A Signing, a sign, a fall, a rising.

Today, Governor Baldacci signed a bill to legalize the fact of Gay Marriage in the state of Maine: LD 1020 "An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom."

Nearly 25 years ago, Charlie Howard was pitched from a bridge above Kenduskeag Stream in Bangor by three teenagers. Charlie, who could not swim, drowned in the middle of down town Bangor.

Within days of his murder, the bridge had been tagged, "Faggots Jump Here."

The boys who killed him were eventually convicted, as juveniles, of manslaughter.

With the signing of LD 1020, there has been some talk about how far we've come. And we have come a ways, I suppose.

But just in February, 25 year old Scott Libby was strangled with a belt and beaten to death with a frying pan, thrown in a car and left parked on railroad tracks. Basically, because he was gay. Agostino Samson, the man alleged to have killed him, had known Libby for seven years and had been employed by him for a short time.

Samson told police he punched Libby in the nose twice after Libby made sexual advances toward him.

And yet,

According to the affidavit, Samson called Libby's mother, Nancy, of Raymond on Feb. 20 to say he had heard about Libby's death from his sister. Nancy Libby told police Samson "appeared to be crying quite hard on the telephone."

Few of the facts in that case have come out. Yet in spite of the limited story, you'd think the media would be all over it. For all the drama involved (beating, debts owed, a fairly complex attempt to mask a murder by creating a train accident), the local press just doesn't seem all that interested. All the salacious details would ordinarily indicate prime local newsfodder.

The train tracks have yet to be tagged, so I suppose our progress is shown less in the lack of violence than in the lack of glee attending it.

Certainly there are enough people incensed at the idea of Gays Among Us that I believe a petition drive will be mounted. I do not know if it will succeed. In Maine, it will lack the open support of the Republican Party. That's a little progress, I guess.

It will also lack the active support of the Church of Latter Day Saints -- there just aren't that many Mormons in Maine. It will be supported, however, by the Catholic Church. Unlike the Mormons, there are enough Catholics in Maine for the diocese to feel a stake in the story.

The vote in the Maine House (89-57) indicates that there remains significant opposition to the separation of personal conviction from constitutional protection. And the facile conflation and straight misrepresentation of facts persists:

Assistant House Minority Leader Phil Curtis, R-Madison, said he worries how the bill will affect parenting, education and religious liberty.

"L.D. 1020, as printed, proposes a radical redefinition of marriage as we have known it to be for all of history," he said.

Yet the law is signed.

"We see the referendum as an opportunity," said Shenna Bellows, executive director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union. "Maine may well be the antidote to California."

Or, as my friend Doug said on the 'phone tonight, "The tide is rising."

And because

he's fallen for twenty-three years,
despite whatever awkwardness
his flailing arms and legs assume
he is beautiful

and like any good diver
has only an edge of fear
he transforms into grace.
Or else he is not afraid,

and in this way climbs back
up the ladder of his fall,
out of the river into the arms
of the three teenage boys

who hurled him from the edge-
really boys now, afraid,
their fathers' cars shivering behind them,
headlights on- and tells them

it's all right, that he knows
they didn't believe him
when he said he couldn't swim,
and blesses his killers

in the way that only the dead
can afford to forgive.

From "Charlie Howard's Descent"
by Mark Doty

Feeling a little pig-fluey?

After meeting with Mr. Obama, Sen. Collins expressed concern about a number of spending provisions, including $780 million for pandemic-flu preparedness. "I have no doubt that the president is willing to negotiate in good faith, that he wants to have a bipartisan bill," Sen. Collins said.

Thank goodness Maine's own Susan Collins had the foresight to strike that bit of spending from the stimulus bill. Standing strong on this particular 1/1000 of 1 percent of the bill in the name of fiscal discipline in these tough times must have been a hard row to hoe.



Anybody else feeling a bit of sniffle coming on?

Prop 8 Fallout: Maine Clergy Back Same-sex Marriage

The fall-out from the California Prop-8 battle continues, and not all of it is bad news.

The "mainline" Protestant denominations have largely trended with progressive values for years. This progress has not come without rupture and hard words, but it has continued nevertheless. What has often been missing from the mainline, however, is a willingness to elbow their way to a seat at the table of public discourse.

As a result, the far right of the religious community has been allowed (and encouraged) to define the "faithful" positions on many questions. Most notably, their flag has flown in the face of equal rights for gays, lesbians, bi-sexual and transgendered citizens.

Following the passage of Prop 8 in California, some mainstream clergy are finally beginning to take a more assertive approach:

Religious leaders across the state held news conferences Thursday to urge Mainers to end marriage discrimination against gay and lesbian couples and called for the state to create same-sex civil marriages.

While this clearly isn't the same as privately conspiring with the Catholic Church and encouraging all your Mormon brethren to bankroll discriminatory legislation, it represents a big step for groups who have preferred to fly low on the radar. In part, this was out of sensitivity to their membership, many of whom have struggled to expand their personal understanding of their closely held faith.

