This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
02/15/2017 07:00 AMRenee Meskill wrote that she’d been “duped” by an “unethical” person with a petition [Feb. 9 letter “Maybe, Just Once”]. I am that person. I’ve known her family for more than 20 years. Because we’re friends, she was the first person I approached with my petition.
Meskill explained her family supported the Shoreline Greenway Trail (SGT). We discussed the need for a complete trail plan, its possible intrusion into personal property, and the need to avoid invoking eminent domain. Meskill’s family agreed the petition points were reasonable and signed of their own volition.
Later Meskill asked me to take her name off the petition. I reminded her she could both support the trail and also request both a plan and a public meeting. I urged her to reconsider. She decided not to remove her name. Is she now suggesting I duped her twice?
Meskill wrote her letter in reaction to Nona Bloomer’s words “SGT and its unethical meddling” [Jan. 26 letter “Continue to Show Vigilance”]. Bloomer publicly reported being misled by SGT advocates. Misleading people is unethical.
In the Town Meeting, some Sunrise residents stated they’d been misled by SGT advocates. One such SGT advocate is a resident of Killingworth, but when writing to the Sunrise community, he created the impression of being a fellow Guilford resident by using an SGT ally’s mailing address. This gave the appearance he had a legitimate voice in the Guilford debate. Who’s duping whom?
I vehemently protest that there was anything unethical in my petitioning. As petitioners, we pursued what we believed was in the best interest of Guilford. It’s unfair to question my character or that of the other petitioners.
The SGT controversy has turned neighbors and friends into “the opposition.” Sadly, this issue continues to create a chasm that divides our community.
Julia Francis
Guilford