Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Possible Alternate for the Amtrak MLF Facility?

Lots of folks are taking the position that the proposed location for the Amtrak MLF is appropriate because it’s a ‘historic’ railroad area.  And claiming that nearby residents who prefer that it be located elsewhere are “NIMBYs.”

We were thinking that any of the areas near the tracks that come to Brunswick are therefore ‘historic’ as well.

For example, the tracks run pretty close to Old Portland Road, just to the east of 295 as it enters town.  Looks like us to a pretty good place to put such a facility, as it would not be in a neighborhood where it would bother lots of homeowners, and yet honor the ‘historic’ railroad use.

Here’s a Google Earth image of the area Side was thinking about:

Alt MLF Location along Old Portland Road

Old Portland Road runs across the upper left area of the image, while the historic rail area runs across the lower right third.  The good thing about this location is that nearby residents are enamored of Brunswick’s history, and should welcome the MLF facility to their neighborhood in an effort to end the controversy.  Some residents of the area even follow our efforts here and comment from time to time.

And there shouldn’t be a NIMBY among them.  Because that would make them something else troubling, wouldn’t it?  We’re having trouble recalling the term, but it starts with a ‘hip’ sound, and ends with the sound in the first syllable of the word ‘critter.’

Maybe they’ll show up at the meeting in town this Thursday and offer up their neighborhood as a way out of the current dilemma.  And in the process, show everyone else that they’re ‘bigger’ than the NIMBYs of Brunswick West.

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Friday, September 20, 2013

Johnny on the Spot: JP comes to our rescue on BDC and the BTC

You all remember Johnny Protocols, shown here in one of his more well-known publicity photos with a kindred spirit:

Even DGiles probably knows that J.P. is now on the Brunswick Town Council, occupying the at large seat formerly held for many years by Joanne King.  The poetic justice in that reality remains to be addressed.

And even DGiles, as slender, young, and non-white as he apparently is, should know there has been a regular brouhaha locally over the Brunswick Development Corporation (BDC), and a completely forgivable quarter million dollar loan they gave to Brunswick Taxi, owned by members of Joanne King’s immediate family.  Or as we prefer to call it, a grant, which is what government calls a gift.

Clearly concerned about the massive ‘public confusion’ over the specifics of the BDC and it’s operation, Johnny seemingly took command of the subject at a BDC meeting held this week.  You can read about it here:

http://www.theforecaster.net/news/print/2013/09/19/brunswick-development-corp-considers-ethics-policy/173013

As we read it, we couldn’t help but notice a discrepancy or two, and perhaps a comment or two of J.P.’s that warrant a word from us.

For example:

Councilor John Richardson, one of two councilors now on the BDC board, said some of the proposed by-law changes, including the addition of a conflict-of-interest policy, were not a direct reaction to the recent criticism.

Richardson no doubt said this immediately after discussing the purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge by the BDC, in order to generate more revenue for simulating economic development in town.

Instead, he said, some of the changes have been in the making for months and, in some cases, years. The BDC's by-laws were last modified in 2010.

This is the same claim Council Chair Suzan Wilson made at the meeting on 3 September, arguing, in effect, that the Bylaws were in a state of constant review and change, even though they hadn’t been revised for more than three years.  Which leads us to believe that Wilson probably supported J.P.’s suggestion that the BDC purchase the Brooklyn Bridge.

"I think there has been a lot of confusion on the part of the public that has been driven by some personal and political agendas," he said after Wednesday meeting, "but largely, the public has remained somewhat confused about the role of the BDC, because the BDC has not done as good a job as it should in explaining its role, its mission and how it has improved the town of Brunswick."

Yeah, that’s it, Councilor.  If anyone knows anything about personal and political agendas, it’s you!  Meanwhile, to the extent your humble correspondent fed any public sense of confusion, our political aspirations and personal agenda are a matter of public record.  It may be a blank public record in this regard, but it is very public. 

If only J.P.’s were as public.  And of course, we can all agree that giving free vehicles to Brunswick Taxi, free money to Gelato Fiasco, and giving CEI a hell of a deal to move 55 jobs from another nearby town to ours is undeniably ‘improving’ Brunswick.

Some of the proposed changes include removing town Finance Director John Eldridge from the BDC board, adding another citizen member…

Call us perplexed as to why he had to identify who would be removed by name, rather than by office, which is the way the Bylaws deal with it.