...more than 120 religious leaders from 14 different faith traditions across Maine have formed the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine. The coalition, [Presbyterian Rev. Marvin Ellison] said, is not a political action committee, but a group of clergy acting as individuals to raise awareness about the issue of same-sex marriage.

Ministers who joined the coalition signed a declaration. They agreed to “commit ourselves to public action, visibility, education, and mutual support in the service of the right and freedom to marry.”

"Visibility" is the big missing piece in mainline churches' effort to promote respect, understanding and equality in this struggle for rights.

If you agree that homosexuality, lesbianism, or gender difference or ambiguity (or disambiguity as the case may be) are inherent -- as most educated people do -- then this is very clearly an issue of civil rights. These faith communities are gradually coming to the understanding that advocacy and visibility on these questions is every bit as compelled as their support for the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's, which focused on race and, latterly, sex.

Some tentative steps had been taken already. The UCC launched a publicity campaign for their beliefs entitled "God is still speaking," encouraging a fresh and renewing approach to faith and famously featuring television commercials that cleverly showcased a message of inclusion.

The Ejector:


The Steeples ("All the People")


The Bouncers


This campaign was famously banned by the traditional media.

The creation of this coalition seems to indicate that, at least in Maine, mainline churches now recognize that on a question of theology, the Right has made their religion a public policy. If, as they profess, the mainline stands for the oppressed, they must speak out.

This is one small, but important, step in that direction.

Maine law does state that marriage is between a man and a woman. Our constitution remains, for the moment, unstained.

Predictably,

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland would oppose efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine, Marc Mutty, director of the Office of Public Affairs, said Thursday after the press conference.

The Family Policy Council of Maine, formerly the Christian Civic League of Maine, also has said it would be “working to defend marriage.” Executive Director Michael Heath announced in September that opponents of gay marriage were forming a group called Marriage Alliance. It would work to amend Maine’s constitution, according to information posted on the council’s Web site.

The Christian Civic League has become a punchline here in Maine. Mainers have consistently refused to legislate hate, and a petition drive they attempted last year had to be scrapped because there just wasn't any money out there to support it.

The Catholic Church, however, is becoming (has become?) an embarrassing case.

Clergy who appeared at the press conference in Bangor represented the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Church. Both denominations, along with Reform Judaism, allow the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of noncelibate gay and lesbian clergy.

The list of clergy who support the coalition, however, includes ministers in the United Methodist, Episcopal and Presbyterian denominations that continue to debate the issues of gay marriage and the role of gay clergy on national and international levels.

The declaration stated that the signers respected the fact that debate and discussion would continue in many of their religious communities concerning the theological and ethical issues of marriage. It also said that members of the coalition supported the right of all religious communities to make their own decisions about whom to marry within their faith traditions.

“We draw on our diverse religious traditions to arrive at a common conviction — the state of Maine should allow same-sex couples to share fully and equally in the legal institution of marriage and do all that it can to eradicate current discrimination and the lingering effects of past discrimination against our lesbian, gay bisexual and transgendered brothers and sisters,” the declaration continued.

Taking this stance reflects a distinctly mature approach to living (and hold a faith) in a pluralistic society. It separates the health and righteousness of the civic body from the integrity of a given body of faith. It acknowledges that we differ, and will continue to differ, on issues of moral theology (and, dare I say, science), but that equality in civil society does not permit the enforcement of only one creed. Down that road lies religious war. Down that road lies theocracy. Down that road lies the Taliban (if I need be so blunt).

Of course, if you believe you have the one, true, faith, this approach is anathema.

One wonders: If the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church of LDS both got substantially what they wanted, how long would it take before they were at each other's throat?

“I don’t think [the coalition] represents a great majority of the religious community in Maine,” Mutty said. “They represent marriage as a civil right and believe that anyone that meets certain criteria should be able to marry.

“Marriage is the building block of society and includes procreation,” Mutty continued. “Without procreation — and same sex couples can’t — they’re missing out on a huge piece of the puzzle. The argument is not any more complicated than that.”

Marriage, sanctioned by the state, is a civil right, Mark. Whatever you want to recognize within the walls of the Church is up to you.

I'm not even going to touch the weak "procreation" argument, which would disqualify thousands of hetero men and women from marriage.

Marriage should be dropped from the law altogether, in my opinion. The contractual, financial and privacy privileges which the state sees fit to confer on that arrangement between consenting adults should be available to everyone interested. If we see fit to qualify eligibility with a legal pledge of "love and support" or something similar, that seems fine to me. It would promote the social benefits of joining people together in small mutual enterprises and help glue the community together. But the definition of "marriage" as a spiritual state could easily be left to individual congregations.

It's their institution, after all.

“I have seen many loving, committed couples in my life,” the Rev. Becky Gunn, pastor of the Unitarian Universalist Society of Bangor, said at the press conference. “Some choose to marry, some do not. But there are those who would choose to marry that are not currently allowed to marry. These same-sex couples do not have the same civil rights as married heterosexual couples. This is ethically and morally untenable.”

Amen.

Stand to the Left

I really can't figure out Edgar Allen Beem. (And if you don't know who that is or you're not from the Portland area, I'm sorry. This post is barely going to have entertainment value for you.)

