I was utterly shocked at this paper’s editorial position on Question 3, the Lewiston casino. The convoluted and disingenuous reasoning boggles the mind.

This editorial board has the gall to insinuate that Lewiston proponents have promised “wheelbarrows” of money. That is absurd.

Lewiston proponents have created a two-year long public record based on a reasoned, thoughtful articulation of sound economic, environmental and regional development principles via a series of op-eds, newspaper ads, press conferences, legislative testimony and, finally, editorial packets sent to more than 50 Maine newspapers. And all dollar amounts used by us are based on estimates made by the Maine Office of Fiscal and Program Review.

The Lewiston Sun Journal recently wrote, “Organizers want the campaign behind the proposed $100 million Lewiston casino to be a decidedly don’t-over-promise-and-under-deliver affair.” When have we ever heard any developer say that, let alone a casino developer? Every other casino effort in this state, particularly last year’s Oxford effort, could learn a lesson from us.

The legal standard for defamation is “reckless disregard for the truth.” This paper’s characterizations of the claims we have made about our project clearly meet and exceed that test. “Deliberate disregard” is more like it.

The editors ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Instead, we are offered a condescending pat on the head for our downtown revitalization efforts thus far. But, even this paper can’t use the word “revitalization” without qualifying it with “nascent,” “careful,” “thoughtful,” and “gentle.” Wow, that’s four disclaimers right there. Shall we try for five, or is that one too many? Any more praise like that might lull me to sleep.

The editors say that our site, Bates Mill No. 5, is the last remaining eye sore in the downtown. Are they serious? Or are they hoping that most of their readers have never been to Lewiston? Or, more to the point, have the editors ever been to Lewiston? Maybe they’re talking about some other Lewiston. I hear there’s others such as in New York, Michigan and Idaho.

At the real heart of the problem, though, is the following comment, which is truly the crux of the issue: “[T]he activity that once characterized downtown Lewiston has not been restored. Nor will it be, not ever.”

To this, 66 percent of the people of Lewiston, the City Council, the Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council, and a host of local business people in the Twin Cities join me in saying to the editors, don’t you dare presume to tell us what the future of our downtown can and cannot be.

This is simply to say that Lewiston’s best days are behind it, so just tough it out unto eternity.

Well, we aren’t dead yet. But, it’s not from a lack of trying, on the part of these papers and policymakers in Augusta, to kill us.

The state’s free highway system bypasses us. The proposed passenger rail system bypasses us. Lewiston-Auburn combined has two highway exits, while Portland has ten and Bangor has eight. The list goes on.

Yes, some great changes have taken place, and we are proud of them, which is why there is so much more commitment to the downtown now than there has been in the past; but, this process has taken decades, and we can’t afford to take decades more.

Lewiston’s population in the last 20 years has declined by more than 3,000, and recent large-scale influxes have been alarmingly offset to a large degree by continued out-migration, following a trend dating back to1970.

This is why we say that there is really much more at stake here than just jobs, even though jobs are critical. But, make no mistake, we don’t want sympathy; just your yes vote on Question 3.

Laurent F. Gilbert Sr. is mayor of Lewiston.