The Portland High School family lost a valuable asset when Audrey McKenzie, the longtime athletic trainer and academic coach, decided to make a career change.

Being the parent of three student athletes who have graduated, I was fortunate to know Audrey. She began her stay at PHS the year my oldest was a freshman. She would start a season meeting with the parents and players to lay down “Audrey’s Rules.” One of those rules included the player saying please and thank you when calling home for a ride after practice.

Audrey is more than a clinician. She is a teacher, a mentor, and a friend. I can remember a game when my son came running off the field holding his arm. I watched as he took a seat on the bench and then I turned to find Audrey. She had seen the same thing and was already on her way over to him.

After a couple of minutes, she looked up to find me. Our eyes locked and she gave me the thumbs up. He would be OK. Thank you, Audrey, for that peace of mind.

Audrey is leaving. The players, coaches, and parents will miss her. We wish her well in a new endeavor, but I will not be removing her number from my cellphone. She will remain a friend forever.

Karen Woodsum

Portland

Critics of bishop’s move are way off base

There are a fair number of policies and practices of the Roman Catholic Church that I fundamentally disagree with, but the criticism of Bishop Malone’s change of residence defies all reason.

Basic research shows it to be a fiscally and environmentally sound decision.

Personally, I am far more concerned about corporate executives that own several mansions than I am about one religious leader who lives in one modest-sized house. The critics have not compared the relative expenses of the old and proposed residence, nor the relative sizes and neighborhood prices. What is their rationale? Religious bigotry?

When doctors, lawyers, “health” insurance, oil, coal, and other executives give up their mansions and summer homes, then perhaps there will be justification in criticizing the bishop’s move.

The Roman Catholic Church has a lot of work to do to better meet its mission, but the work involves its policies and practices, not its real estate.

John Henderson

Auburn

Praise all around for updated safety law

This spring, individuals of varying political persuasions worked together to support passage of L.D. 1129, an updated version of the Kid Safe Products Act.

The revision provides a process to identify harmful chemicals used in everyday products and allow phase-outs. While the law focuses on kids, unsafe chemicals used in household products have an effect on all of us, regardless of age.

Rep. Melissa Walsh Innes, D-Yarmouth, wrote a bill based on common sense reform. In addition to protecting our children and households, the Kid Safe Products Act provides Maine businesses with much-needed guidelines vital to business planning and development.

The Legislature passed L.D. 1129 on June 7 in a show of broad bipartisan support for safer chemicals and public health policies that protect children’s health and subsequently reduce health care costs while creating new business opportunities through safer products. L.D. 1129 was signed by the governor on June 13.

Kudos to Rep. Innes for doing the right thing for Maine’s kids and for Maine. And thanks to her for embracing the concerns of constituents who lobbied for laws that allow greater flexibility in removing and/or prohibiting specific chemicals in children’s products.

Catherine Gentile

Yarmouth

Maine Rubber owner explains his position

I’m writing this letter in response to Leslie Bridgers’ article (“Owner still balking at Westbrook demolition,” July 7) to clarify our position regarding redevelopment of the former Maine Rubber building.

First, we want to redevelop this property in a way that supports the city of Westbrook’s economic development goals but is also feasible for our business. We have invested substantial amounts of money and presented the city with numerous redevelopment proposals to meet these goals.

Unfortunately, the property’s size and city zoning requirements create a major roadblock. Westbrook’s preferred redevelopment plan will not fit this footprint. And the only viable tenants for this space will not work under current zoning.

When Westbrook originally approached us about razing this building before finding a new tenant, we were hesitant. This approach would put us in the awkward position of forgoing current rent without a guaranteed tenant in the future.

Still, we were willing to move forward if Westbrook would provide a zoning variance to make a bank drive-through a permitted use. This would make the property more attractive to potential tenants, minimizing our risk. We were told it would not be a problem. However, no variance has been forthcoming. Without it, we cannot move forward.

Finally, I would like to clarify that we did not request a grant and, more importantly, it would not solve either of the problems outlined above. If we can resolve the zoning issue, we can market the property to viable tenants and would not need a grant.

Once again, we want to work with the city. However, we cannot accept this grant and move forward unless the city can help us resolve other issues. To do so would risk the health of our business and threaten the very economic development the city hopes to foster.

David Elowitch

Portland

Talk of shared sacrifice must recognize workers

Shared sacrifice, a term heard often in federal budget talks, means recognizing the sacrifices that the middle class, working class and poor have already made over the past couple of decades in stagnant wages, lower benefits, reduced job security and government cutbacks.

And it means asking those of us who have made out well over the past 20 years and not had to sacrifice to do so now. In particular, it means ensuring that at least 50 percent of any deficit reduction package comes from ending tax breaks for the wealthy and eliminating tax loopholes for corporations and Wall Street.

Kevin Blackwood

Kittery