Endorsements

City referendum

Question 1: Do you support passage by the Portland City Council of the following resolution supporting creation of a system of universal health care? (Resolution follows)

It’s such a small thing: a recommendation that the city council resolve to support universal health care in Maine. We’re not endorsing a specific plan. We’re not saying it has to happen tomorrow, or next year, or by 2005. We’re not abandoning capitalism, agreeing to new taxes, or even agreeing to spend any money at all.

And yet it’s a big decision. Do we as a city resolve that health care is a fundamental human right? Or is health care a privilege for those who can afford it? And is that last question even a fair one to ask, or is it simply a scare tactic used to curry favor for a liberal position?

Further, we need to ask ourselves: Is it the government’s responsibility to ensure that no one goes without vaccinations, stitches, antibiotics in case those are deemed unnecessary expenditures in tough times? Do we mind if those “unnecessary expenditures” lead to debilitating medical conditions? If those people die — with a paid cable bill, a subscription to Hustler, and a pack of cigarettes in their hip pocket — is it their fault for making bad financial decisions?

These are difficult questions indeed; all except the first one. Access to health care is a fundamental human right, just like the rights to privacy, protection, and speech. The government protects us from harm (the army), saves us when we are in danger (the police and fire departments), and organizes us against future problems (the FDA, EPA, etc.). It only makes sense that the government cure us when we are ill, regardless of whether stupidity or misfortune is the root cause.

Did arguments against bigger classes, higher taxes, and lower standards keep us from instituting universal education at the beginning of this century? No. We resolved that education was an American right, and we ironed out the details later. We’re still ironing.

Will universal single payer health care mean higher taxes, fewer choices, and waiting in lines? Who knows? That is not the discussion here. This is a matter of philosophy, and we at the Phoenix posit that the City of Portland is one that cares enough about its fellow humans to vote “yes” on Question 1.

 

The bond issues

If you are among the civic-minded minority who take the time to vote on November 6, six bond-issue questions will face you on the state ballot. The general question is: Do you want to allow the State of Maine to borrow money to finance these six projects? In other words, do you as a taxpayer want to pay interest to the people who will loan the state money for them?

To figure out the answer, you should calculate the costs and benefits for each proposal.

First, the costs. If all the questions pass, it will cost us $39.7 million to pay interest, over 10 years, to the buyers of the $147 million in bonds. It will cost this much at 4.93 percent, which is what treasurer Dale McCormick predicts the state will have to pay in interest when the bonds are sold next year.

Dividing $39.7 million in interest costs by the 1,275,000 people in Maine, each citizen will pay, roughly speaking, about $30 over 10 years — or $3 a year in interest for all these projects, although the actual hit to the taxpayer will be less because nonresident individuals and businesses pay Maine sales and other taxes (and, of course, your two-year-old daughter doesn’t pay taxes, but you get the idea).

Of course, we have to pay the principal back, too, — that $147 million — but spreading out the cost over 10 years allows us to acquire things as a state that we might find hard to buy in a single year. Just like most of us find it easier to borrow from a bank to buy a house than it is to come up with $150,000 out of pocket. Another idea behind bond issues is to spread the payment of the costs out over all the people who’ll use these things, like future tourists who will use the roads after they’re built.

Next, the benefits. What do you get in return? Quite a bit. Ask yourself, would you support these expenditures in the course of a normal yearly budget?

 

Some of the questions below have been abbreviated.

Question 1: Do you favor a $12-million bond issue to provide $10 million to address the affordable housing crisis in Maine and $2 million for housing for victims of domestic violence?

“To address the affordable housing crisis” means the Maine State Housing Authority would spend $10 million to make loans or grants to nonprofit developers of apartments or houses for poor people. The authority also would create more free or subsidized housing for homeless and mentally ill people and help developers buy land for housing. And $2 million would go to provide free or subsidized housing to victims of abuse at home. If this question passes, about $25 million in federal and private funds could be accessed. Over 1000 new housing units would be created.

Mental-health and poor people’s agencies are trying to scrape up $20,000 for an ad campaign to convince voters to pass it. They claim that rents in Portland and other Southern Maine communities have made apartments too expensive for disadvantaged people, and the homeless shelters are bursting. There is no organized opposition.

It’s a matter of compassion and necessity. We urge a YES vote.

 

Question 2: Do you favor a $5-million bond issue for biomedical and marine research by Maine nonprofit and state research institutions?

