I have two suggestions for the Cumberland County commissioners as far as Cumberland County Civic Center goes.

My first suggestion is to privatize it. In other words, sell it to a company that would own it and be fully responsible for its operation instead of the taxpayers of Cumberland County.

Additional Photos

A boat is unloaded for a commercial show at the Cumberland County Civic Center. A reader thinks the facility should either be private or belong to the city of Portland. 2004 Press Herald file

It’s either that or give it to the city of Portland and rename it the Portland Civic Center, which in reality is what it is today.

Government at all levels has proven to be lousy at business, especially making a profit. If the board running the civic center cannot make a profit instead of robbing taxpayers of even more money, then that board needs to resign.

I suggest that all ticket prices be increased so that the civic center can return money to the taxpayers of Cumberland County. If that doesn’t happen, then it’s time to shrink the size of the county down to Portland’s borders.

I urge all voters in Windham to turn down any bonds for the civic center. Sometime in the near future the Windham Town Council and town manager will attempt to have voters pass a bond for $37 million, which will be just a small down payment that could eventually run into the hundreds of millions.

I have to guess that the inmates are running the asylum because either they don’t have a clue as to how bad the economy has become or maybe it’s just the fact that they don’t care.

As far calling for higher taxes in Cumberland County, the county commissioners are showing that the lights are on, but nobody’s home — although I suspect the light’s really nearly burned out.

Lane Hiltunen

Windham

RSU 5 teacher pay issue was leverage for tax hikes

Letter writer Lois Kilby-Chesley uses the red herring of “in the best interest of our students” to advocate for more money for the same job that was completely acceptable compensation before consolidation (“Why pay RSU 5 teachers differently based on location?”, July 5).

It seems contract negotiations are secret except when the teachers want to beat their drum for more money.

When Falmouth was nearly the first in the state to file for consolidation, the promoters, including a Cumberland town councilor who spoke to the Falmouth Town Council in favor of the consolidation, failed to disclose how much Falmouth taxpayers would have to pony up to give parity to Cumberland teachers.

When the adults in Falmouth discovered it would be a $2 million bump in our school budget, the consolidation went down to a 61 percent to 39 percent defeat.

It’s too bad that the taxpayers in Durham and Pownal didn’t do their homework and discover, perhaps, that Lois and her fellow union members were setting them up, to leverage them into major tax increases. Consolidation turns out to be another expensive legacy from our former Democratic Legislature and governor.

Michael Doyle

Falmouth

New Georgia statute takes illegal immigration seriously

I understand from your reporting in the July 3 paper that thousands are protesting Georgia’s new immigration law. I also understand that the protest is because the new law allows police to: 1. Check the immigration status of suspects without proper identification; 2. Detain illegal immigrants; 3. Penalize those who knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing a crime.

Can someone please explain to me why anyone has any valid complaint about such a law?

Their posters, at least one, states “How would you feel if your family were broken apart?”

I would suggest to the writer that if her family came here by following the law and committed no crime, then her family would have no concern at all worrying about being broken apart — just like the rest of us living in this great country.

If her family does something that violates the law, then she should worry — just like the rest of us living here. Why should she expect to have any special exemption from being required to follow the law?

George W. Conrad, Esq.

Tenants Harbor

Same-sex marriage a constitutional right

I am compelled to write a response to the July 1 column written by M.D. Harmon (“Is New York marriage vote a trend — or a wake-up call?”).

I am not writing to respond to his anti-gay rhetoric. Or respond to the way he pats another columnist on the back for his.

We all know the right for gays to marry is firmly protected by the First Amendment.

What! Protected by the First Amendment? I don’t think so. Allowing gay marriage has nothing to do with protecting the freedom of religion. Banning gay marriage has nothing to do with prohibiting any law respecting an established religion. Or do they?

What is marriage? I think we can all agree that marriage is a religious ceremony. It is where two people come together before the eyes of the God they choose to believe in and profess their commitment to each other. We can all agree on that.

But when you pass a law defining who those people can be, with the intention of excluding certain people.

Knowing that the exclusion is based solely on certain people’s own religious beliefs; then you have passed a law respecting an establishment of religion. Therefor that law would be unconstitutional.

You cannot take an oath to uphold the Constitution and vote for a ban of gay marriage. If you do, you should be removed from the bench or voted out of the Legislature.

When two people come together before the eyes of the divinity they choose to believe in and profess their love and commitment to each other, shall no law come between them.

Of course Mr. Harmon had to throw in the abortion issue to try and further motivate his base.

Republicans do not want to give a fetus free pre-natal care. Once it is born they do not to help care for it in any way.

If you are against abortion, vote for a party who will care for the child before and after it is born.

Robert Raymond

Saco

Related Stories