SOUTH PORTLAND – Both sides in the fight over the Nov. 5 vote on the Waterfront Protection Ordinance (WPO) in South Portland, a zoning rule designed to block so-called “tar sands” from entering the city, have issued official reaction to news of a potential building moratorium.
As the Current reported in its print edition this week, the South Portland City Council will hold a special workshop the day after the election, if the proposed ordinance is rejected by voters.
At that workshop, councilors would consider instituting a 180-day moratorium on new construction in the city’s shorefront and shipyard zones. According to Councilor Linda Cohen, who moved to schedule the workshop session at Monday’s council meeting, the moratorium would give the city time to bring both sides to the table to work on a revised ordinance that would still ban tar sands while alleviating industry concerns over the document on Tuesday’s ballot.
On Tuesday afternoon, the advocacy group Protect South Portland issued a statement calling Cohen’s moratorium idea “a last-ditch attempt by oil interests to distract voters.”
“The only guaranteed way to keep tar sands out of South Portland is for citizens to vote for and pass the Waterfront Protection Ordinance on Tuesday, Nov. 5,” said Protect South Portland co-founder Rob Sellin. “Only an ordinance can protect us, and on Tuesday voters have the opportunity to stop the tar sands threat that is hanging over our heads, once and for all.”
Leaders in South Portland’s petroleum industry claim a strict reading of the Waterfront Protection Ordinance could end up banning equipment maintenance and upgrades unrelated to tar sands, including at city marinas. Although defeat of the ordinance at the polls could lead to a delay of at least six months on construction projects already put on hold while companies wait to see how the vote plays out, industry leaders say they will work with those concerned with tar sands.
“First, the WPO must be defeated next week,” said Jamie Py, president of the Maine Energy Marketers Association, in a statement released Tuesday evening. “The WPO is overbroad, poorly written, and a diverse coalition of business, labor and community leaders agree that it goes too far.
“The WPO threatens not only ongoing waterfront operations, but good jobs and the
economic prosperity of our community,” said Py. “But, as the working waterfront coalition has said from the beginning, we stand ready to be part of a constructive conversation about the future of South Portland’s waterfront. We look forward to collaborating in a comprehensive discussion about a number of ideas after the election, including the possibility of an oil sands moratorium that provides the community time to study these important issues with care and deliberation.”
Sellin, however, predicts any dialogue following Tuesday’s vote will only go against his side.
“We can all see how this one plays out,” he said. “Talking points today turn into delay after the vote, then into apologies and loopholes, and the city is just as vulnerable to tar sands a year from now as we are today. It is up to South Portland residents to protect ourselves from tar sands.”
South Portland Mayor Tom Blake, a leading advocate for passage of the Waterfront Protection Ordinance, appears to be of two minds on the prospect of a moratorium.
At Monday’s meeting, he did not speak against the moratorium and, in fact, advised for the earliest possible date, while also preaching the need for additional reconciliation efforts.
“Regardless of what happens at the Nov. 5 vote, I think we as a community need to take a proactive role and come up with some sort of effort to have a dialogue between our shorefront petroleum industry and our citizens,” Blake said, asking for an additional workshop on what was termed “municipal/business/community relationships.”
“I think we need to really start the healing process and be proactive to avoid something like this coming up in the future,” he said.
However, Blake was quoted in Tuesday’s Protect South Portland release opposing the moratorium.
“We have the solution right in front of us, right now it’s the Waterfront
Protection Ordinance,” he said in the release. “A moratorium is a stop-gap measure and the long-term solution is the Waterfront Protection Ordinance.”
“Two major issues come to mind when I think about the moratorium idea,” added Blake. “First: This appears to be just another last-ditch attempt to thwart the citizen-initiated ordinance. Why didn’t the council do this three months ago, or six months ago, when it was clear that city residents were overwhelmingly opposed to tar sands?
“Second,” said Blake, “a moratorium would require a unanimous vote of the City Council
and there is no reason to believe we could even pass a moratorium. It would be even harder for the council to pass a resolution with teeth to block a tar-sands facility.”
According to City Manager Jim Gailey, any moratorium would be effective from the date of the Nov. 6 workshop, although passage would require first and second readings at regular City Council meetings.
If the ordinance is rejected at the polls Nov. 5, the subsequent Nov. 6 workshop promised to be an unusually work-filled work session from the council. Generally, when councilors introduce new ideas at workshop, they have the benefit of guidance from city staff, including document templates from which to work. But Gailey says councilors will be on their own this time out.
“I’m not seeing staff being able to draft a full-fledged moratorium that would be acceptable to the council for a workshop,” he said at Monday’s meeting. “It’s going to come the other way around.”
Send questions/comments to the editors.
