The ongoing saga between the Cape Elizabeth Rod and Gun Club and their abutting neighbors is very disheartening (“Cape Elizabeth gun club faces continuing opposition,” Feb. 15).

Their club was in existence long before some developer chose to create a housing development with, apparently, little to no concern regarding the fact that people shoot guns at a nearby gun club.

Hello? It should not take a genius to realize the implications of housing people next to a shooting range. There ought to be a law protecting the original facility’s rights. Perhaps it is time for our lawmakers to create such a law, because apparently there isn’t one on the books.

The law should insist that any person or corporation intending on developing new construction in an area be responsible for creating the necessary measures to protect their investment (and subsequent sales of said development) from any safety concerns of abutting pre-existing facilities.

I fail to see, or to understand, why the original (pre-existing) entity should be required to pay for such changes. They were there first and had not changed their venue, and their activities were not invisible to the incoming developers.

Isn’t it time to regain common sense and implement fair regulations rather than, apparently, catering to the entity with the most expensive lawyers?

Common folk should not have to be forced to change their way of living (i.e., like farms being criticized and condemned for odors resulting from natural causes related to farming) or enjoyment of already-established recreational activities.

Karen Hawkins

Bridgton


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.