DIAMON HALF-RIGHT

While I’m with Al Diamon that the proposed tax break for waterfront land used for commercial fishing activity would grant special rights to a select group while shifting the cost of this beneficence to the rest of us (see "Fishin’ for the Moon," July 15), I was sorry he failed to address the underlying problem giving rise to Representative Leila Percy’s resurrection of the previously defeated initiative. That problem is Maine’s property-tax system under which property must be taxed according to its "highest and best use," defined as market value. In other words, with some exceptions (e.g., agriculture/forestry, open space, and wildlife sanctuaries/game management), when it comes to taxing your property, the state could care less about the use to which you are putting your property or your ability to pay. Instead, the state is intent on taxing your property based on the value that will maximize revenues to the state.

During the tax-cap debate, I warned that the slippery slope created by a property-tax system that values money over people leads to New London, Connecticut, where the Supreme Court has now sided with the city fathers in their effort to force folks from their homes in order to turn the land over to commercial development.

While our property-tax system may have worked in the past, Portland area and coastal residents are all too familiar with the property-tax effects of skyrocketing real estate values. The uncomfortable reality is that there are low- and moderate-income folks who bought their homes for modest prices years ago and now find themselves faced with annual property-tax bills that wildly exceed the annual mortgage payments they have long since retired.

While many are unmoved by those forced to sell homes they had hoped to remain in (perhaps rationalizing that they can cash out for a profit), I for one want no part of a system that allows the well-to-do to displace the less well heeled. I also want no part of a political system intent on perpetuating a system of winners and losers.

Alice Knapp, Richmond

DIAMON ALL WRONG 1

I would just like to say one thing to Al Diamon. Without even reading the story on Mike Chitwood (see "Godzillian Complex," July 29) — you are a complete and total moron!

Robert Dunn, Portland

DIAMON ALL WRONG 2

I am puzzled by Al Diamon’s attack on Chief Michael Chitwood (see "Godzillian Complex," July 29). Reduced to its puerile essence, Diamon’s case against Chitwood is based on charges that Chitwood: 1. Admitted in March 1990 that "he and other police officials had fixed parking tickets issued to cops"; 2. In May 2002, he swore at a security guard at the airport; 3. Got the city council to vote for a weak citizen review board of police actions; 4. Advocated gun control; 5. Sought media attention; and 6. A number of insignificant personal disputes that Chitwood either was involved in or commented on and that Diamon faults him on in every instance.

The facts that Chitwood was implicated in fixing parking tickets for cops and swore at a security guard are hardly scandalous. The fact that he wanted a weak civilian review board is understandable if not perfectly defensible. The main reason a strong civilian review board failed is because Portland residents showed little interest in establishing one. As for Chitwood’s outspoken advocacy of gun control, that is all to his credit and what any police chief should call for. As for the charge that Chitwood was a media hound, he deserved the attention he got because he outshone other public servants in his intelligence, candor, and articulateness. And, remember, Chitwood got no more media attention than the media (including Al Diamon) was willing to give him. As for Chitwood’s personal disputes, whether with Old Port bar owners or Joe Ricci, I think he was more often right than wrong, but, in any case, Al Diamon quibbles when he uses them to judge Chitwood’s career.

Michael Quirk, Portland