The guy is clearly a liberal (though perhaps not a progressive). Yet he persists in knocking down the Maine Greens every chance he gets. And while I agree that they've certainly had their share of characters and missteps (and characters who make missteps), he's doing it to take cuts at a couple of guys who don't fit the mold.

David Marshall and Kevin Donoghue got themselves elected to the Portland City Council by busting tail, connecting with voters, and promising movement on a whole slate of issues. And they've done a damn good job of delivering. It can't be easy. The city council has nine (9) seats, and they're just a couple of guys who are barely 30 years old, and have about $5 between them.

Yet for some reason, they seem to be about the only Councillors with any interest in preserving public process or with helping the city get the best deal out of its own resources. Take, for example, the Portland State Pier development deal. This excellent interview with John Anton (local workforce housing financier) lays out a lot of the problems with the process.

The big problem is that the Pre-DavidandKevin City Council sent out a Request for Proposals (RFP) after basically being goaded into the idea by Ocean Properities (one of the two companies in the running). OP's access to the council comes via tight Democratic connections to Governor Baldacci (through his brother, an OP bigshot) and through the Democratic party to the office of Councillor Cloutier.

After the proposals were submitted, OP realized that its competitor had done a better job conceptually (even though OP had known about the project for a longer time). In response, OP has submitted two further revisions. Now the council is debating the merits of a shifting bid. Unsurprisingly, Kevin Donoghue wants to put on the brakes and establish a legitimate process for soliciting and then judging the bids.

Watch this video (link on the right). Kevin's words here really sum up his position and his and David's basic approach to city government:

I am worried about the direction of this...We have a responsibility to the public and the public has no idea what's going on. ...a rudiment of that public process should be that we should stick to the rules that a deadline was set...

Cloutier clearly took offense to Donoghue and Marshall's insistence on a process that would muck up the sweetheart deal he's set up for Ocean Properties. I can transcribe his words, but I can't do justice to his temper when he said

You don't have the right to say to anyone...this is how you're going to evaluate this to come to a decision.

Or his smiling condescension when he said

...some of our new members weren't even on the council when we actually issued it, so they don't have the benefit of that background, and it is kind of confusing and hard to follow...

You really need to watch it for yourself. If you're really interested in the background of the process, also check out the Bollard's archives.

So, citizens of Portland can be thankful that they have at least two vigilant and independent voices looking out for them. Unfortunately and for some reason, they've come into columnist Beem's sights. I took him to task once already, in a column that got picked up by Beem's publication, the Portland Forecaster. But he's at it again, and again, I can't really figure it out.

This week, he made it his business to dredge up all the crap the Green Independent Party has laid down in order to lay it at Kevin Donoghue's feet with a warning: "Better keep your nose clean."

Now don't get me wrong. There's been some absolutely absurdist behavior by a couple of Greens on the school committee lately.

The arrest last month of Green Party and Portland School Committee member Benjamin Meiklejohn for driving after suspension is just the latest in long run of bad publicity for the Maine Greens. Meiklejohn was apparently being a Good Samaritan by driving a drunken friend home when he got pulled over for having a taillight out. Kudos for that.

Turns out, however, that unknown to him, Meiklejohn’s license had been suspended for failure to pay a speeding ticket. Plausible and understandable. Could happen to anyone. But then Meiklejohn started making wild accusations about a politically motivated bail commissioner making him stay in jail an hour or two too long. Then, when the arrest of an elected official naturally brought some scrutiny of his character and it was reported that Meiklejohn’s Web site featured a link to the alt-porn SuicideGirls.com site, he charged that writers and editors at The Forecaster were “media prudes.”
...
Meiklejohn’s arrest, of course, followed the December arrest of his fellow Green Party and Portland School Committee member Jason Toothaker for skipping out on a taxi fare after a night of drinking. Toothaker, who was found hiding under the deck of a home, sobered up and had the good sense to resign from the School Committee in January, having embarrassed himself, the committee and the Green Party.

True and true. And ol' Zen Ben doesn't strike me as a particularly realistic evangelist for alternative living. But Beem just can't resist piling it on. He picks up the fact that local whack-job Dorothy Lafortune hijacked the Green Party nomination in Biddeford, and he digs back to a 1999 DUI conviction for Pat LaMarche, and an acquittal (that is to say, not a conviction) to raise the smell of rot.

The trouble with that kind of approach is that it cuts both ways. Observe:

Just last fall, Democrat Ellen Alcorn, was ticketed for speeding in a school zone – an admission that was laughed off as a harmless mistake. Except that she was the Chair of the School Committee at the time. Still looking out for kids, Ellen? Speaking of driving, Mayor Mavodones recently admitted to a conviction for driving after suspension. Luckily, he doesn't have a MySpace page. Finally, Democratic State Senator Bruce Bryant was recently convicted of OUI after getting drunk on a break in the middle of the legislative session.

Patrick Colwell, while head of the Maine Democratic Party, laundered campaign contributions for Rhode Islander Matt Brown's campaign. He was cleared, not because what he did was right, but because there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. If the appearance of impropriety is enough for Beem to indict Ben Chipman, certainly there's room in the Beem jailhouse for Colwell.