Four million bucks would go toward buildings and equipment for biomedical and $1 million for marine research. The University of New England (UNE), the Maine Medical Center Research Institute, and the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences are among the outfits looking to benefit. Recipients would get matches from federal and private funds. Though they don’t have to decide how to allocate the funds until later, UNE says it might use its money for research on diabetes and how the brain processes memory and pain. Maine Medical might use the money for circulatory system and cancer research.

The group promoting a yes on this question (largely composed of would-be recipients) expects to spend $100,000 by election day, most of it on TV ads. Some groups supporting other bond-issue questions are concerned about the anxieties voters have because of the anthrax scare and the September 11 attacks. Well, this proposal would beef up the state’s public-health infrastructure, though not in a direct way in terms of countering bioterrorism. The proponents are mainly arguing, however, that this is an investment in an industry that provides high-paying jobs. A lab technician at one of these research institutions makes $30,000 to $65,000 a year.

So this is an industrial-development question. There are no organized nay-sayers, but one could ask why other industries — say, auto mechanics — aren’t getting this kind of state aid. The answer: Auto mechanics don’t have sophisticated lobbyists. Regardless, the Phoenix urges a YES vote. It’s an investment for a promising industry.

 

Question 3: Do you favor a $61-million bond issue for improvements to highways, bridges, airports, public transit, and ferry facilities; development of rail, trail, and marine infrastructure; and improvements to intermodal facilities?

This is the biggie of the bond issues and the one most likely to succeed. In a recent poll, 83 percent surveyed registered approval. Maine voters like to spend money on roads (the last highway bond-issue defeat was in 1969), and highway and bridge construction would get $37.4 million. Railroads come next ($7.6 million, largely to preserve lines in northern and central Maine), then airports ($4.75 million), and then “intermodal” investment ($4 million), which means improving connections between different modes of transportation, such as where freight is loaded off trains and put on trucks and ships.

In addition to ferry-system upgrading (including Casco Bay Lines), replacing worn-out city buses, and improving harbors; hiking trails would get $750,000, including the Eastern Trail from Kittery to South Portland. A list of projects is at www.keepmainemoving.org.

The highway lobby plans to spend $75,000 on TV advertising before the votes are counted, emphasizing the construction jobs created. Passage would attract $121 million in federal funds. There is no organized opposition. The Phoenix urges a YES vote. We particularly like the rail, ferry, bus, and trail development. As we look hard at the Middle East, the more alternatives to highway use and the gas guzzling and, therefore, foreign-oil guzzling it encourages, the better off we are.

 

Question 4: Do you favor a $15-million bond issue to capitalize the state’s School Revolving Renovation Fund for repairs and improvements in public school facilities to address health, safety, and other concerns?

The closing of Jack Elementary School in Portland last summer because of contamination by an unhealthy mold shows why schools need to keep buildings in good shape. This renovation fund fights mold by helping schools repair roofs and fix leaks. It also deals with other indoor-air-quality problems such as asbestos. And it helps schools meet the needs of handicapped students.

The fund has already received $70 million from the legislature since 1998. Schools get both grants and no-interest loans. There is no real campaign for or against this question, though this is the first time the renovation funding is being asked from a bond issue. The Phoenix strongly recommends YES. It’s not only the right thing to do to protect the health of children and teachers, it’s a way to lengthen the life of schools, and so it’s a good economic move.

 

Question 5: Do you favor a $17-million bond issue to upgrade water-pollution-control facilities, solid-waste landfills, failing septic systems, and drinking-water systems; curb overboard pollution discharges; clean up tire stockpiles; control pollution and improve irrigation on farms; and put more money into the state’s Municipal Investment Trust Fund and Potato Marketing Improvement Fund.

This is another bond issue that doesn’t have any significant campaign going on for or against it. The big tickets are $6 million for grants and loans to improve water-pollution-control facilities, which would get a $12.5-million match by the feds, and $3 million “to support drinking-water-system improvements that address public health threats” (that has an attractive sound these days). These improvements would get a federal match of $15.8 million. “Overboard pollution” doesn’t refer to boats but to buildings that pour waste into the water without much treatment.

The question is a bit incoherent because, while most of the money is devoted to pollution control, the Municipal Investment Trust Fund, which provides “grants and loans to municipalities for public infrastructure,” and the Potato Marketing Improvement Fund, the money for which would be used “to construct potato storage facilities,” don’t have much to do with pollution. Nevertheless, the Phoenix urges a YES vote because of the pollution-fighting benefits.

 

Question 6: Do you favor a $36.7-million bond issue to make improvements to the state’s public universities, the Maine Maritime Academy, and other public learning centers?

