“If UNE believes John Schafer’s August 30 letter contains “demonstrably false” statements, there is a remarkably simple solution: Identify each false statement. Quote it accurately. Produce the evidence contradicting it.”
Editor:
UNE’s response would be far more persuasive if it spent less time attacking its critics and more time answering them. (“Disagreement is not dishonesty,” Biddeford Gazette, Aug. 31, 2026)
The irony is difficult to miss. UNE lectures the community about civility while describing its opponents as liars, obstructionists, manufacturers of facts and people engaged in “false, vicious and personal attacks.” It then singles out John Schafer repeatedly and essentially argues that continued disagreement with UNE demonstrates bad faith.
That isn’t constructive dialogue. It is an attempt to discredit the opposition.
UNE’s characterization of the dispute as “our pier or no pier” is particularly misleading. Opponents advocating an alternative location aren’t necessarily opposing a research pier they are arguing that UNE has chosen the wrong location.
In fact, advocating another location is evidence that the dispute may be precisely about where the pier belongs, not whether UNE should have one at all.
UNE then attempts to turn that into evidence of obstruction. How convenient.
The vegetative-buffer argument deserves more than a rhetorical “gotcha,” too.
The fact that two potential locations might involve the buffer does not establish that their impacts, road requirements, environmental consequences or legal circumstances are identical. If UNE believes they are equivalent, demonstrate it with the applicable plans, restrictions and environmental analysis instead of declaring its opponents as hypocrites.
Then there is UNE’s repeated reliance on approvals from government agencies.
Regulatory approval does not make a decision infallible.
Citizens have every right to challenge regulators, appeal decisions and question whether agencies correctly interpreted their authority. That isn’t an attack on government. That is exactly why administrative appeals, judicial review and public oversight exist.
UNE also invokes the city attorney’s memorandum concerning alleged bias and due-process problems in the earlier review process. Fair enough. Put the entire memorandum and complete underlying record before the public and allow people to judge it in context.
But one attorney’s conclusions about one portion of the process do not magically invalidate every environmental, legal or policy objection raised afterward.
And if UNE believes John Schafer’s August 30 letter contains “demonstrably false” statements, there is a remarkably simple solution:
Identify each false statement. Quote it accurately. Produce the evidence contradicting it.
Instead, much of their response is devoted to describing the character, motives and tactics of the people opposing UNE.
UNE even criticizes anonymous citizens for raising concerns. Anonymous speech has a long history in American civic debate. The credibility of an allegation should ultimately depend upon the evidence supporting it—not whether UNE approves of the person making it.
UNE is an important institution in Biddeford, but being an important institution doesn’t give it ownership of the public debate surrounding a project on the Saco River.
“UNE is an important institution
in Biddeford, but that doesn’t
give them ownership of the
public debate surrounding
a project on the Saco River.”
Nor does two years of controversy create an expiration date on public scrutiny.
Perhaps the question shouldn’t be, “When will the opponents finally accept UNE’s answer?”
Perhaps it should be: Why, after more than two years, has UNE still been unable to convince a significant group of residents that this particular location is the right one?
Calling those residents obstructionists, accusing them of spreading lies and questioning their motives isn’t going to answer that question.
If UNE wants a fact-based discussion, then have one.
Leave John Schafer’s motives out of it. Leave the anonymous-email theatrics out of it. Leave the accusations of obstruction out of it.
Put the facts, documents, legal requirements and environmental impacts on the table and defend the proposed location on its merits.
Because criticism of UNE is not misinformation simply because UNE disagrees with it and opposition does not become illegitimate simply because it refuses to go away.
Mark Porier | Biddeford, Maine
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 
The guy has a point. Although it is very easy to accept Delage’s rendition. Time for UNE to avoid at all costs getting dragged into a community tit for tat with guys who want to be heard.
LikeLike