And let's not forget Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Tom Connolly, in whose judgment it was a smart idea to dress up like Osama Bin Laden and wave a toy gun at people. That added up to an arrest for criminal threatening.

By Beem's logic, the Maine Democratic Party is probably one arrest away from folding the tent.

Ridiculous, of course. The Dems, and these Dems, are alive and well and doing good work.

But why even bother? If the Greens are so ridiculous, why sling the mud? They're clearly ready to self-destruct as a party, right?

Well, no. In fact, the Maine Green Independent Party is getting stronger. Thanks, in large part, to the efforts of Portland's two youngest city Councillors. And Beem tips his hand at the very end, when we finally see what all his muck-raking is coming to: Kevin Donoghue better keep his nose clean.

Beem dug up every piece of garbage he could find about the Maine Greens only to hold it over the head of one of our most effective City Councillors. I find that very interesting.

The Maine Green Independent Party has nearly 30,000 registered members, and it's growing. It is the most vital Green Party of any state in the country and there's a reason for that: If you want to be a progressive in Maine, you've got to go Green. This is especially true in Portland, where the Democratic Party has locked up the city for so long that they're suffering the malaise to which all single-party systems eventually succumb: With no motive to remain sharp, they've inevitably become dull.

But Beem is right in pegging Kevin Donoghue as a harbinger of things to come. He and his council-mate David Marshall have proven to be serious, process-oriented administrator's of the people's business. Do not be deceived by Marshall's and Donoghue's youth. There is a right way and a wrong way to run a government and those guys do it the right way. Their work on the City Council has displayed a level of maturity and a deep respect for the public interest – and the public's intelligence – that should be a wake-up call to some of their longer-serving co-Councilors.

With 25% more Green voters this year than last and a full slate of candidates due for this November, the Green Party in Maine is vital and getting stronger. If Beem is truly looking for a Party in Danger, well, nobody's talking about the real Elephant in the room. Yet.

Maine State Pier: a Crossroads

The project to develop the Maine State Pier is more than just a problem of urban planning. It is a crossroads.Beware, Portland: whatever is born of this process will determine the future of our waterfront. No matter which of the proposals currently before the council is adopted, both would spell the end of the working waterfront. Is that what we want? Perhaps, but we need to realize that that’s what we’re doing. Once one luxury hotel/conference center/boutique rack sits on the waterline, you can bet another will follow. It’s the small end of a wedge that could ultimately drive out the working waterfront zone.

The development of the pier is also an acid test for how seriously we take our commitment to sustainable progress. We need to get Portland out of its cars and walking. And we must guard against pricing ordinary Mainers out of the city. Development is necessary. But unless we carefully monitor the course and character of that development, we will find ourselves living in a generic commercial grayscape that puts profit before people. In doing so, we’ll have killed the goose that lays the golden egg.

The Olympia proposal is on the right track, and shines by comparison to Ocean Properties, but it needs to go further. I’m baffled by former Green Representative John Eder’s decision to act as window dressing for the Ocean Properties plan. There is very little that is truly “green” about it, other than Eder himself (pictured). Putting shrubbery on top of a parking garage is like passing out aspirin in a cancer ward.

These plans do not encourage increased pedestrian access, nor aid in the reduction of traffic. They do not maintain harmony with the ideal of a working waterfront. They do not address affordable housing at all. Instead, they pluck a piece of our bay away from us and use it to gild the lily of luxury.

Ask yourself, Portland, were you consulted about this? Or did this plan grow quietly in the dark of some city councilman’s office? Ocean Properties had a proposal ready very quickly. So quickly, in fact, that others have questioned the openness of the process and thereby, its integrity.

But Ocean Properties’ eagerness is perfectly understandable. Whatever they (or Olympia) do to the pier, they’ll hold the result rent free under a lease that lasts for generations. It’s a giveaway. I’d jump at it, too. That is, if I weren’t a tax-paying citizen of the City of Portland.

To be fair, the pier needs help in the form of expensive structural repairs. But that very fact highlights the shortcomings of years of city council policy which have failed to acknowledge that this day would come. To solve it, some propose to give it away.

The Maine State Pier belongs to you and me. It is an important piece of the public trust that we own by virtue of living in this city. Watch this closely, Portland. Be sure we get what we want, because this decision has the potential to shape the future of our skyline.

And since we’re on the subject of sustainable development and the privatization of public resources, it’s worth pointing out how our state legislature fell down on the job this week.

The Land for Maine’s Future program has been one of the most successful state land conservation projects in the nation. In a bond that has been consistently replenished since its inception, LMF has succeeded in setting aside over 400,000 acres for the people of Maine.

This land is our heritage. More importantly, as we negotiate our way into a new economy, it is also our brand. The genius behind the LMF money is that the state doesn’t give it out unless it can be matched by private funding. It’s a business-savvy strategy for leveraging our money to leverage our resources.