Another proposed change would require the BDC to post advance notice of its meetings, with agendas posted to the town's website and BDC's proposed website.

Color us perplexed again; when we first read the Bylaws, we thought they skirted the issue of public notice of BDC meetings.  But again, Council Chair Wilson, at the 3 September meeting, was profuse in her assertions that the meetings are regularly ‘noticed.’

Richardson said the BDC is technically a nonprofit organization, and is considered a public-private partnership because of its board make-up, which consists of two ex-officio town staff members, two Town Councilors and three citizens.

Color us skeptical, but we’re confident the first version of this article we saw mentioned ‘four citizens,’ for a board total of eight, even though the Bylaws clearly say seven total.  But as pot-shooter DGiles will tell you, old fat white guys don’t know nothing.

Oops…then there’s this:

"It's very difficult to state to the public that with four public members, two town employees and two elected officials, that this doesn't have some sort of connection to the town," Richardson said. "It does. (But) you almost have to be a lawyer to understand ... that (BDC's current fund balance) isn't town money."

So that’s where we saw the expert opinion…from Johnny Protocols himself, a member of the board, and as it turns out, ‘a lawyer.’  Apparently, you have to be a lawyer to understand the BDC fund balance, even if being a lawyer means you can’t understand the
Bylaws.

So in case he needs a refresher, here’s the relevant passage from the Bylaws:

Section 2.3 Directors. The Board of Directors shall be comprised of seven (7) members. The persons holding the Town of Brunswick positions of Town Manager and Finance Director shall be ex-officio directors of the Board of Directors so long as they remain in those positions. The Town Council of Brunswick shall appoint two (2) members of the Town Council as Town Council directors, whose terms shall expire annually on December 31st. The Town Council shall appoint three (3) public directors, from a list proposed by the ex-officio and Town Council directors. Each of the public directors shall have demonstrated education or experience, as evaluated by the ex-officio and Town Council directors, in one of the following areas: law, finance, accounting, business development, or banking. Public directors’ terms shall expire on December
31st. The initial terms of the public directors shall be one year, two years, and three years, on a staggered basis. Thereafter, such public directors shall be appointed for three-year
terms. No Town Council director or public director of the Board of Directors shall serve in any capacity on any other economic development corporation or board serving residents or businesses of Brunswick.   Section 2.3 Directors - Amended March 10, 2010

(above emphasis ours)

You know, it’s almost like you have to be a lawyer to figure out what J.P. is saying, what he wants to say, what he means to say, and what he wants us to think he is saying.

“We’re just saying,” that is.

Technorati Tags: ,,

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Poor Bowdoin College; lucky for them, they’re a ‘non-profit,’ and exempt from taxes….

We thought you might enjoy a couple of recent news items related to our very own exemplar of Ivory Tower elites.

         

The first is this in the Portland paper.  As you will see, our beloved College in the Pines has an endowment fund of more than $1 Billion, and appears to have earned in the neighborhood of $150 million on it in the fiscal year just passed.  As we’ve written before, this seems to be at odds with the ‘occupy’ and anti-capitalism sensibilities so prevalent on the campus.

For a sense of scale, the town’s total property valuation is in the $1.4 billion range, so the college’s endowment is nearing equity with the total value of the town.  Throw in the college’s real property value, and we think Bowdoin’s net worth is more than the entire town.

If you like, and we wish you would, you can reread this prior offering, which speaks of ‘fair share’ and other shibboleths of the “anti-capitalist oppressor” mind set found in the bastions of liberal, social justice driven institutions.   We needn’t point out that such mantras  are usually meant to apply to others, rather than those who hold them dear and preach them at every opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to a coercive utopia.

Second, we think you’ll find this item in the Bowdoin Orient equally informative. 

It includes this passage:

For the 2013-2014 school year, the College devoted $32.5 million to financial aid, which 46.4 percent of the Class of 2017 received. The average financial aid grant is $36,600, and no aid packages included loans.

All we can say is it’s a good thing Bowdoin isn’t required to pay taxes, because if they did, how could they afford new ice rinks, and $25 million upgrades to their art museum, and other basics of educating the young and downtrodden? 

