Cleaning up the Presumpscot
This week we report on the efforts of a coalition of environmental groups to improve the water quality of and public access to the Presumpscot River.
Groups like the Friends of the Presumpscot, the Presumpscot River Watch and the Casco Bay Estuary Partnership have been working to improve the quality of this river that has long suffered from heavy damming and pollution from the cities it traverses. The work these groups are doing could ultimately change not only the river, but the communities that it runs through.
Westbrook, for example, has been working for years to revitalize its downtown – changing the focus of the city from the mill to the river. All the projects the city has been working on in recent years – the Riverwalk, the potential development of Saccarappa Park and One Riverfront Plaza – revolve around the river.
While we might not agree with every aspect of these projects, or even every project, it’s important to remember that this is a valuable vision that’s worth maintaining. City leaders should be talking about it every opportunity they get. This is the vision Westbrook is trying to realize, and the city will need leaders to make it happen.
Groups like Portland Trails and those mentioned above can be allies in that work, because as the river becomes less of a workhorse for industry and more of a natural river that’s appreciated as a recreational resource the better it will fit in to the city’s plans to redevelop its downtown.
Waste of time
After taking out a petition from the city clerk’s office in August to increase the size of the store Wal-Mart can build in Westbrook, political activist Ray Richardson said this week he collected the more than 1,300 signatures required to get it on the November ballot.
Richardson had been petitioning to get a referendum question on the ballot that would have increased Wal-Mart’s allowable footprint from 160,000 square feet to 180,000. The former limit had been recommended by the Planning Board and approved by the City Council.
However, with signatures in hand, Richardson said he decided not to turn them in by the Sept. 30 deadline. He was unwilling this week to explain on the record why he hadn’t turned them in to the city.
Not only does his decision not to turn this petition in appear bizarre to the casual observer, it does a disservice to everyone who took the time to sign it. At the very least, he owes them a public explanation.
In taking out this petition, Richardson was engaged in a public endeavor. He spoke to all the newspapers (this one included) about what his intentions were and why he was doing it. Now that he’s decided not to go through with it, he doesn’t get to keep his motives to himself.
That leaves everyone who signed and those who didn’t scratching their heads and guessing at why he might not have turned them in. Some of those who signed it might be a bit upset, at this point, that they wasted their time with it. And, we wouldn’t blame them.
Brendan Moran, editor
Send questions/comments to the editors.
