A response from the University of New England regarding “An Open Letter to Mayor Liam LaFountain and the Biddeford City Council” (Biddeford Gazette, Aug. 30, 2026)
By SARAH DELAGE | University of New England
For more than two years, a small group of opponents of the University of New England’s proposed research pier have waged a relentless campaign against the project. That campaign has included rumors, misinformation, shifting accusations and statements that are demonstrably false.
The August 30 “open letter” by John Schafer, the leading opponent of the pier, continues a disturbing pattern of misinformation and inuendo.
Although UNE has largely declined to participate in a point-counter point based on falsehoods and accusations, Mr. Schafer’s letter demands a response.
UNE welcomes scrutiny and questions. We recognize that reasonable people can disagree about the pier: its location, its design, the vegetative buffer or the regulatory process.
. . .
And the University has been responsive to constructive feedback. Our engineers modified the pier’s original design in response to feedback, reducing the fixed-pier footprint by 22 percent; the floating-dock footprint by 47 percent and the number of pilings by 17percent.
“Although UNE has largely declined
— Sarah Delage, UNE
to participate in a point-counter point
based on falsehoods and accusations,
Mr. Schafer’s letter demands a response.”
One of the criteria that informed our location for the pier is that it would be smaller than alternative locations, including the one insisted upon by the opposition. That is hardly the record of an institution unwilling to listen.
What we reject is the opponents’ tactic of accusing any person or regulatory body that reaches a conclusion they disagree with of dishonesty, corruption or other wrongdoing.
When a governmental body agrees with the pier’s opponents, they present its decision as evidence that the process worked. But when a body reaches a different conclusion, UNE is accused of receiving special treatment and the integrity of the decision-makers themselves is questioned.
In fact, there no evidence that UNE has received special treatment from regulators. Simply repeating that accusation does not make it true.
The many targets of the opponents’ false, vicious and personal attacks include the Biddeford city planner, the city’s lawyer, the former city manager who followed the advice of the city’s lawyer, the Biddeford Planning Board, the former city administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, UNE’s president and various administrators, and most recently — the Saco River Corridor Commission and the Assistant Attorney General who represents the SRCC.
Nobody is safe from defamatory treatment if they dare disagree with the opponents.
There must be room in a civil community for disagreement without questioning the integrity of everyone on the other side.
Throughout this process, UNE leadership has remained willing to discuss any and all of the issues raised by opponents. We have participated in public meetings and site visits, provided extensive documentation, answered questions, modified the pier design in response to legitimate concerns and repeatedly offered opportunities for direct discussion.
“Nobody is safe from defamatory
treatment if they dare disagree
with the opponents.”
When questions were raised about UNE’s federal grant application, the University offered opponents an opportunity to sit down with UNE representatives and review the application. The most prominent opponent did not respond to that invitation. That is part of a larger and particularly troubling aspect of this campaign.
UNE, city officials, and countless others have received dozens of anonymous emails containing serious accusations against the university. These emails from anonymous aliases claim to represent unverifiable organizations and coalitions of “citizens.” But it is extraordinarily difficult to have a constructive conversation with a ghost.
People have every right to criticize UNE. They have every right to organize against one of our projects. But meaningful community dialogue requires people to engage in good faith – to be willing to identify themselves, to stand behind their claims, to genuinely listen to answers, and to reply thoughtfully.
Anonymous accusations and untraceable organizations are no substitute for genuine community engagement.
The shifting arguments surrounding the 2001 vegetative buffer illustrate the larger problem.
Opponents point to that buffer as evidence that UNE’s proposed access road is improper. Yet, even as late as the last couple of weeks, those same opponents have repeatedly advocated an alternative location for the pier that also requires an access road through the same buffer. They have done so with full knowledge of the buffer while publicly insisting they support UNE having a research pier, as long as it’s built at the location they want. That contradiction matters.
As far as the opponents are concerned, constructing an access road in the buffer is improper if it leads to UNE’s preferred location but an access road in the same buffer is fine if it leads to their preferred pier location.
The contradiction reveals the opposition’s true message, which is “our pier or no pier.” When one considers the opposition’s neon yellow t-shirts emblazoned with the words “Location, location, location,” the message is clear: “Build the pier we demand, or we will employ any means to kill the project.” In fact, the history of this dispute demonstrates how central the pier’s location has always been.
In February 2024, the then-chair of the Harbor Commission, John Schafer, wrote that UNE’s pier “would be a reality” if UNE followed the recommendations of the harbormaster. When UNE did not agree to build the pier where opponents wanted it, the objections continued and evolved.
There is another important piece of that history.
In 2024, Biddeford’s own city attorney concluded that actions involving the then-chair of the Harbor Commission and the harbormaster had compromised the city’s review process. His conclusion was unequivocal: “Evidence of bias, violations of due process and general unfairness are established in the record.” As a result, the city’s attorney advised the city manager to remove the chair of the Harbor Commission, the harbormaster, and the whole Harbor Commission from a review of the pier project.
Contrary to the lies told by opponents about this project, the city manager acted on the advice of the city’s lawyer.
That is not UNE’s characterization of what occurred. It was the conclusion of the city’s own attorney, as evidenced by the attorney’s legal memorandum that is part of the public record.
“Contrary to the lies told by
opponents about this project,
the city manager acted on
the advice of the city’s lawyer.”
UNE and Biddeford have been partners for generations. The University is part of this community, and we intend to remain part of it.
We will continue to answer legitimate questions posed by people acting in good faith. We will continue to provide information. We will continue to meet with residents who have concerns.
But constructive dialogue requires two willing parties. It cannot succeed when the objective is obstruction rather than resolution or when those making serious allegations refuse to identify themselves and engage with the people they accuse.
After more than two years of hearings, regulatory reviews, appeals, litigation and public debate — perhaps it is time to return to some basic principles.
We can disagree without accusing one another of dishonesty. We can debate projects without attacking people. We can ask difficult questions while genuinely listening to the answers. And we can resolve legitimate differences by discussing facts rather than manufacturing new ones.
UNE remains ready for that conversation.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR | Sarah Delage is Associate Vice President of Communications at the University of New England.
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Biddeford Gazette, its staff, affiliates or sponsors. We encourage robust and diverse community conversations on topics related to the city of Biddeford. To submit your own letter or column, please CONTACT US
.
STAY CONNECTED | SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE TODAY
.
BIDDEFORD GAZETTE
“Keeping You Connected to Biddeford”
Editorial Standards & Policies
© 2026 Biddeford Gazette, Inc. All Rights Reserved
BIDDEFORD GAZETTE 