, $525,950.)
Corresponding impacts in Wiscasset are 72 parcels, 454 acres, and $16,575,690 a.v. for N8c, and 77 parcels, 967 acres, and $17,304,590 a.v. for N2a, including two or three tax exempt parcels owned by the Town of Wiscasset.
The above impacts are for “full takes” (consistent with Town of Wiscasset methodology) — DOT might negotiate the taking of only needed right-of-way from a given owner, or buy a whole parcel and then sell off unneeded portions. Net acreage and valuation would be substantially less in both towns.
3. I don’t have the figures for N2f (along Englebrekt Road), but they seem likely to be intermediate to the above — more than N8c but less than N2a.
Is Wiscasset really willing to bear an objectively 4 percent higher burden in order to impose an 81 percent higher burden on Edgecomb?
Byron Johnson, PE, Edgecomb
