Opposed to the Corridor and looking for a way to say ‘No’

To the Editor:
    In last week’s Observer, we had a new installment in the ongoing letter-writing campaign which urges your readers to vote against the proposed Rights-Based Ordinances. Central to these letters is an assumption that supporters of the RBO are being manipulated by CELDF, that we do not understand the scope of the proposed Corridor project, and the ramifications of passing a Rights-Based Ordinance. Despite the verbosity of these letters, the opponents of the RBO don’t seem to have any hard facts to back up their insinuations.

    I attended the CELDF Democracy School in March of 2013. The Democracy School teaches how the regulatory law and the state and federal permitting agencies, i.e., the DEP and EPA, work. The permitting system exists to grant permits. Permits, which by definition mean to give authorization or consent, negotiate the amount of environmental damage that is permissible within the scope of a proposed corporate project. The question of whether or not the local community wants, needs, or will benefit from the proposed project is not on the table. Landowners directly impacted by the proposed project have standing in court, but the community, as a whole, is powerless to act.
    The Democracy School teaches, through a review of case law, how the court system interpreted the laws such that corporations gained more rights than living people. When we understand how the legal system and regulatory law unfairly favor the corporation, then we have the background to understand the purpose and strategy of the RBO. As the people who will be directly affected by the Corridor, we are asserting our civil right to self-governance, conveyed to us under the U.S. Constitution and the Maine Constitution, to decide what corporate projects we will allow in our towns and villages. We are not playing the regulatory game. We are taking the position that we legitimately have a right to protect our community, through higher law than mere regulatory law.
    The Bill of Rights enunciated within the RBO states the values that the community is attempting to protect. I cannot see anything sinister in affirming our right to clean air and water, the scenic preservation of our town, and the preservation of the ecosystem within which we live. The only actor that legal action can be brought against, under the RBO, is the corporation when it attempts to build the unwanted project. The CELDF RBO, as written by the CELDF lawyers and reviewed by our local lawyers, cannot be used by one neighbor to sue another. If the opponents of the RBO have an actual legal opinion to the contrary, not just their own suppositions, then they should bring it forward.
    I applaud the actions of the Parkman Select Board, by sending to their citizens a balanced presentation of the issue. No one involved in the RBO movement is trying to “pull the wool” over anyone’s eyes. The representatives of CELDF that I have met are concerned, committed, and ethically responsible people.
    The CELDF Democracy School has graduated doctors, lawyers, teachers, therapists, social workers, engineers, computer technicians, biologists, artists, chefs, farmers, woodsmen, and housewives from all points on the political spectrum. But, we all had one thing in common. All of us were opposed to the East/West Corridor, and were looking for a way to say “No”. We invited CELDF to come and talk to us. And we are very grateful for their assistance.
    Again, I invite anyone, who wants to know more about the RBO to contact someone in your town that is currently working on writing an RBO. We have the answers to your questions. We are waiting to talk with you.

Melissa Randall
Sangerville