We suspect that if they were required to pay their ‘fair share’ of town property taxes, based on asset value, they’d probably have a tax bill in the range of $10 million, which would make a pretty good dent in the $38 million or so the town will collect in taxes in the coming  year.  It might even reduce property taxes on the rest of us by 25% or so. 

But you know what?  Either way, this is a pipe dream.  Because if the college did pay $10 million or so, town ruling elites would just see it as a windfall meant to be spent, just like everything else they can get their paws on.

Besides, as we’ve been told before, ‘without Bowdoin, Brunswick is nothing.’  And the college contributes to the town in so many other ways.

But maybe, just maybe, couldn’t the Bowdoin Development Corporation have been formed to give a $247,000 grant to Brunswick Taxi?  In return, the recipient could provide free transportation from the campus to nearby hospitals for those who injure themselves cutting up fruit, and in assorted other catastrophes.  Besides, we seem to recall that the demand from Bowdoin was one of the justifications for needing new vehicles.

This seems a small price to pay in return for how many acres on the base property, free gratis? 

Come to think of it, why does Other Side have to pay property taxes?  We contribute to the town in so many other ways.  One of these days, we think we’ll do a side by side comparison of the pluses and minuses on a per capita basis, to see if we should be given the same consideration as the Ivory Tower.

PS on the Amtrak MLF and BWNC Crunch Time…

IMG_3569

This post from the other day is getting stronger reader attention than we expected.  When we posted it, we neglected to give you the link to the BWNC web site, so here it is:

http://www.savebrunswickwest.com

Please check it out; it has much useful information.

Even more interesting than the clicks on the recent post are the ‘reactions,’ which never come close to the number of page reads.  Right now, the post is showing 5 votes for ‘brilliant,’ and 3 votes for ‘idiotic.’

We haven’t seen that many ‘idiotic’ choices in a very long time, if ever.  We’ve come to think that only those who feel their pet ox is being gored vote for that choice,  since everything we publish is, in our humble opinion, brilliant.

In this case, we’re going out on a limb and guessing that the subject 3 votes are by members of the town ruling class, who in true fashion, are linking their wagons in a big circle to defend to the end the current MLF proposed location, no matter how little sense it makes from any perspective.  As the scorpion would tell the turtle, “it’s in their nature.”

Now for some really informative material, we’ve posted two very detailed items on the web, and we urge you to take a look at them.  They will give you a tangible and visceral sense of the scale of the proposed MLF industrial facility, and a look at other locations that make a great deal more good sense. Good sense, as you are well aware, is not a core virtue of government, either at local, state, or federal levels, which may well be why they are sticking to the worst possible option.

This first document:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/169410407/MLF-Perspective-1

will give you a great feel for the comparative scale of the proposed MLF, along with its proposed in-town neighborhood location.

The second document:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/169411039/BNAS-Crooker-Site-with-Amtrak-MLF-overlaid

shows what the proposed facility would look like at the Crooker site in East Brunswick, or on the former Naval Air Station.

As we said, both are worth your time to review.  You’ll be a much more informed citizen than most in this town.  And maybe even more so than many of the elite ruling class and their government patrons.

Idiotic as that may sound, to borrow a term.

Technorati Tags: ,,

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition: It’s Crunch Time

IMG_3569

If you’ve been following the shenanigans regarding the proposed Amtrak MLF (Maintenance & Layover Facility) in downtown Brunswick, you know that it will be a colossally large industrial facility directly adjacent to a residential neighborhood, and that it is as wide as the super WalMart in town, and even taller.

This facility does not belong in ANYONE’S NEIGHBORHOOD, let along those who live along Bouchard Drive.  There is no compelling rationale of any sort for locating it at the proposed site, and there are ample options for locating it elsewhere.  And those ‘elsewheres’ could spur further economic leverage of rail transit, including multi-modal options, and avoid detrimental effects on personal lives.

For some reason, NNEPRA, the in state quasi-governmental instrumentality of the state of Maine, is not open to other options.  And Brunswick municipal government, for reasons unknown, seems bound and determined to see that the huge and problematic facility is built right alongside the gateway into Brunswick, not too far from where the new Police Headquarters is supposed to charm incoming visitors.

The Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition has been formed to oppose the proposed location, and is working diligently to bring the facts and logic to the deliberations.  So far, they are being overwhelmed by the resources of the Federal Government and NNEPRA.

