2014-08-01 / Letters

Reader sees it a different way

To the editor:

During the past several weeks, I have watched some of the comments about the city council’s action regarding the tar sand ordinance with puzzlement. There has been displeasure expressed because the vote in November was no and the council seemed to cave in to the yes vote.

Most of the city councilors, myself and numerous other residents felt that voting either yes or no would lead to negative and catastrophic results for South Portland and our surrounding communities. Voting “yes” meant that the ordinance could never evolve to meet developing economic conditions without going through the cumbersome petitionsigning process. In addition, the waterfront as we know it would most likely cease to exist in a short period of time. The no vote meant that tar sands oil with deficient federal regulations regarding its transportation and spill control could be transported through Maine and loaded onto tankers in South Portland. The tanker-loading process also violated our recently updated comprehensive plan. The councilors understood that my and many other residents’ no vote was actually a vote for no, but.

For both water and air environmental concerns, I did not want the pipeline reversed for transporting tar sands oil from South Portland. I also did not want to shut down the existing waterfront. If the ballot had allowed three voting choices, I am certain the vote would have been in descending order: no, but; yes, no. City councilors recognized the real vote and I feel acted accordingly.

Marilyn Reilly
South Portland

Return to top