Outer Congress Street is a 56-foot-wide, four-lane highway without any esplanades.

Plowing 1 foot of snow results in 5-foot-high snowbanks. The chemicals used on the road cause the snow to melt and refreeze into ice chunks and snow boulders. It is impossible to remove the snow with residential snow throwers.

Additional Photos

A reader complains that Portland’s snow ordinance is unclear and that the plowing of sidewalks on Outer Congress Street has been inconsistent. 2011 File Photo/Gregory Rec

The city plowed the sidewalks for a few years and then stopped plowing. In December 2007, Michael Bobinsky, director of Public Services, mailed a 10-page legal notice two days before Christmas threatening legal action if we did not remove snow from the sidewalks on Outer Congress Street.

There were discussions at eight City Council meetings regarding granting waivers or exemptions from the snow ordinance in certain areas of the city. None was made.

In 2008, the city started plowing the sidewalks again at Outer Congress Street. Then in December 2010, Bobinsky stopped plowing and again mailed out notices two days before Christmas to clear the sidewalks.

Last Feb. 15 at the Transportation meeting, Councilor Ed Suslovic moved to create a waiver process that would give the director of Public Services the ability to grant waivers for certain areas such as Outer Congress Street. The motion failed. Suslovic promised that he would bring the motion to the Public Safety meeting on Sept. 13. He failed to make the motion as promised.

Suslovic announced that the snow ordinance gives the director of Public Services the “discretion” to waive sidewalk snow removal requirements. This was new information. Suslovic has refused to cite where in the ordinance that is stated. We deserve to know if he fabricated his statement or if the statement is true.

We need to be able to point to “written legal language” for when Bobinsky or his successor decides to send out notices again.

Janet Daigle

Portland

Paterno deserved both honors and punishment

At the outset, let me state that I think that Joe Paterno was a great coach and deserves his place in college football’s Hall of Fame.

However, as expected, the death of Paterno has brought forth a number of articles and op-ed pieces critical of his abrupt termination by the Penn State board of trustees. I think that this criticism is unfair.

The correct target for criticism and disciplinary action should have been Penn State’s football staff and athletic department of the late 1990s.

I think trustees took immediate action to terminate Paterno in order to appear as aggressive defenders of the university’s reputation. From reading the grand jury report, I believe that this action was too late and should have been done in 1998 or 1999.

In reciting the findings on victims 5 and 6, the grand jury report indicates that a grand jury investigated Jerry Sandusky in 1998 for allegation of misconduct in the years 1996 to 1998; and that the university police were apprised of the investigation and the no-action decision.

The findings on victim 4 report that in May 1999, Sandusky told the victim that he, Sandusky, would not be the next Penn State head coach and that it was Paterno who told Sandusky this. It is in this time frame that Sandusky was allowed to retire with all the benefits of an honorable faculty member.

I look at this and I suggest that it strongly indicates knowledge and awareness in the highest echelons of the Penn State athletic department and that there was a cover-up.

So I feel that the current trustees are working to keep a lid on the bigger scandal.

John L. Donovan

Brunswick

State should not dismantle Fund for a Healthy Maine

The Fund for a Healthy Maine is working! Why would we dismantle one of Maine’s biggest success stories?

Investments in prevention and public health save lives and reduce the burden of chronic disease on individuals and families.

Helping smokers quit, giving kids a healthy start, supporting new parents, helping families get active, teaching students about healthy choices, and engaging communities in every corner of Maine — each one leads to a brighter future for all of us.

Maine’s economic recovery depends on bringing down the cost of health care for businesses, and that’s what the Fund for a Healthy Maine is designed to do.

Maine business leaders consistently identify lowering health costs as the single most important priority for lawmakers to address in their efforts to spur new economic growth. In fact, over 160 businesses signed on to a letter supporting the program when the administration proposed cuts last year

Healthy families are key to lowering health care costs and sustaining a strong economy. When people are healthy, children do better in school, workers are more productive and businesses can add jobs because health costs are lower.

This is why it’s more important than ever that we continue to use the Fund for a Healthy Maine for what it was intended to do: promote good health and prevent costly disease – not to cover a budget shortfall!

Please contact your local legislators and ask them to protect the Fund for a Healthy Maine!

George Shaler

Portland

Is it really occupied if there’s nobody home?

Without even getting into Occupy politics or the legal case, why would the city of Portland not consider any unoccupied tent, on any given night, as abandoned rather than occupied?

It’s either occupied or it’s not.

William Cross

Scarborough

Related Stories