Things are coming down to the wire, and they are asking for our help.  We received this message from them today, and we ask our readers to consider it carefully, and as a minimum, attend the meeting at 5:30 on Thursday, September 26 in council chambers. 

You might even call your own town councilor and the town manager and let them know you don’t understand the dogged determination to build this type of industrial, heavy duty maintenance facility right smack in the middle of a middle-class Cape Brunswick neighborhood.

Dear Friends,

We've reached a crucial phase in our efforts to keep the huge overnight railroad layover and maintenance facility from disrupting our neighborhood. Now more than ever, we need your help.

We were just notified that the Federal Railroad Administration has approved the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority. This means that the federal agency that oversees railroad construction in the US agrees that this huge industrial facility planned for our neighborhood will cause NO ADVERSE IMPACTS. None.

We know that's not true. We know that the impacts of this facility will be severe. But the FRA's action is the green light that NNEPRA has been waiting for.

What it comes down to is this: We have 30 days to show that this facility WILL adversely affect our neighborhood. If we are successful, a full federal review will be required. This would delay the project by at least a year, and potentially result in the facility not being built here at all.

If we are not successful in the next 30 days, construction may begin as early as this November, and our neighborhood – our way of life – will never be the same. We will be subjected to near-constant, excessive noise and vibrations at all hours of the night. Toxic diesel fumes will pervade our neighborhood. The lighting from this facility will erase the night stars.

Even worse, this facility will cause a huge drop in property values. Based on our review of recent home sales, WE ESTIMATE THAT THE EQUITY AND VALUE OF YOUR HOME WILL DROP BY 15-20 PERCENT – MAYBE MORE – if this facility is built.

This doesn't have to happen. There are better places for this facility than a quiet, residential neighborhood. And there's still time to stop it. But it won't happen without your help.


Now, more than ever, we need you to join with us to stop this travesty from happening. Most of our elected officials, the people we look to to represent us, have turned their back on us. They've rolled over for the railroad interests, suckered by the false claims that this facility is good for Brunswick, that it will bring jobs and economic development to the town.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There are no jobs associated with this facility. And because it will be exempt from local taxes and cause a reduction in the value of your home, Brunswick's tax revenues will decline, taking needed money away from our schools, our roads and other town services. You can bet that if this facility is built, another hike in property taxes is not far behind.

So what can you do?

1. NNEPRA will hold a public hearing at 5:30 on Thursday, Sept. 26 at the Brunswick Town Council Chambers. WE NEED YOU THERE. We need you to speak out and tell the rail officials that their Environmental Assessment is faulty; the impacts of this facility will be severe. In their rush to get this facility built, they've overlooked or disregarded what it will do to everyday life in our neighborhood – excessive noise, vibrations, toxic pollution, possible groundwater contamination, and more. That's why a full review of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of this facility should be required. Please come to the hearing on Sept. 26...even if you don't plan to speak. We need you there! Mark in on your calendar now!

2. You can provide written comments no later than Oct. 13 to:

Ms. Marina Douglass

NNEPRA

75 West Commercial Street

Suite 104

Portland, ME 04101

or email your comments to:

Marina@nnepra.com

3. And most of all, you can donate to our cause. We have amassed a huge record that without question shows the errors and outright malfeasance by certain officials throughout this process. But these facts will never come to light without legal action, and lawyers cost money. That's why we need you to contribute today! We have a donor who wishes to remain anonymous who will contribute $5,000 if we match it with a donation from another individual. But even if you can't give that much, please give what you can. A small donation today could save you tens of thousands of dollars in the loss of the value of your home. (And thank you to those who have previously given, but if you can, please give more.)


Please send your checks to:

Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition

24 Bouchard Drive

Brunswick, ME 04011

We’re sending our check along in the morning.  Even if you can’t contribute, please attend the meeting and support those who are about to have their domestic tranquility squashed by government edict.

Technorati Tags: ,,

Thursday, September 12, 2013

A Tawget Wich Enwiwoment

Sometimes we feel like we have a single shot shotgun, and we’re facing an incoming flock of fugawy birds numbering in the hundreds.  Other times, it’s an incoming flock of ooh-ahh birds.

Kind of like Elmer Fudd with his blunder-buss and the wascally wabbits. 

