TO CLARIFY

You recently ran an article entitled “The Baldacci ‘plot’ ” written by Lance Tapley. [We did, but we think he’s referring to a shorter piece, entitled “Legislators take care of their own,” that ran in the same issue. —ed.] I found the article to be incredibly misleading because, in fact, it does not reflect the intent or nature of LD 1809, An Act Concerning the Penalties for Late Filing of Accelerated Campaign Reporting Under the Maine Clean Election Act. Given the fact that I frequently see Mr. Tapley at the local YMCA, I am somewhat surprised that he wrote this article without seeking information from me, the bill’s sponsor.

For purposes of clarification, LD 1809 is emergency legislation that places reasonable limits on penalties for late filing of accelerated campaign reports. It also requires the Ethics Commission to act sooner on complaints during an election, and provides candidates with accurate information on election law. The bill sets a maximum penalty for late filing at three times the unreported amount if that amount is less than $5000 and the commission finds that a bona-fide effort was made to file an accurate and timely report. Prior to the enactment of this bill, the law did not cap penalties.

Candidates who choose to run traditionally funded campaigns have greater assurance that the law will be applied fairly because it puts the burden on the commission to notify a candidate who has filed reports if they have exceeded 101 percent of the “clean” opponent’s distribution. The commission’s obligation is to notify the candidate within 48 hours. Additionally, it fine-tunes the accelerated reporting process to catch errors early and minimize the risk of large penalties.

LD 1809 increases the frequency of commission meetings and will require that decisions be made in a timelier manner. An amendment to the bill makes these changes retroactive to January 1, 2000. The changes made to the penalty provisions regarding late filing of accelerated reports are subject to sunset August 1, 2002.

I fail to see the relevance of how LD 1809 will make it harder for Greens or independents to qualify for public financing. It merely clarifies the law and makes accurate information more readily available to candidates.

Again, I am sorry that Mr. Tapley did not take the time to review this bill with me so his article would accurately reflect the intent of the law. With a two-thirds vote of my colleagues in the House, we have worked to do nothing more than clarify a fragmented law.

John L. Tuttle, Jr.

State Representative

Sanford

LIGHTS OUT

One thing these living wage activists forget is that you can’t repeal the law of supply and demand. If they think they can just raise wages by fiat to any level, then why stop at a living wage? Why not $100,000 per year or a million? There will likely be just a few unpalatable results.

The first will be higher taxes for everyone. The second will be higher costs for the merchants and manufacturers who have to pay the higher taxes, which in turn will just be passed on to the consumers who are likely to be the very people who had their wages raised, if their jobs still exist. Then maybe these activists can start a campaign limiting what these merchants and manufacturers charge. Then these rotten capitalist pigs (I’m sure that’s how the activists view them) can take their businesses elsewhere in the country where their costs aren’t that high or, worse, overseas. Then the activists can campaign for higher welfare allotments for the workers who were forced back onto the rolls.

And then, would the last people to leave Providence, please remember to turn out the lights?

Roderick T. Beaman

Johnston, Rhode Island

AN INTERJECTION

I only reluctantly join the fray between Steven Scharf and Ms. Helton. Ms. Helton’s facts are correct. In April, the City sponsored several Neighborhood Forums. They were the public hearings for the recently appointed Housing Citizen’s Advisory Committee, which was formed to rewrite the Housing Component of the Comprehensive Plan. At those forums, as well as at the Housing Citizen’s Advisory Committee, the City did a presentation by COG’s [Council of Government] Karen Martin regarding demographics. Accurate demographics are a state mandate and are required to be the basis for a City or Town’s Plans.

Scharf is correct, the Census was not yet out. But Ms. Martin presented the best then available statistics, and made some projections and assessments. One of which was people are moving to the suburbs, now confirmed by the actual Census numbers. Also, those moving to the suburbs were not out-of-staters or those recently returned natives from NYC like Mr. Scharf, but residents in Northern Maine moving south. They actually do have a study of why people move and where.

For months, all newspapers and the City have been using the oft-quoted but not fact-based one percent vacancy rate. The 2000 housing Census came out in May. Surprise! Portland’s vacancy rate is 3.8 percent, which is considered a very healthy rate. When the rate approaches 5 percent, you have a different type of housing crisis — for landlords, as rents plummet. Could it be that the housing crisis was a fabrication to defeat the referendum and fill some pocketbooks? There is no doubt there is an affordable housing problem, but apparently it’s not caused by a supply and demand issue, but exploitation of the market. Who wouldn’t want to create a housing crisis, if they can justify increasing their rents. Sound public policy needs to be based upon sound data, not anecdotal evidence.

Deb Keenan

Portland

CORRECTION: In “Heavy hitters” (June 15-21), we incorrectly identified a boxer as Brian Gamache, Joey Gamache’s son. Actually, the boxer was Ryan Gamache, Joey Gamache’s nephew, and Terry Gamache’s son. — ed.

---

We welcome responses from our readers. Letters should be typed if possible, and must include the writer's name, address, and telephone number where he or she can be reached during business hours for verification. The writer's name and position or town will be published, but these may be withheld for good reason.

Letters may be mailed to the Portland Phoenix, 482 Congress Street, Suite 501, Portland, ME 04101; faxed to (207)773-8905; or e-mailed to portlandletters@phx.com or to a writer's e-mail address (e-mailed letters must include a telephone number for verification and a hometown). All letters are subject to editing for considerations of space, fairness, and clarity.

---