Yesterday, an article ran in both the Portland Press Herald and the Coastal Journal asserting that a ‘conflict’ has emerged in the controversy over MLF location at Brunswick West.
We posted the following comment not once, but twice:
As long as the reporter is interested in digging into possible conflicts, why hasn't he looked at the conflict arising from NNEPRA purchase of the subject property BEFORE their paid consulting engineer was tasked to evaluate the location alternatives? Surprise, surprise...the paid engineer said the site they had already bought was the best choice.
And why doesn't he look into how and why Brunswick Taxi, owned by the family of the former town council chair (in office when the site was selected and purchased), has a lucrative contract to transport Amtrak crews back and forth to Portland twice a day, 7/365.
As to Wallace and his development plans, he filed his first papers with the town Planning Department in 2005, well before anyone had plans to bring the Downeaster to Brunswick and build an MLF in town, let alone at Brunswick West.
If you're going to report on conflicts, why not be all inclusive?
Apparently the editors find no ‘conflict’ in publishing such articles but removing reader comments that don’t say yes sir, yes sir, three bags full. Perhaps they find our comment ‘profane,’ at least in the figurative sense.
You’ll even find it shown twice on our little-used Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Other-Side-of-Town/296181788864
where it appeared automatically as a result of hitting the comment button on the Press Herald web site.
Which proves our point about it being taken down. TWICE.
Thanks, Congresswoman Pingree, and your benefactor, for your support of free press principles.
Maybe Counselor Boochever will write them a letter of protest for removing our comment.