        

Just when Elmer thinks he’s about to give Bugs his just desserts, he runs into someone who says “look, Elmer, there’s the rabbit over there.”  It’s especially curious when the someone looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, because it is a duck.

We have a stack of things to write on, opine on, and research, and in one of life’s great injustices, we also have other things to do.  So color us in official overload, because we made the mistake of talking to others and paying attention today, and now we have more things to work on than when the day began.  But we’re still carrying a single shot scatter-gun!

          

So scatter-gun time it is; and we’ll do our best to get two birds with one shot.

The first bird is one that sprang up out of the bushes, and looks remarkably like an ostrich.  It’s not the first time we’ve been surprised in recent weeks, and if we ever get back on track, we’ll close the loop on that story.  Todays ‘flushed bird’ is an editorial in the local paper taking pretty dead aim at the BDC.  It appears here; you’re on your own with finding a paper copy or trying to read it on their web site.  If you can do neither, contact us, and we’ll help you out.

The op-ed would seem to reflect a rather scathing view of the BDC and its operation over the years.  It looks like the editors may have woken up from years of sleep; or maybe they actually live here in Cape Brunswick, and are beginning to feel a bit put-upon.  Our property tax bill arrived today, and we’re certainly feeling more put-upon then ever.  But not everybody can be on the free-money train.

Even more interesting is this little passage:

And that’s not even the worst example of the queer pecuniaries of quasi-municipal development in Brunswick.

Next we have Councilor Benet Pols asking the BDC to pay to raze an abandoned home near his to increase his property value.

The proposal was rejected because it didn’t fit “the BDC criteria” — not because a sitting councilor was asking for financial favors from his peers.

Overall, we find the editorial tone a bit snarky, and the effort shows some signs of actually pursuing a story.  Good for them; too bad they didn’t get real years ago before they had 7.5 toes already in the ground.  But they did miss the mark on Town Officials’ relationship to the BDC.  Four town officials ALWAYS sit on the Board of BDC, per the Bylaws, and the Town Council appoints the other three.  They garbled this point just like Council Chair Wilson did last week.

Now at least we have a reason to check their pages – to look for a Benet Pols response.  Will sharp teeth be on display?

(Note: we were unable to confirm important details of the ‘other bird’ in this story by our deadline, so we’re going with half the story until we do.  That’s still more than you get just about everywhere else.)

TTFN and stay tuned in.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Scott Howard On Brunswick Taxi and BDC

         

Today’s edition of The Ostrich is carrying a commentary by Scott Howard, the business consultant we mentioned in this post.

We know that most or our readers don’t read this publication, and that it works hard to make sure you can’t do so on their web site without coughing up your sheckles to do so.   Regardless, here’s the link we found the commentary at.

After a modicum of reflection, we posted this response to Howard’s column on the web site:

Mr. Howard:

You state that  "The BDC is private nonprofit corporation...." 

According to the Bylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, the BDC is a 'local development corporation,' and I don't believe the word 'private' appears anywhere in these documents.

You further state "The BDC used an industrial revenue type bond more than 20 years ago...."  That might be true, but the Articles of Incorporation are dated February 1995, and they were amended in May 1995.

The formation of the BDC was 'authorized by a majority vote of the Municipal Officers of the municipality of Brunswick' as documented in a letter of February 1995.

You are free to question others' command of the facts.  But you might be better received in doing so if you had command of the basic facts yourself.

Lastly, how much did you receive for your role in arranging this $247,000 forgivable 'loan?'

As we often do, we reread the source material to see if there was anything else we’d like to comment on.  Well, duh, of course there is!

How about these words:

The business plan determined that….

We have a problem with this concept; we don’t think business plans ‘determine’ anything.  We think their job is to lay out a ‘plan.’  Call us petty, but that’s our take.

Then there’s this passage:

Brunswick Taxi had been unable to upgrade its fleet of vehicles over the last five years due to a significant reduction in business from the base closure, the economic recession and the new public-private subsidized bus and train services in Brunswick.

We’re a bit flummoxed by the term “public-private subsidized,” but words like that are probably why consultants like Howard make the big bucks.  That aside, just how is it that the grant (or ‘loan’ if you insist) is supposed to neutralize the effects of base closure, the economic recession, and bus and train service?

We’ve offered Dale King all the space he wants here on Side to correct our ‘factual errors,’ or to challenge our thinking.  We do the same for Howard.

