What follows is a copy of a faxed communication sent to the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) challenging the legal authority of both Bangor Hydro Electric (BHE) and the MPUC to issue any Stranded Cost rate increases to be paid by Maine ratepayers (residents and businesses in Maine). These Stranded Cost rate increases have been granted by the MPUC ever since the BHE hydro generating powers (and BHE) were sold to EMERA, a Canadian corporation, ten years ago.
***
STATE OF MAINE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
BANGOR HYDRO-ELECTRIC COMPANY
Investigation into Bangor Hydro's
Stranded Cost Revenue Requirement and Rates
Docket No. 2010-377
MARCH 7, 2011
INTERVENOR
RESPONSE
BHE was purchased outright by Canadian Company, Emera Corp. almost ten years ago. Therefore, it is a pretty fiction to pretend that Bangor Hydro Electric ratepayers can be forced to pay Stranded Costs under USA FERC RULES and State of Maine Statute.
Instead Canadian rules and statutes apply. (refer to Intervenor's exhibits faxed to PUC & N. Healy 3-6-11)
(History:) After USA nationwide deregulation, it is estimated that $200 Billion of Stranded Costs were owed by United States' utilities companies. In order to prevent a massive transfer of wealth from shareholders to consumers, the US utilities' industry was given Federal Regulatory Commission permission to shift their bad debts onto US ratepayers. State statutes were then promulgated to enforce this.
But this is cold comfort for BHE because they were sold. They are NOT an American company. They are EMERA. Emera is a corporation of Canada. Emera is responsible for BHE's bad debts ever since the buyout. (Meaning: EMERA should have become responsible for any BHE debts at that point.) BHE cannot lawfully continue to issue more shares and deny to its State of Maine ratepayers all the protections and benefits that all the other Emera electricity ratepayers enjoy. (The) Stranded Cost rate setting in (case) 2010-377 before Maine PUC is (therefore)illegal.
Therefore, I oppose the net 1% rate decrease in 2010-377. I am writing in Response to the telephone call from Bangor Hydro Electric Company's attorney, Nora Healy, that I received on Friday night, March 4, 2011. In it she mentioned the net one per cent figure. A 14% rate decrease granted to other Emera ratepayers would be more appropriate at this time.
(Signed) Helen Patterson
33 Henderson St, Brownville, ME 04414
***
Why is this important to Maine ratepayers?
If the federal statute applies, ALL of the BHE Stranded Cost rate increases, which the MPUC has approved these past several years, may well be illegal. It would mean the ratepayers have been overcharged for delivery and transmission of electrical power.
If that is the case, Maine ratepayers are owed significant refunds and both BHE and the MPUC are in trouble.
Why has the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA) stayed silent on this issue when it has been raised in this case? The OPA is charged with being an advocate for the people's interest.
It has been proposed that the State of Maine's pension fund holds a significant number of BHE shares (and BHE issues thousands of additional shares annually). If BHE/EMERA had to refund the ratepayers the millions of dollars it has collected these last ten years in Stranded Cost rates, what would that do to the already indebted pension fund for state employees and teachers?
On the other hand, IF the state pension fund does hold BHE/EMERA stock-shares, could that be the reason why the OPA is not arguing the issue of illegal collection of Stranded Cost rates?
Would that not be a Conflict of Interest?
Would it not continue to be a Conflict of Interest if the case were taken to the office of the Maine Attorney General?
IF the federal statute referenced in Ms. Patterson's statement applies to BHE/EMERA, the only course for Maine ratepayers may be to file a complaint on behalf of the ratepayes with the Federal Appeals Court.
This case will be coming to some kind of a head at a PUBLIC HEARING in Bangor soon and BHE ratepayers from throughout the region should plan to attend and speak up. The time, date and place will be posted here so keep reading.
