Skip to main content

Kestrel Discussion at Portland Press Herald Removed from Internet


Getting Back to the Kestrel Line of this story.

There was a story with an active comment discussion on the Portland Press Herald today at the link below but you will not find it there now, although last I checked on Google it is listed and dated 13 hours ago.

 http://www.pressherald.com/news/Wisconsin-says-Brunswick-aircraftc-company-to-expand-there.html

 Currently the latest Kestrel story at The Portland Press Herald is dated January 14th.

I commented on the disappeared page and was not the only one questioning our government's activities in venture capitalism. The first comments opined that there is something about this story that really stinks- to which I responded that what stinks is the charter of the MRRA. I mentioned the government regulation I had come across that stated that local government disqualifies a project for federal funds and the disappearance of that link from my blog post and the internet. Now the whole conversation in which I made this statement has also disappeared from the internet.


Another poster told his story of trying to get space last summer at the MRRA to store some goods but he was refused even though there were many empty warehouses.He commented that he wasn't in the right sector to be allowed in. This can only happen when the tax payer is almost entirely funding the whole corporation, allowing the managers to pick and choose who gets in even as spaces sit empty. If the business development had to pay its own way, it could not be so choosy and whatever evolves there would be quite different than the government designed city state that the government owned MRRA has planned.

However  I recently read that Goodwill Industries will be located in the MRRA complex- not exactly "targeted sector' material!- And in recent months I also heard that the state finally agreed to sell the land that privately owned houses at the MRRA sit on to that same private owner. Something seems to have changed,

The Portland Press Herald Story reported that Kestrel had lost the New Markets Tax Credit that had been approved by CEI earlier this year but did not report that the MRRA had also tried to get funds through a federal program that sells green cards and permament residencies to immigrants who will  invest half a million dollars in businesses in the United States that create at least 10 jobs

This attempt to get federal funding appears to have fallen through as well.

Meanwhile the tax payers have to keep on funding the salaries and pension plans for those employed at the MRRA and charged with developing new business.

And I keep looking for that federal regulation that I once had posted on my blog. I start to wonder if I read it rightly but since it is no longer there I cannot confirm that one way or the other  and so the mystery lingers on.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How The MPERS Contract Came To Be Embedded in the Maine Constitution

Is The Maine Public Retirement System Unconstitutional? According to the Maine Public Employees ComprehensiveFinancial Report of 2010 , the Maine Public Employees Retirement System was established in 1942 to provide services for retiring public employees. No information is given about how the Public Employees Retirement System was legally structured in 1942. In the report MPERS is described as “an independent public agency of the State of Maine that traces its history to 1942”. Wikipedia  uses the same term but when the link is clicked it reveals that Wikipedia has no idea what " independent public agency " means.  An online search for history of MPERS between 1942 and 1985 comes up empty.  In 1985 during the administration of Governor Joseph E Brennan, the Maine Legislature passed a statute announcing its intentions of using general taxpayer monies to provide for retirement funds and death benefits for public employees, a faction which, incidentally, includes th...

High Brow Art VS the Marketplace and the Maine Juice Conference

TWEET THIS http://goo.gl/xdwZDk Continuing with my story from HERE ...(and incorporating a few paragraphs from this earlier but incomplete telling ) Finally, after a year of receiving stimulus fund notices for non-profits only, in the fall of 2009, I received an email from the Maine Arts Commission about a competition for small businesses for what I took to be, a modest grant for the sum of 30000.00 from an "anonymous source". In a moment of hopeful delusions, I imagined that the Maine Arts Commission had come to its senses and realized that they needed to support the private sector. The competition was called an "elevator pitch competition" which means a pitch delivered in five minutes. Even the written answers to questions on the application were required to be answered in a minimal number of words, brevity being stressed as being so important that if your couldn't explain a business idea in five minutes, then one's business idea is simply not ...

Statutory Bond Question Requirements Amplify -NOT Negate Maine Constituion

TWEET THIS http://goo.gl/VcBj8O UPDATE NOV 11 2014:  Since I wrote This post- I cam across the statute governing Bond Ratification- as amended by the 2013 legislature It looks to be that the sentence "To meet the requirement that the signed statement of the Treasurer of State accompany any ballot question for ratification of a bond issue, the statement may be printed on the ballot" was amended by adding this "or it may be printed as a separate document that is made available to voters as provided in Title 21-A, sections 605-A and 651" Section 605-A no longer exists and I am tracking it down. Section 651 says it can be posted outside the guardrail which separates voters from the rest of the world. I am writing a new post to cover this new information Update Nov 12, 2014!   The link I originally referenced is here ,  THIS IS HOW THE LAW WAS WRITTEN IN  2011 - showing the process of incrementalism at play In this link  part of the sentence below is s...