WFMZ 69 News has done a story on our issue... sort of. Many thanks to all of you who showed up on very short notice to lend your comments and support! Alas, despite our carefully articulating our concerns, whoever edited the video boiled it all down to “local residents concerned about property values, versus progress and business growth”. Needless to say, this is a gross over-simplification. (Not to mention that rather than getting FirstEnergy/Met-Ed’s response to our specific concerns and proposals, they were interviewed before us.) Here is a link where you can see what was broadcast and read a transcript:

https://www.wfmz.com/news/berks/bern-residents-want-to-bury-met-ed-power-line-proposal/1119338616

Here is a message I sent to the reporter and editor after watching the video:

subject: Clarifications needed for your story about Met-Ed's power-line proposal.

Thanks so much for bringing more public attention to our issue! We'd appreciate it if the text version of this story that was just posted, could be appended to mention several key points that were omitted from the final edited video:

• It would be highly appreciated if you would put our website address, www.burytheline.org, in the text version of the article so that people interested in the issue can find out much more detailed information than could be presented on-air.

• We are fighting the proposed transmission-line routes not only because of aesthetic and financial concerns (which is all I was shown mentioning), but also because of the environmental impact to our wildlife-rich area and, most troubling, the potential for an increased risk of childhood leukemia (as discussed on the National Cancer Institute's web page about electromagnetic fields and cancer) to those living near the proposed routes. Leaving these concerns out of the final video makes our motives look purely self-interested, particularly when paired with the statement the power company provided before we were interviewed. With its July proposal, FirstEnergy has tried to pit one section of the community against the other with the "A" and "B" routes; but we made a conscious decision to stick together and fight for what's right and good for the whole area, not just what's convenient for one group or another.

• We have proposed detailed alternate routes to allow the power company and the county to achieve their development goals while not causing the above-mentioned problems for the neighborhood. These were not mentioned in the story or shown in the flashing graphics prepared from Met-Ed's proposal map; as a result, it looks like an "us-versus-them" situation in which either the line gets built and progress prevails or the line doesn't get built and new businesses can't be set up... rather than the actual situation where we are proposing alternate routes as solutions to meet everyone's needs (and those who have made these proposals to FirstEnergy have then not received follow-up).

Thank you again for your time and attention to our concerns, and we hope that these essential corrections will portray our cause in a more accurate light.

-Eric F. Keebler.