Something to Consider: If responsible people had spoken up four and five years ago, Wall Street Bankers and Investment firms would have been stopped in their tracks before they drove this country to its knees three years ago. Maine's financial recovery cannot happen while the price of delivering purchased energy continues to break the backs of both residents and businesses trying to live and survive in this state. Nor should Maine's people be forced to serve as pack animals to carry the burden of mismanagement and self-serving organizations whose licenses-to-operate require they serve the public good.
Maine people used to be known for their backbone and independence. Time to find it. Act like sheep - be treated like sheep. Speak up - or be silenced.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
THE LATEST REVOLUTION - RIGHT HERE IN MAINE
In the mailbag this morning:
"2010-305 is a CMP Stranded Cost Case run by Ben Smith simultaneous to 2010-377, the case dealing with Bangor Hydro Electric's proposed rate increase that several residents and the Maine Office of the Public Advocate are challenging.
The procedures (for the CMP case referenced above) are exactly the same as in 2010-377, the case against BHE proposed rate hike, - telephone conferences, hasty premature agreements to Stipulations, you name it. They're doing it all the same. It's weird!"
The Governor will have the opportunity to appoint a new Commissioner after April 1 when one of the seats becomes vacant. Hopefully, the new Commissioner will take a strong stand for business in Maine which means at least preventing any increase in utility rates. Better yet - reduce them. When the Governor said in his Inaugural Address that it was time to put people before politics, we can only hope he also meant putting survival before greed.
Some of the Intervenors in the Bangor Hydro case, of which this writer is one, have already notified the Commission (via the appointed and taxpayer paid Hearing Examiner, Ben Smith) they will not agree to the current stipulated settlement on the table. We want this case to go before the full board of Commissioners. It is unlikely the case could be conducted until after April 1, 2011.
We want to give the ratepayers a chance to be heard. That includes year-round residents who may be living on fixed incomes (while Social Security does not recognize the "inflated cost of living" we experience here in Maine).
It also includes businesses like Lemforder who closed up shop in Brewer after five years because they were paying 5 cents/kilowatt doing business in Virginia but 16 cents/kilowatt in Brewer,ME (Bangor Hydro Electric rates).
If the Governor wants to turn the business environment around in this state, he must resolve the ever-increasing costs of electricity and power. That begins with BHE and CMP and the position that has become entrenched at the MPUC - that annual rate hikes are acceptable.
One Intervenor believes "The reason for making the ratepayers pay utilities bad debts is $200 billion in stranded costs are left over from nationwide deregulation. It would be a massive transfer of wealth from shareholders to consumers if the utilities (companies) were forced to pay their own bad debts." Just TARP all over again. Didn't we learn that wasn't such a great idea?
She has a point if one looks at some of the "justification" points BHE used initially for the proposed rate hike currently under review.
For instance: Why should Maine ratepayers be responsible for the "unfunded pension liability of BHE employees"?
A question all Maine voters should be addressing to their state representatives and senators: Did the Maine Legislature REQUIRE BHE to sell off their generating power sources back in 2000? (That is a gem of information one of the BHE attorneys stated to this writer in a recent telephone call. Supposedly the rationale was that a free market would reduce utility rates.) Or could the "gem" have been to transfer my irritation at BHE's greed? All I have seen is rates for "delivery" of my kilowatt usage go UP year after year until they now exceed the cost of the kilowatts used.
Write to Governor LePage and URGE him to appoint a new PUC Commissioner who will be an advocate for the people and businesses of Maine. http://www.lepage2010.com
As to BHE's rush for a settlement, knowing that many of the Intervenors' issues have not been resolved, perhaps it is because BHE does not want this case to go to trial before the full Board of Commissioners. With the current environment and political administration, there might be some justice for Maine's people and businesses if all this information was exposed under the bright light of public scrutiny.
"2010-305 is a CMP Stranded Cost Case run by Ben Smith simultaneous to 2010-377, the case dealing with Bangor Hydro Electric's proposed rate increase that several residents and the Maine Office of the Public Advocate are challenging.