In a proposal that had the backing of people from former Governor Angus King to the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine to municipal officials from across the State, the Governor asked for 35 million dollars in bonds (Hannah Pingree asked for 75 million--go Hannah!), spread over three years. Instead, our congress gave us less than half of that, in a one-time hit.

That’s not forward-thinking. That’s not preserving the best leverage our state has not only in the new economy, but also for the health of our selves and future Mainers. That’s half-a-loaf where more than just bread is needed. It’s a calculation based on buying votes rather than banking a resource for the future. As Beem said, “People come to Maine for from all over the world to experience the natural environment that has been plowed under, paved and developed where they come from.”

Whether you serve in City Hall or in the State House that’s a message you should bring into committee. And take to heart.

A Logjam, not a Vacuum

This week's Forecaster features a column by Edgar Allen Beem, Our Leadership Vacuum. Beem's column, "The Universal Notebook," runs every week. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not. Like most (but not all) columnists, he's pretty lazy in his thinking. Even when I agree with his conclusions I'm often not altogether charmed by his logic or evidence. This week's column was particularly lazy, however.

As the title suggests, Beem feels there's no real leadership in Portland. He longs for the days when "things got done." Usually, things got done because the guys in charge not only had all the money, they owned all the real estate and basically ran the city. Things have changed. I agree. But what set me off was Beem's targeting of "Generation x" types and their assumed lack of big picture vision:

...all those progressive neighborhood activists who have assumed power can’t seem to get much accomplished.
...And the GenXers who have stepped into the leadership void just seem to lack the big picture, focusing on narrow, do-able, short-term goals with the best of intentions and mixed results.

Not to mention (and by that I mean, specifically to mention) the lazy equation of Barak Obama with George Bush:

I wish I could say I see hope on the horizon, but I don’t. Barak Obama? Come on, all the guy’s done so far is get elected. Like George W. Bush, he’s just a blank slate upon whom people project their desires.

So I dashed off a response to the Forecaster. I barely scratched the surface of what I could have hit on. Nevertheless, for your reading pleasure (with fun links added):

There are so many red-herrings, misleading assumptions and fuzzy thoughts in Edgar Allen Beem's notebook of 2/28 that I hardly know where to start. So, like Beem, I'll just wade right in.

Beem assumes there is no leadership because there are no leaders. Starting here leaves you nowhere to go but down and that, predictably, is where he heads. The trouble with this premise is that Beem's idea of a leader is really the definition of a philanthropist with a civic bent. Well what do you know? All those wealthy Boomers that have come to Maine over the past 30 years just don't want to give their money away. Beem nods cursorily in that direction, but his real shots he saves for the younger generation (of which I am proudly a part).

Contrary to Beem's assertion, we have a "big picture" vision that we deeply desire to implement: We see a city of reduced car traffic, with greater and more convenient public transportation. A city that is not just walk-able but actually walk-ing, with vibrant, mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods and an accessible city government. A picture of a new, greener future that is available to all citizens, regardless of their income or socio-economic status. A city better connected to the Mid-coast, Southern Maine and Boston with improved rail service. A sea-going city bound more closely with the Northeast's greatest trading partner: Canada and its maritime provinces. A city of immigrants, newcomers and native Mainers. A city with strong schools and the outstanding business opportunities that come with a ready, willing and educated workforce. A true 21st century model.

But the moment someone comes up with a sensible, albeit unorthodox idea, people of Beem's ilk and generation pop up to shoot it down. Witness the efforts of Marcos Miller and the Munjoy Hill Neighborhood Organization to promote that vision with respect to the City's transportation plan. When people weren't actively denigrating their ideas, the City was burying the process and eliminating public participation.

This same ineffectual group of individuals (citizens and councilors alike) consistently stands in the way of the big picture vision of Portland's younger generation. The "narrow, do-able, short-term goals" Beem sees so fit to denigrate are not stand-alone initiatives. They are part and parcel of the bigger vision: incremental victories that we somehow manage to slip past the wall of muffle-headed, business-as-usual types like Mr. Beem. But more is coming. In the very paper that carries Beem's sad lament, we read of a new push for accountability in the Mayoral office and a drastic restructuring of city government put forward by these allegedly short-sighted enfants dans les bois.

"[A]ll those progressive neighborhood activists who have assumed power can't seem to get much accomplished." Let's look as one of the little things they've done: the revocation of the formula business ban and the formation of a committee to examine the issue. The ban, which Beem rightly labels "ill-conceived," was railroaded through before the last election by the retreating baby-boom old guard, which declined to study the issue at all, winged it completely and missed badly.

Sometimes you have to go backward before you can go forward. It has scarcely been three months since Donoghue and Marshall were inaugurated to the city council. That's barely enough time to come to grips with the mess of Portland government, much less reverse its course. Ask yourself, Mr. Beem, who is standing in the way of these "activists in power" (all two of them)? I have a generational mirror here if you need it.

