Here’s a look at what several in our online community had to say about recent letters to the editor and stories in the news.

Regarding our Sunday story about Lewiston city officials’ Saturday morning tour of the hulking and vacant Bates Mill No. 5, there didn’t seem to be much support among elected officials or among readers for massive preservation efforts.

Unhappy that the city “let this place and so many others like it get so bad,” reader Randall Pond of Auburn said “It’s time to say good-bye to this and remove it to better revitalize Lewiston, Maine.”

Bob Stone of Auburn agreed with Planning Board Co-chairman Bruce Damon’s personal assessment that the mill is — in Damon’s words — a “butt-ugly” eyesore that offers nothing more than the continued absorption of municipal dollars.

According to Stone, “It was well past time for the citizens that have been dreaming about a marketplace or casino to see the actual conditions inside Mill No. 5” in order to see that the building has outlived its economic life.

We agree. Lewiston took over management of the Bates properties in 1992, after the company and its officers failed to pay $800,000 in personal and real estate taxes. Two decades is a long time for the city to prop up this 1912 building at taxpayer expense.

There is no viable plan in sight, nor any sign of a private financial commitment on the scale necessary to reclaim Mill No. 5. The decaying mill is locking up land that, if cleared, could be used for new, smaller enterprises that could fuel Lisbon Street’s current revitalization.

Also in Sunday’s paper was the very poignant photo of property manager Sean Watkins kneeling in one of his vacant apartments, looking at the waste and damage caused by vandals who broke in — not once, but twice — to steal copper pipes and wire.

In the photo, Watkins looks over a sea of crumpled aluminum fins stripped from baseboard heaters, since thieves just want the copper, not the mixed metals. They take what they want by ripping out walls, ceilings and damaging floors, leaving thousands of dollars of damage in exchange for the possibility of selling the stolen loot for — maybe — $1,000.

Reader Jeff LaFlam of Sabattus summed it up best: “Thieves . . . can’t stand em.”

Agreed.

And, if lawmakers need any prompting in considering LD 1708, which would require metal dealers to keep all scrap metal for five days after they buy it in case it’s stolen, they should consider the image of Watkins kneeling in despair in his own property.

And in a letter published Friday from Normand and Suzanne Renaud warning of the potential hazards of high radio frequency transmitted by Central Maine Power’s newly installed smart meters, Bob Woodbury of Winslow noted that we are surrounded by RF from “several different sources every day. I’m curious to know why this particular source bothers you.”

Mark Elliott of Mechanic Falls wondered the same thing. “Most of the folks complaining probably have 2-3 wireless laptops used around the house as well as 2-3 cordless phones. All it takes to create a panic is a small “seed” and some “water”; the “seed” being one complaint and the “water” being the media.

And, from reader Joanne Moore of Brunswick, who was happy to pay a $40 one-time fee and now pays $12 a month to keep her analog meter, “I take great pleasure in knowing our electric bill is still lower than our neighbors and we are helping someone to keep a job.”

Some comments have been edited for length, punctuation and spelling.

[email protected]