Ironically, this question, which Maine people strongly should get behind to help ensure a prosperous future, may be the one in trouble. A recent poll found it approved by a majority, but by a smaller percentage than the other questions. “I wouldn’t be sanguine about it,” advises Chris Potholm, a political pollster. The question is unfortunately listed last on the ballot, Mainers tend to reject at least one bond question (though they haven’t since 1994), and non-college-educated voters tend to think of the University of Maine System as elite.

But “campaigns can make a difference,” Potholm says, and there is a real campaign for this one with a goal of $200,000 by November 6, which is being raised from — wouldn’t you know it? — Maine’s business and professional elite. TV ads are stressing the need to invest in higher education to meet the needs of a changing economy. No organized opposition has surfaced.

The money from the bond sale would go for such items as: $4 million for an arts center at the University of Maine, $4.8 million for a classroom building at the University of Maine at Farmington, and $4 million for dormitories, classrooms, and laboratories at the Maine Maritime Academy. The biggest single item is $8 million for a University of Southern Maine “community education facility” in Portland plus some USM renovations. Other campuses and the technical colleges would get money, too.

The Phoenix strongly urges YES on this question. The state needs to have a better-educated work force. Most important, education is one of the great joys of life. This bond issue will spread the joy wider.

 

City council

City Council, District 3:

This one’s a no-brainer. Councilor Nathan Smith has served the city admirably from his at-large seat, championing affordable housing, and generally serving as a voice of reason on an often divided council. Patricia Bernard doesn’t even seem to be well-intentioned. She notes that the city is “not a parent” to teenagers, that the city “does a good job” helping immigrants acclimate, and that we “need to make sure that our strong social commitment has not left us open for abuse.” Plus, she wants to axe public art.

Vote Nathan Smith.

City Council, At-large:

The two at-large seats are pretty much up for grabs, with no obvious front-runners, other than incumbent Jim Cloutier, who has an edge by virtue of his incumbency. An easy candidate to rule out is John Griffin, who has “no idea” about public transportation, and claims we “can’t control sprawl.” Chris Breen, though well-meaning, is too inexperienced. That leaves Michael LaTorre and Kenneth Cole, full of ideas for cost-saving, opposed by Cloutier and Jill Duson, more willing to spend in order to preserve Portland’s quality of life. There’s no doubt that Portland is in a financial pickle — recently forced to lay off more than 20 city employees, threatened with a reduction in bond rating. But, in trying to remedy the situation, we need to remember that it is liberal councilor Tom Kane’s seat that is being filled (well, technically Nathan Smith’s, but he’s running for Kane’s seat). Ken Cole seems like a nice compromise. As a member of the planning board for 15 years, he knows the system. As a Republican, he knows downsizing government. As a human being, he seems to care about the people of Portland and doesn’t seem to be running out of any sense of political ambition. It’s his opinion that we need to control spending or suffer the consequences. We agree. And we say vote for Ken Cole.

For the second seat, Jill Duson really is an attractive candidate. She has served the school board well and has experience governing a budget and setting priorities. Duson also strikes us as someone who will reach out to under-served communities, someone who has ideas, someone with vision and passion. Cloutier, though dedicated, sometimes strikes us as a bean counter. Voting for Duson and Cloutier is a safe liberal position that’s hard to find fault with. However, voting for Duson and Cole makes more sense in looking forward to Portland’s future.

 

School Committee

School Committee, District 3:

As the only one running, Walter Rumery gets the job, and though somewhat conservative, he may serve Portland well.

School Committee, At-large:

Three well-meaning candidates in incumbents Kim Matthews and Jeffrey Peters and perennial upstart Ben Meiklejohn, just two jobs to fill. What’s a Portland voter to do? Of the two incumbents, Kim Matthews has shown herself to be the more energetic (the adjective “cheerleaderish” has been used in this office, and that’s not a bad thing for a board that can be pretty staid). So if we’re going to give Zen Ben a shot, it’s going to be at the expense of Jeffrey Peters. Are we willing to do that? Yep.

Peters hasn’t done anything wrong, necessarily, but it’s a question of what we want out of a school board. As a lawyer, Peters has talents to offer by way of budget and policy setting. He’s firm and straightforward. But Meiklejohn, as a musician, has some intangibles: lots of time to dedicate to the job, ideas from outside the world of money and rules, and an ability to see through the eyes of a kid. Because sometimes he acts like one — shows up late, dresses pretty grubby, takes the bus.

You may say this isn’t the year to take a flyer on some Green Party outsider. We’ve got Jack Elementary to fix, and plenty of others on the horizon. But, really, there’s never a good year to take a flyer, and if Meiklejohn’s 4000 votes in the last election don’t mean anything this year, they never will. We say, vote Matthews and Meiklejohn for more passion on the board.