Letters to the editor, May 14

Town Council calls constituents racists for using word it used

To the editor,

Depending on who’s using the word, the “character” of Scarborough is racist?

In January, I joined the Scarborough Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC), which drafted the town’s 2021 Comprehensive Plan. At the 4/21/21 Town Council meeting, I was concerned when Councilor Caterina described “town character” and “changes to character” as terms that “have a long history … that led to “‘steering’ and redlining,” My concern was not for the accuracy of her statement. Instead, it was because as the LRPC’s Council Liaison Officer, Caterina oversaw the rewriting of the Comp. Plan, which had used those same terms and others like them in the Plan’s final draft.

When Caterina made her statement, the LRPC had finished its work and sent the Comp. Plan to the Greater Portland Council of Governments (GPCOG) for its review.

The following day on 4/22/21, I thought the LRPC would be notified about the needed edits to the Comp. Plan that Caterina’s statement necessitated. Near the end of the day, I wrote to the LRPC, including Councilors Caterina and Hamill, the alternate Council Liaison Officer, Jay Chace, Town Planner, and outlined my concerns. I wrote, “Thanks to the following … statements made during a Scarborough Town Council meeting, the word ‘character,’ as it has been used in the Comp. Plan, has been identified as “racist” and “about … implicit racism.” Caterina stated the latter, and added that the use of the word in the real estate business is associated with the racial segregation practices of “steering” and “redlining.”

My email continued, “The LRPC’s Council Liaison Officer adamantly stated that the use of the word denotes ‘implicit racism.’ I think that anyone in the future who took similar exception to the use of the word in the 2021 Comp. Plan would only have to quote from Caterina’s statements to prove the point.” And, I concluded, “I’m writing to state that I think this idea requires the LRPC’s immediate attention.”

On 4/26/21, Jay Chace, replied to the LRPC, “We will be sure to highlight this issue for GPCOG staff as they continue their review.” All’s well that ends well?

Not quite. At the 4/21/21 Council meeting, Councilor Gleysteen asked Caterina why the latter decried as racist the use of the word in emails that opposed the GMO, yet oversaw the use of the word “42 times” in the Comp. Plan. Caterina obfuscated, “In response, there’s ‘character’ and there’s ‘character’ and then there’s ‘character.’” And, she doubled-down on her claim, “The content of the emails … seemed to me and to some other people that there was some ‘dog whistling’ going on there.”

A week later, during the 4/29/21 Council GMO Workshop #2, I asked the Council to apologize for calling their constituents “racists” for using the very same word that repeatedly appeared in the Comp. Plan. And, Caterina replied, “I will stand by my comments.” The other Council members remained quiet.

Show us the “racist” emails!

Marvin Gates
Scarborough

Wanting to control town’s growth isn’t racist

To the editor,

I am writing in response to both the April 29 Town Council workshop and the April 30 Scarborough Leader article “Public Speaks Out about Proposed Growth Ordinance,” which describes local outrage over the Town Council’s plan to repeal and replace the Growth Management Ordinance. The article also detailed Councilor Jean Marie Caterina’s remarks complaining that residents’ concerns about run-away growth were “inherently racist” and “exclusionary.” That accusation is a cheap shot, and it is plain wrong.

I attended both the April 22 Town Council meeting and April 29 workshop over Zoom. Both meetings focused on creating a new Growth Management Ordinance that would allow unlimited permits to build one-bedroom and two-bedroom units in high-density developments like Scarborough Downs and Beacon/Gateway, among others.

Prior to the April 22 meeting, the Council received 60 emails from the public on this matter. Many people expressed concern about Scarborough “losing its character” if it grows to fast. Councilor Caterina said she was disappointed people had used the term “town character” because it had a long history of racism behind it. She also claimed that there was “dog-whistling going on” in emails the Council had received.

This accusation is despicable. First of all, “town character” is a common-place term used by people to refer to a sense of warmth and community and small-town feel. It refers to open-spaces, farmland, and mom-and-pop shops — instead of high-density developments, parking lots and four-lane roads. Councilor Caterina is well aware of this usage, because the term “character” is used repeatedly in Scarborough’s new Comprehensive Plan to describe the community feel that the town is striving to maintain.

Citizens are reaching out to the Town Council to object to the unprecedented pace of growth in Scarborough. We want growth to proceed at a more reasonable pace — so that the town infrastructure and services can keep up. We love the community we live in, and we prize its diversity. If Councilor Caterina is dismissing the concerns of committed community members, like me, by calling us racist — she is missing the point completely. And worse, she is attempting to shut down valid public commentary with slander.

This is just wrong. Town Council, listen to the people who voted for you — and stand up for them. Don’t try to dismiss us with this toxic label, and don’t just stand by when your fellow member does it. It’s a nasty trick. Please show your voters and taxpayers the respect they deserve.