The procedures (for the CMP case referenced above) are exactly the same as in 2010-377, the case against BHE proposed rate hike, - telephone conferences, hasty premature agreements to Stipulations, you name it. They're doing it all the same. It's weird!"
The Governor will have the opportunity to appoint a new Commissioner after April 1 when one of the seats becomes vacant. Hopefully, the new Commissioner will take a strong stand for business in Maine which means at least preventing any increase in utility rates. Better yet - reduce them. When the Governor said in his Inaugural Address that it was time to put people before politics, we can only hope he also meant putting survival before greed.
Some of the Intervenors in the Bangor Hydro case, of which this writer is one, have already notified the Commission (via the appointed and taxpayer paid Hearing Examiner, Ben Smith) they will not agree to the current stipulated settlement on the table. We want this case to go before the full board of Commissioners. It is unlikely the case could be conducted until after April 1, 2011.
We want to give the ratepayers a chance to be heard. That includes year-round residents who may be living on fixed incomes (while Social Security does not recognize the "inflated cost of living" we experience here in Maine).
It also includes businesses like Lemforder who closed up shop in Brewer after five years because they were paying 5 cents/kilowatt doing business in Virginia but 16 cents/kilowatt in Brewer,ME (Bangor Hydro Electric rates).
If the Governor wants to turn the business environment around in this state, he must resolve the ever-increasing costs of electricity and power. That begins with BHE and CMP and the position that has become entrenched at the MPUC - that annual rate hikes are acceptable.
One Intervenor believes "The reason for making the ratepayers pay utilities bad debts is $200 billion in stranded costs are left over from nationwide deregulation. It would be a massive transfer of wealth from shareholders to consumers if the utilities (companies) were forced to pay their own bad debts." Just TARP all over again. Didn't we learn that wasn't such a great idea?
She has a point if one looks at some of the "justification" points BHE used initially for the proposed rate hike currently under review.
For instance: Why should Maine ratepayers be responsible for the "unfunded pension liability of BHE employees"?
A question all Maine voters should be addressing to their state representatives and senators: Did the Maine Legislature REQUIRE BHE to sell off their generating power sources back in 2000? (That is a gem of information one of the BHE attorneys stated to this writer in a recent telephone call. Supposedly the rationale was that a free market would reduce utility rates.) Or could the "gem" have been to transfer my irritation at BHE's greed? All I have seen is rates for "delivery" of my kilowatt usage go UP year after year until they now exceed the cost of the kilowatts used.
Write to Governor LePage and URGE him to appoint a new PUC Commissioner who will be an advocate for the people and businesses of Maine. http://www.lepage2010.com
As to BHE's rush for a settlement, knowing that many of the Intervenors' issues have not been resolved, perhaps it is because BHE does not want this case to go to trial before the full Board of Commissioners. With the current environment and political administration, there might be some justice for Maine's people and businesses if all this information was exposed under the bright light of public scrutiny.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
THIS WEEK'S PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED 2011-2012 TOWN BUDGET
The Public Hearing will begin at 6pm at the Eddington Town Office according to the sign in front of the Town Office. The second/follow-up Public Hearing will be conducted March 15 and will also commence at 6pm. Anyone planning to attend the Town Meeting, where the budget will be voted on, should attend at least one of these Public Hearings - both is better.
PROTECTIONS PROVIDED IN PROPOSED WIND ORDINANCE
The Eddington Planning Board's proposed Wind Energy Facility Ordinance, which will be voted on (Accept or Reject - maybe with amendments should any be introduced at the Annual Town Meeting) does contain some "protection" against abandoned non-functioning wind towers, should any company ever meet the strict/conservative requirements within the bill.
Individuals planning on voting on the issue should obtain a copy of the proposed ordinance before the March 22 Town Meeting. The "protection" is within Section 105.14 "Decommissioning and Site Restoration Plan and Requirements."
Individuals planning on voting on the issue should obtain a copy of the proposed ordinance before the March 22 Town Meeting. The "protection" is within Section 105.14 "Decommissioning and Site Restoration Plan and Requirements."