But you know what?  We’ve had it up to here with the pervasive and prevailing view that ‘free enterprise’ means that government at all levels exists to provide free money to those who seek to operate an enterprise, whether it’s viable, or to be more PC, ‘sustainable’ on its own merits.  Amtrak at one level, Brunswick Taxi at a much different level; looks like they have the same idea and sense of entitlement.

Business plans used to be an exercise in proving to potential lenders and/or investors that a concept for a business has a well-conceived, structured, and measurable plan for turning an idea into a profit making enterprise.  By which one could make a living, provide a return on investment, and even better, grow enough to provide a living for others.

Looks like we’re a dinosaur for thinking so.  Stupidosaurus, dumbosaurus, naivosaurus; we’re not sure which one.   Maybe Sideosaurus is the call.

But you know what?  We don’t think dinosaurs paid property taxes and income taxes and all sorts of other taxes to subsidize dinosaurs that couldn’t make it on their own.

Now, we’re just trying to decide if we should call Scott to round up a quarter million or so for us.  We promise that if he does, we can demonstrate that jobs will result from it.

How could giving us all that money not?  Unless we stuck it under a rock?

Technorati Tags: ,,

Awwww, heck; how about a few more….

To be capable of embarrassment is the beginning of moral consciousness. Honor grows from qualms.

-John Leonard, critic (1939-2008)


To found principles of government upon too advantageous an estimate of the human character is an error of inexperience, the source of which is so amiable that it is impossible to censure it with severity.

- John Quincy Adams (1767-1848)


I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.

- Milton Friedman

 

             

Thought for today….

Always a good thought, especially if you live within driving distance of a Frosty’s, and can get there before they run out.

But we have something with more gra-vi-tas in mind for today.  (Make sure when you say the g-word, you give it due drama and elocution so we know you’re a serious person.  Something like “grahhhh-veee-tahhhhhs.”)

And here it is, inspired as always by recent events, especially those with a local story-line:

Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.

TTFN.

Monday, September 9, 2013

BTW re: BTC and BDC*

At the council meeting of last Tuesday, September 3rd, the subject of the town lending money to the Brunswick Development Corporation arose.  As we recall, it was a question from a resident.  The meeting, by the way, is still not viewable to us ‘on demand.’

Council Chair- (person, woman, man; take your pick based on your own PC view) Suzan Wilson responded with her trademark good humor, saying something like ‘the town doesn’t have any money to lend, ha ha; I wish we did…that would be nice.’

Apparently Chair Wilson is not particularly familiar with the state of town finances.  You can update yourself by looking at page 1 of this document, which shows as page 5 of the pdf file itself.

You’ll notice that the town is sitting on $18 million in ‘reserve funds,’ $9 million of which is ‘unassigned.’  Presumably, the reserve funds are loaned, for example, to banks or other institutions that pay us interest for the use of said assets.

Rest assured that we’re not advocating the town make funds available to simulate economic development via the latest ‘new thing.’  Even if it involves converting a vacant local property into a jelly bean manufacturing facility.

But we wouldn’t mind in the least if the leader of our local governing body showed a bit more command of the details of bylaws, budgets, and other assorted administrivia of day to day guidance of Cape Brunswick.

Like we’ve said before, life is one big learning experience, and then you die.

* For the uninitiated, this means “By the way regarding Brunswick Town Council and Brunswick Development Corporation.”

Technorati Tags: ,,

Sunday, September 8, 2013

More Lake Basebegone, whether you wanted it or not

It’s time for a follow-up to the post we published just a few days ago.

We begin with this question: is Lake Basebegone a ‘vernal pool’ in the regulatory sense?  You may wonder why we ask, but we don’t.  Perhaps by the time you get to the end of this post, your intuition will have kicked in.

But back to our main point.  In that recent post, we said this:

You know about Lake Basebegone; it’s where all the children are above average, all the schools are excellent, houses only sell because of the excellent schools, each and every teacher is a saint, all the municipal ‘investments’ simulate economic development and reduce the burdens of government, public funds are not public or private funds, schools underachieve because of insufficient taxpayer funds, public buildings are a boon to demolition contractors, and keeping physical assets in good repair is so yesterday, and counterproductive to community pride.

