Skip to main content

Boothbay Strong SAY NO TIFS!

We did It ! Boothbay is NO Brunswick!

TIFs transform the purpose of property taxes from covering expenditures of municipal services into risky capital investment funds designed to eventually replace many of the current property owners with a wealthier class of citizens. Beware our nearby neighboring town which has the audacity to call itself The Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority. Who gave this town such authority? Certainly not the Maine State Constituion ! The little town of the MRRA is funded by state and federal taxpayer dollars but cannot even provide for its own municipal services! It uses the political clout of concentrated wealth for its own economic development all designed to benefit the legislature "targeted sector" ie- the "above average" economic sector" . The MRRA is not governed by the Maine State Constitution but by the Rule of Law of Global Capitalism. Don't let the MRRA and/or their ilk turn the Boothbay Peninsula into the exclusive playground for the wealthy! Boothbay is well functioning middle class community governed by the
inhabitants of the municipality. Let's keep it that way! Beware the MRRA, the TIF and other shady investments schemes! And keep the Boothbay Commons just the way it is! VOTE No to TIFS TODAY November 5th!

Representative Bruce MacDonald wrote a letter of support for eh TIF in the Boothbay Register. I used to have a great correspondence with Representative MacDonald until I brought up The Small Enterprise Growth Fund and there has been only stone cold silence from Represntative Bruce MacDonald ever since.

I also brought up the Small Enterprise Growth Fund to my then state Senator, David Trahan, who has since quit politics. Trahan said that The Small Enterprise Growth Fund is one program that is working very well, while McDonald said nothing.

Later I learned that the SEGf violates Article IV Part Third Section 14 of the Maine State Constitution by exempting itself from a general law which says this:
3104. Conflicts of interest; purchases by the State
No trustee, superintendent, treasurer or other person holding a place of trust in any state office or public institution of the State shall be pecuniarily interested directly or indirectly in any contracts made in behalf of the State or of the institution in which he holds such place of trust, and any contract made in violation hereof is void. This section shall not apply to purchases of the State by the Governor under authority of Title 1, section 814. [1975, c. 771, §164 (AMD).]

Those who Benefit from the Closure of St Andrews Are Those Who Benefit From Relocating Boothbay's Retirement Community

How Maine's Home Rule Amendment Was Superseded By Statutory Law.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
1 comment
Read more

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 ...
2 comments
Read more

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...
1 comment
Read more