Beem wants leaders with "vision and clout." Obviously, the vision is there. Apparently what Beem means by "clout" is "cash." The people with cash in this city are, paradoxically, the ones who lack vision. Well, "generation X" has the vision. As for the cash, all I can say is give us time. Lenny Nelson inherited a lot of money and made a lot more—but not by the age of 30. The same goes for the Paysons, Porteouses and Baxters of the world. In the meantime, I suggest that the Baby Boomers get out their checkbooks and get out of the way. "It's been decades," says Beem. Your generation has been in the driver's seat, Mr. Beem. Let someone else have a chance. Get your energy behind them and let them lead.

And while you're at it, you might want to leave comparing Obama with Bush for political smear campaigns. Neither Bush nor Obama is a "blank slate." Bush is the scion and torchbearer of a morally vacant political philosophy that has destroyed our army and bankrupted our nation. The truth was there to be seen from the beginning but the facile compliance of "journalists" like Beem (though perhaps not Beem) permitted the incurious to see what they wanted to see. Obama, although he exhibits a disturbing willingness to accommodate the once-loyal opposition, is an even more richly rendered page. His political record echoes JFK's, but without wealth and influence of the Kennedy political machine, with better grades and a traceable track-record of legislation in the public interest.

The real "root of our leadership problem" is not the lack of viable options. Rather it is the opaque fog of the lapdog press that cloaks all candidates in a veil of sameness. I suggest that rather than whining about a "lack of leadership" Beem might start by exhibiting a little of his own. If a "long leaderless decline" is to be averted, the press must play a far more active role. Find the truth and report it. Don't just take dictation. Or, in Beem's case, don't just whine. Do a little thinking before you put fingertip to keyboard.

Jobs to Take Pride In

One of the main characteristics of Maine identified by the Brookings Institute in their landmark report on Maine's future was the puzzling perfusion of pessimism. (*Cough* Sorry 'bout that.)

The Brookings people apparently had a hard time understanding that, but I think I've got a handle on at least a small part of it. Aside from our general north-yankee grimness, Maine is witnessing a drastic change in the character of available work. Even imagining, for the moment, that you're capable of adapting to a service-oriented economy, where's the pride in that?

Compare working in a cube farm or for the tourist industry with logging or fishing, or even working at the mill. Especially for the logger or the fisherman, those are highly independent careers. Your reward is usually directly proportional to your capacity for hard work. And the modest income is augmented by a sense of accomplishment--having wrested something valuable from the forest or the sea. At the end of the day you're tired, not just worn down. You can be proud of that work in a way you just can't feel by looking at a sheet of call statistics. Take it from someone who has worked in a call center and as a carpenter.

The bigger drama in Maine industry has lately revolved around the fate of paper mills. Will they stay or will they go? Well, they're staying for now. For now. But with a tip of the hat to the folks at Thinking Beyond Tomorrow, I'd like to sound the strains of cautious optimism. (OK, it isn't "Fanfare for the Common Man" or anything. But it's better than a Requiem, right?)

A non-profit organization based in Rumford is looking for a site to develop a bio-oil refinery. The refinery would render bio-oil from forest products to, among other things generate electricity in a symbiotic plant next door. According to the Lewiston Sun-Journal:

The plant would be the first of several to eventually be built in Maine. Each would create at least 60 jobs for processing up to 900 tons of wood a day into bio-oil.

The oil helps to create electricity about as cleanly as natural gas in specially designed plants located near the refineries...

There's a lot of work to be done here, but, as I said, I'm cautiously optimistic. Not only might this become a part of Maine's growing capacity for alternative energy production, but it would buoy the forestry industry which has taken a hit as the paper mills have left.

According to Thinking Beyond Tomorrow, Democrats State Senator Bruce Bryant and State Rep John Patrick can be thanked for their role in encouraging these types of projects. Hopefully, they'll be on guard with respect to any pollutants created by the bio-oil refining process. That's part of the "caution" in my optimism.

In Perpetuity: It means FOREVER

Land conservation is a chancy thing. As Will Rogers said, "They ain't making any more of it." Land, that is. One of the better angels of our nature has been the desire to sock away the best of it--keep our own hands off it in recognition of the value it has, both intrinsically and to our own species. Open space is good for people; it is essential to itself.

But legal efforts to preserve the space are checkered with doubt. Witness the Bush administration's attempts to open the National Parks to logging (under the guise of preventing fires) and Bushco's successful efforts to redefine wilderness, effectively undoing much of the good of the Clinton years in preserving open space in the American west.

The fight for nature is a long retreat. But on the local level, small gains are sometimes realized by dedicated groups of citizens and local NGOs such as the Trust For Public Land. They work to buy up and then preserve open space threatened by the rapacious growth of our towns, cities, and far-flung "developments"--playgrounds and second homes for the rich. One of the main tools of that effort is the conservation easement. Today, a small group of Democratic lawmakers in Maine began an effort to shore-up the legal armour protecting easements.

Maine has pioneered the use of easements, especially those that protect working forests. The 763,000-acre conservation easement signed in 2001 on Pingree family timberlands across northern and western Maine remains the single largest private conservation deal in the nation.

Maine has 85 land trusts, and about 7.5 percent of the state is protected by easements, according to The Land Trust Alliance, a national organization that tracks conservation.