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
PUBLIC HEARINGS IN PREPARATION FOR UPCOMING TOWN MEETING - 2011/2012 TOWN BUDGET
There will be two Public Hearings at the Town Office, March 8 and 15, during which the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen will be going over the proposed 2011-2012 Town Budget.
Based on this writer's previous experiences, it's a good idea for voters to attend BOTH Public Hearings. Frequently, issues are raised at the first meeting that need to be corrected or "fixed." Depending on whether or not the materials for the Town Meeting have already gone out for printing at the time of the Public Hearing, those corrections may not show up in the Town Meeting documents. Unless the voters actually know about the errors or corrections needed, they may not point them out and require the changes before voting.
The same issues need to be addressed at the second Public Hearing because there may be people in attendance who were not at the first Public Hearing - for the same reasons.
The Public Hearings are the ONLY opportunity to hear the explanations and understand the proposed budget and individual line items in the different sections. This is particularly important because the format used at the Public Hearing is not the same as the one used for the Town Meeting when the voting takes place. And there is no explanation and discussion provided at the Town Meeting UNLESS THE PEOPLE INSIST on them.
This is why voters should like to take their "crib notes" from the Public Hearing to the Town Meeting. Town Meeting is all about how YOUR tax money is going to be spent, people.
AS A SIDE NOTE: It would be wonderful if the candidates for the School Board were in attendance at both Public Hearings - even more so if they were given the opportunity AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING (because no one sticks around for the last five minutes) to introduce themselves and give a brief presentation. Of course people may need to really push the idea on the Selectmen (and the Chair in particular) to do this. But it will be the ONLY OPPORTUNITY for the largest number of people (the only gathering of people inclined to vote) to "meet the candidates."
What harm can a little civic responsibility do where so few actually turn out and vote in a local election? The vote at the Town Meeting and the vote to accept (or reject) the school budget are the ONLY TWO VOTES where town residents directly decide where their tax money is going to be spent and how much tax money is going to be collected.
You can turn out to vote for the President of the United States but how much direct impact do you really have on what that person does? Minute. Your vote for your local town budget and school district budget is as close as you will ever have in making a real tax/fiscal difference.
Think about it. Become informed on the issues and costs. Then - VOTE.
Based on this writer's previous experiences, it's a good idea for voters to attend BOTH Public Hearings. Frequently, issues are raised at the first meeting that need to be corrected or "fixed." Depending on whether or not the materials for the Town Meeting have already gone out for printing at the time of the Public Hearing, those corrections may not show up in the Town Meeting documents. Unless the voters actually know about the errors or corrections needed, they may not point them out and require the changes before voting.
The same issues need to be addressed at the second Public Hearing because there may be people in attendance who were not at the first Public Hearing - for the same reasons.
The Public Hearings are the ONLY opportunity to hear the explanations and understand the proposed budget and individual line items in the different sections. This is particularly important because the format used at the Public Hearing is not the same as the one used for the Town Meeting when the voting takes place. And there is no explanation and discussion provided at the Town Meeting UNLESS THE PEOPLE INSIST on them.
This is why voters should like to take their "crib notes" from the Public Hearing to the Town Meeting. Town Meeting is all about how YOUR tax money is going to be spent, people.
AS A SIDE NOTE: It would be wonderful if the candidates for the School Board were in attendance at both Public Hearings - even more so if they were given the opportunity AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING (because no one sticks around for the last five minutes) to introduce themselves and give a brief presentation. Of course people may need to really push the idea on the Selectmen (and the Chair in particular) to do this. But it will be the ONLY OPPORTUNITY for the largest number of people (the only gathering of people inclined to vote) to "meet the candidates."
What harm can a little civic responsibility do where so few actually turn out and vote in a local election? The vote at the Town Meeting and the vote to accept (or reject) the school budget are the ONLY TWO VOTES where town residents directly decide where their tax money is going to be spent and how much tax money is going to be collected.
