To the editor:

Four fires, four months, all within a half mile radius of downtown Brunswick.

The first fire site got rebuilt. The second still sits. The third was demolished and removed within weeks. The fourth got demolished recently.

What’s the difference in progress and results? Lots.

Let’s look at the 16-18 Oak St. apartment building, the second fire. It sits on top of a hill overlooking the gateway through Brunswick, Route 1 and Mill Street. Thousands of cars pass through there daily. It sits right next to a beautifully renovated condominium building with a large banner across the back advertising them.

Some of the units are still for sale. Do you think anyone will still be interested in purchasing a condo unit next to a building that now has sat for nine months burnt and uninhabitable without a plan for the future?

A structural engineer friend from Massachusetts, who has worked all over the world with damaged buildings, bridges, and road ways, had the opportunity to drive by recently. He remarked how surprised he was to see that the town did not require the overhanging porch roof be removed or the entire site not secured more so no one can trespass or have it boarded up to have it look taken care of even in its dilapidated state.

Apparently, Brunswick does not have any regulations regarding such structures. This shows what happens when problems are solved by “rules and regulations” only.

When does thinking and caring start?

The feel of that neighborhood improved dramatically when Cabot Condos was completed. Can the town of Brunswick also do its share in providing support to improve the quality of neighborhoods? Shouldn’t that be one of its primary missions?

Lindy Ost

Brunswick