As a resident of South Portland’s coastline, I write on behalf of my neighbors and fellow community members – those whose homes and futures are directly impacted by the decisions being made in our city’s comprehensive plan meetings. This plan will shape our community for generations, yet recent discussions have exposed a stark imbalance – favoring large landowners and developers at the direct expense of individual property owners, while also marginalizing individual property owners by sidelining them, silencing their voices, and disregarding their rights in the decision-making process.

The latest Comprehensive Plan Committee meeting, held on Jan. 29, was eye-opening. It became evident that the rights of smaller property owners are being systematically undermined, while those with larger land holdings see their interests prioritized – especially as the committee continues to ignore overwhelming public opposition to their favored project: the next iteration of Yard South.

Many in the public are under the false impression that Yard South is no longer on the table for major development. While the zoning change request was revoked, plans to enable Yard South are still actively being laid out by the Comprehensive Plan Committee, ensuring its progression despite public resistance. Time and again, the needs and requests of everyday residents are dismissed, while development plans that benefit a select few gain traction.

It is disheartening to witness a process that appears to be more about fulfilling personal agendas than fostering fair, equitable, and sustainable community planning.

The self-interest in the room on that Wednesday night was palpable. There was a clear push for engineering solutions in certain areas, yet a puzzling reluctance to apply those same principles elsewhere.

The inconsistencies are glaring – Willard, for example, saw swift application of sea level rise projection to justify development restrictions to prevent residents from the protecting their own property, while developers in the shipyard district received wide support to raise land in not only a vulnerable flood risk area but also nestled against sources of cancer-causing benzene and massive quantities of flammables.

It was also justified that taxpayers foot the bill to raise Bug Light Park, which would therefore benefit Yard South’s plan in acting as a buffer for their development. But no buffering for Willard, where people actually live. This disparity raises serious questions about the fairness of the process.

Equally troubling is a city councilor’s singular proposal that Willard homeowners should be prohibited from raising their homes to adapt to rising sea levels, all in the name of preserving “views.” This rationale is especially troubling when the loss of homes should take precedence over aesthetics, particularly given that the Maine Climate Council itself remains uncertain whether sea levels will rise by 4 feet or 9 feet by 2100.

The double standard becomes even more egregious when compared to the allowances granted to developers, who are permitted to raise land and build in anticipation of just 3.9 feet of sea level rise – permanently raising the landscape and diverting flood waters, increasing the threat of inundation and storm surges on adjacent areas as well as spreading runoff of contaminated land.

Why are longtime residents prohibited from safeguarding their homes while developers are granted free rein to manipulate entire parcels of land to their advantage? This is not just an oversight – it is a glaring contradiction that undermines the very residents who have built and sustained this community for generations.

Another deeply concerning incident at the meeting was a recommendation to omit the Loveitts Field coastline from the risk pool, which directly served to benefit the committee member who proposed this. The harsh reality is that all coastline, Loveitts Field included, will not be spared the impacts of sea level rise.

Why would we remove Fisherman’s Point in risk planning, as it is clearly a vulnerable area? Since we know there’s risk to Loveitts’ coastline sewer infrastructure, why would we proceed to exclude it from long-term planning? Water will inundate our shores in ways we have never seen, and failing to acknowledge this reality puts all of South Portland at risk. If Loveitts is truly invulnerable, then why is it not being considered for increased housing density? There is no doubt that impermeable areas will need to accommodate greater density in the future, yet these discussions are being sidestepped.

These are critical questions that demand answers.

The comprehensive plan should be about protecting the entire community, not just those with the most influence in the room. It cannot be guided by only a few voices. Every member of the Comprehensive Plan Committee must actively contribute to the draft to ensure it reflects a balanced and inclusive vision for South Portland. Otherwise, the result will be a document skewed by narrow interests, lacking viability and public trust.

Water does not act in isolation, and neither should the planning process – every decision made will have ripple effects across the entire community. Focusing on select areas while neglecting others creates gaps in preparedness that will only exacerbate future risks. The misuse of power and selective input threatens the integrity of this plan, and without broader engagement, it will fail the very residents it is meant to protect.

If we are to prepare South Portland for the realities of climate change, we must do so in a way that is just, equitable, and inclusive of all residents.

Lauren Shapiro is a Willard resident in South Portland.