You can turn out to vote for the President of the United States but how much direct impact do you really have on what that person does? Minute. Your vote for your local town budget and school district budget is as close as you will ever have in making a real tax/fiscal difference.
Think about it. Become informed on the issues and costs. Then - VOTE.
Monday, February 28, 2011
UPCOMING LOCAL EDDINGTON ELECTIONS
The candidates papers must be in; they were due February 4.
There are two three-year positions for the Board of Selectmen. We can expect Don Goodwin and Joan Brooks are running again for the positions they have held for years. If they have no opposition, no reason to think they won't both be re-elected. Just as there's no reason to believe Joan won't be made Chair again. The earth turns.
Then there are two vacant School Board positions: One three-year position and one two-year position to represent Eddington on the more-or-less AOS 63 School Board (the two-year position is to fill out the one previously held by Karen Clark who moved out of town and is no longer eligible). The three-year position has been held by Pam Dorr who chose not to run for re-election.
This writer has heard there were two, and maybe three, individuals considering running. Their names are unfamiliar. All three appeared to be men.
Tomorrow night, March 1, will probably be the last Selectmen's meeting before the elections scheduled for March 21 (the Town Meeting is scheduled for 7:30 the following night at the Eddington Elementary School).
Unless the candidates for any of the positions plan to put out some kind of mailer, which is unlikely, what will be the basis for any votes cast?
*Has anyone seen any information regarding the qualifications of any candidate posted anywhere? Perhaps the government access channel (cable channel 7), which is prepared and posed by staff at the Eddington Town Office? Could be done, but doubtful it will be.
*Has there ever been anything printed on any ballot regarding any candidate other than his/her name and the office which s/he is seeking? It's done in other states, but I've never seen anything here in Eddington.
There was one candidate three years ago who mailed out postcards to over 300 registered Eddington voters. That same candidate successfully argued with the Board of Selectmen to hold a Candidates Night so candidates could present their qualifications and interest in running for the positions being sought. People who attended were able to ask the candidates questions and hear the candidates' positions on relevant issues. It wasn't a perfect solution but it was better than nothing, which is the norm.
The average School Board member in Eddington, where there are over 2,000 registered voters, is elected with less than 50 votes. Sometimes significantly less than 50 votes. The election of Selectmen don't fare much better. And yet, of the property taxes collected, 56 percent (a higher percentage will be the case in years to come) goes to pay for the School District budget.
This writer is a witness to the fact that the people who vote for the town's representative to the School Board NEVER attend School Board meetings and NEVER observe how their School Board members represent the town's voters and property owners.
There will be some who will argue the School Board members are there to manage the school district. They are wrong. That is the function of the District Superintendent.
The responsibility of the School Board is to hold the District Superintendent accountable for adhering to the District's policies and procedures - and to represent the best interest of the district's taxpayers. That is why each of the towns in the district has its own representative(s) on the Board. (It is the duty of the District Superintendent to supervises the District Central Office, which includes the District's Business Manager, and the District's school principals. The school principals supervise the teachers.)
But how do we, the voters, know which, if any of the candidates running from Eddington for the School Board are qualified or capable for the positions they are seeking?
*Do we know them? I don't.
*Do we know their educational or professional backgrounds? I don't.
Maybe they are good and honest people. That doesn't tell me anything about their abilities to do the job.
*Have they reviewed the requirements of the positions?
Do they know they will be required to participate on at least two committees, in addition to attending School Board meetings?
Are they willing to learn AND CHALLENGE, if need be, each and every line item in the monthly budget and finance reports, even if they are not on that committee?
Are they willing to hold both the District Superintendent AND the Business Manager accountable if (A) the monthly budget and finance reports are not produced and submitted on time? (B) the expenditures and explanations are not acceptable, logical or understandable? and (C) the Annual Audit documents are not ready for the Auditors by September 1 of each year?