So we have an interest. The problem with easements (also the source of their flexibility) is that they are a private contract between the holder of the title to the land the the person or entity purchasing the easement. It falls on the purchaser to enforce the easement. As time goes by and property changes hands, future owners can effectively annul the easement if enforcement hasn't been regular or sufficient notice of its existence wasn't given. Where there is a public-use component to the easement, as there often is, consistent enforcement is especially important.

Assistant Attorney General and dedicated conservationist Jeff Pidot, whom I have been priveleged to meet, is handling the state's side of the matter.

Pidot has studied conservation easements in depth. He authored a report[pictured at left] in 2005 that called for reforms and led to a nearly completed review of Maine's law. "The whole purpose of all of this is to provide a legal means for ensuring that conservation easements deliver what people think they do," he said.

It's about keep track of things. Since "notice" is folded into "enforcement" from a legal standpoint, better record keeping means better enforcement.

This is an important step in preserving land for people. It also goes a long way toward preserving Maine's advantages in lifestyle that draw people and businesses to the state.

Also available at Turn Maine Blue.

Copping a Beer

City of Portland Politics Warning.

Been a host of zoning changes goin' on around here. All of it is targeted at preserving the 'liveability' of our fair city whilst permitting the inevitable growth. Managing retail expansion, IOW. Coming under review in this laudable effort to craft a great American city is the cost of policing Portland's "Old Port," a lovely section of town that used to be wharves and warehouses but is now home to small shops, restaurants, bars and clubs.

On Monday, the Old Port Night Life Task Force presented recommendations to the city council that would change the way fees are assessed and alter the zoning regulations for future development. A new boundary was proposed for the greater downtown area specifically for this licensing overlay, inside of which a rate hike for licenses tied to dancing, music and liquor permissions granted by the City. While the plan would raise the rates marginally for many restaurants and bars that are relatively far from the Old Port, some of the more notorious locales will see precipitous drops in their fees:

Councilor Edward Suslovic questioned why some restaurants would be tapped while the busy Pavilion nightclub on Middle Street would see its assessment for Old Port policing drop from $14,075 to $3,120. Suslovic also said he would support increasing license fees for 100 convenience stores and supermarkets citywide that sell "liquor to go."

Sixteen of the 24 business that pay the seat tax would see reductions in their overall fees. The Old Port Tavern, one of the biggest beneficiaries, would see its annual fees drop from $10,790 to $3,120. Fees would be adjusted annually to reflect fluctuations in the cost of extra police protection.

Essentially it's a flat tax for police protection (a meta-legislative issue: are we using fees in lieu of taxation--a subtlety seemingly picked up on only by Councilor Donoghue and the Task Force attorney), spread over an arbitrarily drawn area that seems to follow most closely the logic of a raindrop. I was also struck by just how little concern for governance some councilors evinced and how much a sense of district-provincialism was displayed.

After sitting in on the talk, without reading the report, I must say I oppose the plan.

One of the Task Force participants and Councilor Cohen felt that greater police presence is beneficial not just to the Old Port bars, but to everyone in the city who is open late. To me, this seems illogical and wrong on its face. As noted by Mr. Suslovic to the contrary, the police are drawn away from the outer districts to the downtown area, effectively leaving these places uncovered. Police are focused on the Old Port precisely because that's where the area of concern is.

It seems rather obvious that those who benefit from a service should be the ones to pay for it. That was the logic of the now-disfavored "seat tax." It is true that all of Portland benefits from the Old Port, and all of Portland benefits from Police protection. More germaine to this discussion, however, is the idea that if you're the source of the problem, you should be held accountable. The Old Port costs Portland. As some publicans are on record as saying, if you police yourselves, you don't need the Police. Last night I was thinking (not having a copy of the report to look at) that a GIS overlay of police calls, EMT calls and incidents reported with the location of bars, etc., could be a useful means of graduating a surcharge system for licenses.

For example: a basic, small hike in liquor license fees to everyone who sells it within city limits, including those that are takeaway places like Hannafords and RSVP or 7Eleven. Then, using the GIS overlay, tacking a surcharge on those locations manifestly responsible for the police/EMT calls--let's say a certain number of cents per call. This puts commerce at work for us by creating a purer econometric: the cost of doing business includes the cost incurred when your patrons are out of control. Call it the pollution model. We can figure out who costs Portland the most and we can make them absorb that cost. This creates a perfect incentive: police yourself effectively or pay us to do it for you.

Rates are assessed at license renewal based on the incidents reported in the prior year. A decrease amounts to a discount -- functionally a reward to doing better. I like this cost-sharing better than the flat-tax method proposed in the plan. It could have the added benefit of encouraging dispersal of venues as well, through simple economics: you know the OP attracts a high number of incidents and therefore a high cost for license. If you want to avoid that cost, establish elsewhere. No need for pesky 100 foot or 150 foot zoning regs that the Task Force proposes--the space will take care of itself. If a new business wants to open in the OP, take the average of the fee that is charged (or will be charged) to its two nearest neighbors--that's your starting surcharge.

