Letters submitted by BDN readers are verified by BDN Opinion Page staff. Send your letters to letters@bangordailynews.com
I agree that Searsport is an appropriate place for the wind port plant. I also agree with the Sierra Club that Mack Point is the better option for its physical location.
Although Sears Island may financially be the best choice, it fails in other considerations.
When one considers the ecological damage that any industry could do to Sears Island, it should be the very last option for development. And currently there is a better option: Mack Point (already Searsport’s industrial area).
There is a reason why this precious island remains undeveloped today. Generations of forward thinkers have prevented a container port, a nuclear power plant and various other industries from landing on the island as they were able to convince the world that there were alternatives. I join with them in protesting the current decision of choosing Sears Island for the wind port location.
There are still the wetlands, the bird flyways, the wildlife, and the quiet natural paradise existing on this 941 acres, unique to the entire East Coast, to consider. There is a petition you can join if you agree to hold off island development at this time in favor of Mack Point. A petition in favor of Mack Point may be signed on Change.org.
Let us reconsider the Mack Point option while we still can.
Mary Brann
Searsport