It’s also where elected officials are humble, self-sacrificing, and public service oriented, men are hard working, and women are good looking and protectors of the public trust.  In the most gentle of ways.

Here’s a hard working man:

        

And here’s one of our humble elected officials, Matthea Elisabeth Larsen Daughtry by name, captured in candid circumstances, working on our behalf.  The first appears on her official web page.  Her humility is certainly something she’s proud of, as you can tell from the way she presents herself to the rest of us.

It turns out that other humble and good-looking members of the Lake Basebegone ruling class are seeking to protect the public trust on our behalf.  One wants to be a town councilor, and the other wants to govern us at the state level.  Lucky us.   Brunswick deserves them, in a karmic sort of way.

Hold it right there, you say.  Back up the editorial truck.

Good point. That earlier post we referred to talked about the J.P. conundrum.  And we were a bit obtuse in getting to the teeth of the matter.

Our central point was this: is Lake Basebegone big enough for two protagonists to be designated here on Other Side by the initials “J.P.?”

Coming up with the “J” for a second protagonist is no problem, even if we want it to apply to an attorney.  J is for Jackie, or Jacquie, or Jacqueline or however else you wish to expand it.  And Lake Basebegone has one.  As for the “P,” we were thinking in terms of ‘pretentious,’ or ‘pompous,’ or perhaps ‘political’ at the very worst.  You know us; we work hard to keep things civil and non-judgmental here on Side.

We opened it up to you, our readers.  Out of all the suggestions we received, one rose to the top.  We’re a bit non-minused to pass it along, but in the interest of First Amendment rights, we have no choice.  So here it is: ‘Jackie Piranha.’

We were, at first, taken aback by the suggestion.  But as we dozed off and let the sandman do his thing, we recalled some scars on our ankles from past encounters with this candidate for J.P. immortality.  In public settings, no less.  Along with her reminder to us that ‘honesty is not always the best policy,’ which was quite an eye-opener from a then serving town councilor. 

Not to mention more than one attempt to ‘use us,’ to borrow a term from Dale King.

So we are acquiescing.  Because the resemblance is just too striking to be ignored.

                        

Add to that the fact that piranhas are known to travel in schools, and the choice becomes even more compelling.

             

So from here-on out, you can expect us to refer to Johnny “J.P.” Richardson, and Jackie “J.P.” Sartoris, especially since they seem to be traveling in the same ‘school’ these days, swimming upriver towards Augusta, looking for a big fish to devour.  They might even be trying to get some young and ‘innocent’ fry to join them in their predatory pursuits; see if you can guess who that might be. 

Somebody’s got to teach the youngsters how to survive in this dog eat dog world of ours. 

       

Even if it takes swimming underwater to do it.

Technorati Tags: ,,

“Loose Ends”– Of the Brunswick Taxi Sort

       

We hope you’ll humor us for repeating images from prior posts, but 1) it amuses us, and we' don’t get paid for what we do; 2) said images often capture the ‘essence’ of the situation far better than our long-winded and sophomoric commentary.

Ironic, isn’t it, that your superannuated editor should use the term sophomoric in a rare moment of self-deprecation.  We’re full of surprises; it’s why you love us.  Now if the Pats would just spring a surprise or two and come back to win it……

You remember that we told you Dale King, owner of Brunswick Taxi, called us a few days after we broke the story on the BDC forgivable loan of a cool quarter million to his local transportation services company.

We passed along a comment or two of his in prior posts, including the one about factual errors, and we offered him wide open spaces to correct the record.  We even offered up a possible graphic for his use:

    

As you well realize, our pages are so-far unbesmirched by any follow up of his.

And we think it’s time to put on the record the rest of what Dale said to us in that phone call on August 21st.  Keep in mind that we are relating what he said, whether it was accurate or not.

Among other things, Dale said we ‘were being used’ by ‘others.’ We denied this, and asked him to tell us who he thought was doing so.  His answer was Senator Stan Gerzofsky.  That alone gives you some insight into the socio- and electro-political undercurrents here in our perfect little town.  And the nature of the fish swimming in those waters.  (Consider that a cryptic ‘hint’ of things to come.)

We assured him that was not the case.  On later reflection, we thought to ourselves that if reporting accurate information on governmental and quasi-governmental transactions, substantiated with public documents, is ‘being used,’ we’ve got far bigger problems of cultural attitudes around here than we’re competent to address.

