Letters to the Editor

Shotgun approach to stopping highway is flawed strategy

To the Editor:
    Several weeks ago (on Oct. 23) the town of Parkman held a hearing on a newly proposed ordinance that had been presented to the selectmen and brought forward by them to be voted upon at a special town meeting that will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 13 at 6 p.m., at the Parkman Grange Hall. At that special town meeting, my latest understanding is that the ordinance will be voted on in its current state.

    This ordinance was sufficiently important in the minds of the selectmen that they made the special effort to mail a copy of the ordinance, a legal opinion from the town’s attorney and a pamphlet on rights based ordinances to all the voting citizens. The citizens all had these documents in hand, had a reasonable time to digest them, and had due notice of the hearing; yet only about 30 people showed up to speak their minds, which mainly was about their opposition to the currently-totally-unknown, multiple route(s) of the East-West Highway(by that name or any other).
    So, what is the big deal here? Well, read the ordinance and think about what is says and more importantly what it is covers … much more than any trans-Maine highway.
    The local group proposing this ordinance has been organized, passionate and well-spoken; however they have endorsed a piece of writing that affects much, much more than the problem that originally motivated it. The proposed ordinance supports a huge, broad-based solution to a much more specific problem. The supporters say this is about a transportation corridor, but the ordinance is like using a cannon to kill a groundhog; it far exceeds that specific problem and the taxpayers of the town may very well see their individual rights impacted in a number of areas including their right to sell their property to anyone whom they might choose and to build such structures as a driveway on their own property that meets the regulations set forth by the state, but which is challenged by a neighbor because the neighbor, referencing this ordinance, might sue them on behalf of the ecosystem, thus giving rights to plants and animals, with the human suing, making the case.
    The local group speaks earnestly to its “intent” but the whole debate will undoubtedly land the town (with all the citizens paying the bill) in court and the debate there will be about civil rights, more than property rights — a legal switch of significant magnitude, as we seemed doomed inevitably to discover — and pay for!
    We were told at the hearing that we would have the option only of voting the ordinance as currently written in (Yes) or out (No). This ordinance is fundamentally flawed and should never see the light of day. Here are some items regarding it to consider.
    The “locals” who have put forth this ordinance would have us think they wrote it. They didn’t. They may have added a line or two and done some word-smithing, but the majority of this ordinance was given to them by a group known as CELDF which sponsored a “Democracy School” where these people met and learned about this ordinance.
    Most of us know little about the real motives, make up, or finances of this organization, or what qualifies it to be in the business of running a school on democracy. But we do know they aren’t “local” and probably aren’t the least bit concerned about the issue that motivated the people in this area locally.
    We do know that they are concerned with civil rights, which is a whole different realm of consideration and litigation than a property rights debate. This approach is overkill and obtuse in its real intent. Watch out!
    If you can’t figure this all out, then probably you aren’t intended to. Locally-speaking, you are buying a pig in a poke! There will be lots of time after the fact to rue that decision.
    Be clear about the difference between a civil rights issue and a property rights issue. Civil rights throw us into the arena of voting rights for large masses of people across the whole United States i.e black citizens or women, or educational rights for disabled children. One speaker spoke of the local issue in the same sentence as he rolled out Rosa Parks and her refusal to continue to sit in the back of the bus. Get some perspective here and know that if any of us arrive in court you and your town will be fighting the issue based on civil rights law and precedent. Let me assure you, you have no idea where that will take you and what it will cost you.
    The same citizen who made the above comparison, a few minutes later spoke of the local concern as comparable to picking the color of shingles on a roof. He offered this simple comparison as he tried to suggest that we just pass the ordinance as written and we can fix it later. Don’t buy that one either. First of all, once the ordinance is in place with all its flaws, the Town will have to defend it as written and, if that leads to court, where do you think the money for that is going to come from?
    One of the equally well-intended citizens assured the crowd that the town’s liability insurance will pay the legal costs. Unlikely, I think.
    But even if the liability insurance did eventually pay up or costs were recouped in court, we will not have that cash offered up in advance to pay the ongoing legal fees. The town will likely be forced to put out an additional tax assessment to pay their current legal expenses.
    Do you want that? Follow that line of thought. Given the lengthy time civil rights cases take in the various courts where they are heard, you very well could have a tax lien on your property for failure to pay your tax assessment or could find yourself living in a tent, provided you didn’t pitch it somewhere unfavorably perceived by a citizen who decides to come after you on behalf of the ecosystem.
    Far-fetched? Do you want to step forward and find out? Bottom line — the local concern issue is not a civil rights issue and we should not cheerfully and blindly go there. The transportation issue is important, but keep it in perspective.
    If you really are invested in civil rights, then go to the upcoming Town Meeting on Nov. 13 and vote. That is one of the biggest civil rights you have, and your failure to exercise it here could have serious ramifications.
    Realistically, while we can applaud the efforts of local people to find a solution for a local problem, each citizen needs to look at what is going on here. The rights based ordinance that is being proposed is significantly flawed and has more unknown and potentially damaging parts to it than the issue that gave it life. Vote it down in its entirety. Do not let it become the platform from which we have to operate. Do not agree to minor changes in the ordinance here or there. The existing problem needs to be solved in a whole different arena. One citizen in promoting the ordinance said it should not make enemies of us. Once challenged or fully revealed, it will. If it is your land and your money at stake, the debate will not be friendly.
    Instead of passing this broad-sweeping rights based ordinance, look at another line of approach that speaks to the specific problem itself.
    Consider alternatives other than an ordinance. Parkman has very few ordinances and can’t even seem to write something to make their neighbors clean up unsightly junk in their front yard, and now all of a sudden we are second in a very dubious local line to make a declaration of civil rights. Are you really prepared to do that?
    Think, people, think, and go to the upcoming town meeting and vote; let that be your civil rights statement for the day and the year! This is the biggest decision Parkman has faced in years. Your vote will count.

Ann B. Bridge
Parkman