The Bottom Line: The Controlling Bodies in Eddington (the Board of Selectmen, the Planning Board, and the three representatives on the School Board) have never shown any interest in finding out why there is a declining interest in voter participation in local issues. Surveys are resisted, but what else do we have?
*There is no local newspaper.
*A lot of people live in areas where they don't receive cable television (or can't afford it).
*Many of the older people in town don't have (or don't want - or don't know how to operate) a computer.
*The Post Office will only post legal and official notices.
*Notices are posted at the Tradewinds and the Eddington Store but many residents don't frequent those businesses on a regular basis.
Other than for national or state elections with high profile issues or candidates, there is a low voter turnout in Eddington.
Look at the number of people who turned out overall for the two Public Hearings regarding the proposed Wind Ordinance that will be voted on at the March 22 Town Meeting (see previous posting for more information), or the Public Hearings on the grant request for the Fire Department.
The lighted sign in front of the Town Office/Fire Department is blank most of the time. The Fire Department uses it more than the Town Office (other than for birthday greetings).
Last year there were fewer than 200 people at the Town Meeting. There may not be more than that number this year. The voting for these four offices on March 21 will probably generate fewer than 100.
In truth, how can anyone cast a vote for a name when the voter doesn't know what the name represents? Does a responsible citizen vote for a NAME when the citizen knows nothing about what is behind the name?
This citizen doesn't.
There are two three-year positions for the Board of Selectmen. We can expect Don Goodwin and Joan Brooks are running again for the positions they have held for years. If they have no opposition, no reason to think they won't both be re-elected. Just as there's no reason to believe Joan won't be made Chair again. The earth turns.
Then there are two vacant School Board positions: One three-year position and one two-year position to represent Eddington on the more-or-less AOS 63 School Board (the two-year position is to fill out the one previously held by Karen Clark who moved out of town and is no longer eligible). The three-year position has been held by Pam Dorr who chose not to run for re-election.
This writer has heard there were two, and maybe three, individuals considering running. Their names are unfamiliar. All three appeared to be men.
Tomorrow night, March 1, will probably be the last Selectmen's meeting before the elections scheduled for March 21 (the Town Meeting is scheduled for 7:30 the following night at the Eddington Elementary School).
Unless the candidates for any of the positions plan to put out some kind of mailer, which is unlikely, what will be the basis for any votes cast?
*Has anyone seen any information regarding the qualifications of any candidate posted anywhere? Perhaps the government access channel (cable channel 7), which is prepared and posed by staff at the Eddington Town Office? Could be done, but doubtful it will be.
*Has there ever been anything printed on any ballot regarding any candidate other than his/her name and the office which s/he is seeking? It's done in other states, but I've never seen anything here in Eddington.
There was one candidate three years ago who mailed out postcards to over 300 registered Eddington voters. That same candidate successfully argued with the Board of Selectmen to hold a Candidates Night so candidates could present their qualifications and interest in running for the positions being sought. People who attended were able to ask the candidates questions and hear the candidates' positions on relevant issues. It wasn't a perfect solution but it was better than nothing, which is the norm.
The average School Board member in Eddington, where there are over 2,000 registered voters, is elected with less than 50 votes. Sometimes significantly less than 50 votes. The election of Selectmen don't fare much better. And yet, of the property taxes collected, 56 percent (a higher percentage will be the case in years to come) goes to pay for the School District budget.
This writer is a witness to the fact that the people who vote for the town's representative to the School Board NEVER attend School Board meetings and NEVER observe how their School Board members represent the town's voters and property owners.
There will be some who will argue the School Board members are there to manage the school district. They are wrong. That is the function of the District Superintendent.
The responsibility of the School Board is to hold the District Superintendent accountable for adhering to the District's policies and procedures - and to represent the best interest of the district's taxpayers. That is why each of the towns in the district has its own representative(s) on the Board. (It is the duty of the District Superintendent to supervises the District Central Office, which includes the District's Business Manager, and the District's school principals. The school principals supervise the teachers.)