At any rate, Dale began his story by telling us that he had read in trade-journals that ‘para-transportation’ is the big thing these days for building business and revenue. This is providing transport for handicapped/wheel-chair bound individuals.  He mentioned, as we told you before, that the train (God Damn you, Amtrak!) and base closure had hurt his business.

So he hired a business consultant, Scott Howard, to look for ‘a grant or state money’ for about $50,000 to purchase a van for his use.  There’s a message for you – the first thought of a ‘private business’ owner is to look for free/government money, rather than a loan from a lending institution.  Think about what that says as far as ‘doing business locally.’

One way or another, the trail led to the BDC to ask for a grant.  As Dale told it, Howard and the town’s Economic Development Director, who ‘staffs’ the BDC, said ‘a van doesn’t solve your problem, you need to do more.’  Dale didn’t seek $247,000; others took the number there.  And ‘BDC made it a loan.’ 

We don’t know about you, but we still have a very hard time thinking of a totally forgivable ‘loan’ with zero payments before the date (36 months) of forgiveness as anything but an outright grant.  Especially with such easy to meet conditions imposed to achieve forgiveness.

So you see, it wasn’t really Dale’s doing.  Sounds like they had to ‘twist his arm’ to take the quarter million.  (Wanna buy a bridge?)  And besides, Dale assured us – ‘the money’s not really going to us; it’s going to the car dealers.’

Now suppose the BDC gave you a quarter million to build a house of your own.  Would you be willing to tell folks in town that the money wasn’t really going to you, that it’s the builder and building supply folks who were really making out?

Maybe that’s a stupid question; if you stop and think about it, there are probably way too many people in this day and age who would do exactly that.  We need to adjust our understanding of a ‘business model’ accordingly.

        

Our questions on this subject will assuredly continue to grow, but we’ll leave you with just a couple today.

First, how much was ‘business consultant’ Scott Howard’s share for leading Dale to the $247,000 so-called loan?  Or does Howard offer his services pro-bono?  We have the feeling the word fungible comes into play here somewhere.

Second, of the new Brunswick Taxi vehicles we’ve seen so far, there are these:

DSCN0458

and these:

DSCN0460

We have seen at least two of each so far.  We find it curious that the color patterns are complete opposites on the two vehicles shown.  Could it be that they are operated by the same company, but have completely different origins, identities, and purposes?

Further, the first one above, shown trackside waiting for Amtrak crew, appears to be a pretty standard mini-van, like families everywhere have.  Nothing particularly innovative or ‘energy efficient.’  And it clearly isn’t ‘handicapped accessible’ or ‘14 passenger.’

The second type appears to be of a more innovative and ‘energy efficient’ type, though we don’t know at this point whether it is ‘handicapped accessible.’  It appears to be very much like this vehicle:

which you can read more about here and here.  We don’t see anything about ramps or other handicapped accommodations, but as before, Dale has open access to our pages to augment the info we provide here.

Oh…the second question; we almost forgot.  The vehicle purchase conditions imposed in the promissory note are these:

· $150,000 - Purchase 6 new energy efficient taxi-cab vehicles to drastically reduce maintenance and repair costs, save and increase business and significantly improve the company’s and the town’s images.

- $30,000 – Purchase one new energy efficient handicap accessible minivan to increase revenues by expanding the services to the handicapped, seniors and educational and medical institutions.

· $45,000 - Purchase a new 14 passenger van to retain business and to meet the projected increase in corporate and institutional demand from Bowdoin College, Mid Coast and Parkview hospitals, the Brunswick Transportation Center and Brunswick Landing.

Color us perplexed and of uncertain color scheme, but we don’t see where the minivan pictured trackside matches any of these conditions, but we do see where the yellow vehicle shown at the garage probably matches the first condition shown above.  So we’ll be keeping an eye out for further evidence that BDC money is being wisely spent and in compliance with conditions imposed.  It’s well known that we consider this public money, though others clearly disagree.  We’re guessing our eye is the only one that will be out, though.

And we’ll continue to wonder whether the two (at least) black themed conventional mini-vans stem from Amtrak funding, no matter how many intermediaries take their ‘taste’ before the rubber meets the road, so to speak, between Brunswick and Portland. 

Two round-trips per day, come rain or come shine.

PS: The Pats eked out the win.