The beauty of this system is that it can be applied city-wide. It fairly brings home the cost of policing a business to that business (Bubba's, let's say), without unfairly penalizing businesses that don't encourage that level of rowdiness (Thai Garden or King of the Roll, e.g.). And for businesses that argue that their area is generally rowdy even though not thanks to their patrons, the answer is, "that's the added cost of doing business in a location that is so beneficial to business. You profit from the very nature of the Old Port, help us keep it safe." It's also important to note that the money needed for the increased warm-weather policing ($61,000) amounts to a tiny fraction of the overall budget, about .02%

The Task Force plan is a windfall to bad actors. It has the opposite effect you'd want a regulation to have: rather than encouraging good behavior it effectively rewards indiscipline. It's imprecise where imprecision is unnecessary. And it is arbitrary, applying only to businesses within some conjured line. You've got to do better than that.

Photo of the Old Port (c) Dean Abramson, used without permission

IRV. Watch this space.

Buy your ex-rep a beer. It might get you into a decent conversation.

I was down at my local tonight (Ruski's) getting the final touches put on a nice warm feeling of EtOH inebriation and found John Eder (G) in a corner with some friends. I sent him a pint of PBR and earned myself a fine conversation on the potential benefits of Instant Run-off Voting (a system I heartily endorse).

Sadly, John was edged out in a fierce campaign by a local Dem (ah, the heart aches). But one of the things we chatted about was the general virtue of IRV. Watch this space for an entry that I hope will be as elucidating as my evening was inebreating.

(It took me about five minutes to type this. A good night.)

Tom Allen Officially Under Assault

According to the West End News (a small but usually accurate publication), Ethan Strimling has kick-started his campaign for Allen's seat:

Portland State Senator Ethan King Strimling has begun his campaign to run for the United States Congress. Strimling's campaign group met for the first time on November 8th, just eight days after Strimling won re-election to his third term in the Maine State Senate.
..."It's up and running," said Sive Neilan, Chair of the Portland Democratic City Committee, who praised Strimling's organization. "He's going to be the one to beat."

The District I seat in Congress is currently held by Congressman Tom Allen, who is expected to run for the US Senate in 2008 against Senator Susan Collins, but who has made no official announcement.

I don't know who the WEN people know, so this line has a bit of the "some say" vibe to it. (As in, "some say the terrorists have been rooting for a Democratic victory this year." Oh yeah? Who exactly said that? "Oh, you know. Some.") But it also seems concievable, especially to those of us who are already reading and writing posts like this one.

I think Allen would be smart to go after Collins, though he's a bit more in the DLC mold than I would like. Ok, a lot more. I'm reasonably sure that he was a Steny Hoyer supporter, for example. (That's but a small shred of evidence, however, as I can think of lots of reasons for favoring Hoyer over Murtha--tactical as well as prinicpled.) And folks have remarked on seening Allen in the second district a bit more, lately. Although I heard alot of that talk a couple of years ago, when some people thought he would challenge Snowe. If he eschewed that run to aim at Collins instead, that seems shrewd.

But this does raise the comprehensive victory/control issue. If Allen does pursue Collins, a new Democratic candidate needs to take his place in the House. I think Strimling would be an excellent choice. According to the WEN:

Strimling is the Director of Portland West, and Board President of A Rising Tide, a training program for young people (under 35) interested in politics. Newly-elected West End School Committee member Robert O'Brien is a graduate of the program.

I've been more than happy to cast my ballot for Strimling twice in the past. As his record indicates, he's a man intimately connected with the community in which he serves. Portland West also has the distinction in Maine of working closely with a minority immigrant population and its offices have been a focal point of community building on Brackett Street for some time. Newly elected city councilman David Marshall sprang from that incubator of community building himself. Strimling has also proven himself an able legislator, pushing though legislation that benefits alternative energy, enhances protection for victims of domestic violence, aids immigrants--straight progress policy. He's even delved into international affairs, drafting legislation that would require the State of Maine to divest from Sudan.

So, even if Allen doesn't jump after Collins (which he should), Strimling will give him a run for his money. According to WEN, former State Senator Michael Brennan and for State House Speaker John Richardson are also expected to challenge Allen. At least, "that's what some say."

Cross-posted at TurnMaineBlue.com

Joe Sucks, but Snowe won't go

So. There's been a fair amount of bloviating in the liberal blogosphere about the possibility that Joe Leiberman (CFL-CT) may caucus with the GoP. Some people out there seem to think there's a possibility that one of the more "moderate" senators from the GoP might be persuaded to cross the aisle and caucus with the Dems -- much in the mold of the Vermont Independent, Jim Jeffords.

Some of that speculation has centered on Maine's two "moderate" senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Well, folks, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that ain't happening. Check out this story on Snowe and Collins I originally posted on Dailykos for a rundown on why.

One caveat--in the original story I wrote that Snowe voted against Alito. Not true. But the rest of it is good and, I think, correct.

The upshot, from my point of view, of these mid-terms is that as progressives we've effectively doubled our workload: we've got to ride herd on both the majority and the executive now, not just the GoP. Things have just gotten started.