But how do we, the voters, know which, if any of the candidates running from Eddington for the School Board are qualified or capable for the positions they are seeking?
*Do we know them? I don't.
*Do we know their educational or professional backgrounds? I don't.
Maybe they are good and honest people. That doesn't tell me anything about their abilities to do the job.
*Have they reviewed the requirements of the positions?
Do they know they will be required to participate on at least two committees, in addition to attending School Board meetings?
Are they willing to learn AND CHALLENGE, if need be, each and every line item in the monthly budget and finance reports, even if they are not on that committee?
Are they willing to hold both the District Superintendent AND the Business Manager accountable if (A) the monthly budget and finance reports are not produced and submitted on time? (B) the expenditures and explanations are not acceptable, logical or understandable? and (C) the Annual Audit documents are not ready for the Auditors by September 1 of each year?
The Bottom Line: The Controlling Bodies in Eddington (the Board of Selectmen, the Planning Board, and the three representatives on the School Board) have never shown any interest in finding out why there is a declining interest in voter participation in local issues. Surveys are resisted, but what else do we have?
*There is no local newspaper.
*A lot of people live in areas where they don't receive cable television (or can't afford it).
*Many of the older people in town don't have (or don't want - or don't know how to operate) a computer.
*The Post Office will only post legal and official notices.
*Notices are posted at the Tradewinds and the Eddington Store but many residents don't frequent those businesses on a regular basis.
Other than for national or state elections with high profile issues or candidates, there is a low voter turnout in Eddington.
Look at the number of people who turned out overall for the two Public Hearings regarding the proposed Wind Ordinance that will be voted on at the March 22 Town Meeting (see previous posting for more information), or the Public Hearings on the grant request for the Fire Department.
The lighted sign in front of the Town Office/Fire Department is blank most of the time. The Fire Department uses it more than the Town Office (other than for birthday greetings).
Last year there were fewer than 200 people at the Town Meeting. There may not be more than that number this year. The voting for these four offices on March 21 will probably generate fewer than 100.
In truth, how can anyone cast a vote for a name when the voter doesn't know what the name represents? Does a responsible citizen vote for a NAME when the citizen knows nothing about what is behind the name?
This citizen doesn't.
Friday, February 18, 2011
GOOD NEWS FOR BANGOR AND BORDERS - AND AMAZON IS ON THE MOVE
In my email news bag today, there was good news for Bangor's Borders Bookstore. It is NOT on the Hatchet List. Yahoo. The complete list for the USA, from Alaska to Hawaii was included. Nothing listed for the state of Maine. I have no idea how many Borders stores there are in Maine, but however many there are - none are on the list. Good news for us.
Another piece of book news that could relate to Maine is that the state of Texas decided to go after Amazon.com for $270 Million in taxes. Seems the distribution center for Amazon.com is located in Austin, Texas. Guess what? Amazon.com is moving that distribution center out of Texas. Not only will the state not collect those taxes, they won't be collecting any payroll taxes from the individuals who were working at the distribution center. Worthy of note: Texas does not have a state income tax. Maybe the state of Maine should consider marketing a business opportunity to Amazon.com. Of course that might require the Maine Public Utilities Commission to rein in utility costs across the state. Anyone still believe in Christmas miracles around here?
Another piece of book news that could relate to Maine is that the state of Texas decided to go after Amazon.com for $270 Million in taxes. Seems the distribution center for Amazon.com is located in Austin, Texas. Guess what? Amazon.com is moving that distribution center out of Texas. Not only will the state not collect those taxes, they won't be collecting any payroll taxes from the individuals who were working at the distribution center. Worthy of note: Texas does not have a state income tax. Maybe the state of Maine should consider marketing a business opportunity to Amazon.com. Of course that might require the Maine Public Utilities Commission to rein in utility costs across the state. Anyone still believe in Christmas miracles around here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
