Signs, library donations draw council concern

Published in the Current

CAPE ELIZABETH (Aug 11, 2005): Members of the Cape Elizabeth Town Council have expressed reservations about a proposed agreement with a new charity that supports the Thomas Memorial Library, and about the town’s sign ordinance.

At Monday’s meeting, the council scheduled for Monday, Sept. 12, at 7:30 p.m. a public hearing for changes to the sign ordinance, despite concerns about the rules from Councilors Michael Mowles and Carol Fritz.

Mowles, who supported the move for a public hearing, called the sign ordinance “rather restrictive." He said it "impinges on our right to free speech in certain areas.”

Fritz wanted the sign ordinance to be considered by the Planning Board to “have signs be in keeping with the town character.”

Councilor Jack Roberts said the revisions mostly clarified the language to specify the maximum area of each side of a sign, in the wake of last year’s election, when unclear language was exploited by some candidates to make campaign signs larger than town officials wanted.

Another provision removed a limit on the total area of signs on town-owned property, to allow directional and informational signs at the transfer station and Fort Williams Park, according to Town Manager Mike McGovern.

Signs on those properties violate the existing ordinance, which limits signs on town-owned property to a total combined area of 100 square feet. Those large spaces, with multiple possible destinations, need more signs to help people get around, McGovern said.

McGovern will meet with both Fritz and Mowles, and said “there are constitutional questions with any sign ordinance … It wouldn’t hurt to have a review in that context.”

Councilors also were concerned about a proposed agreement with a new charity, the Thomas Memorial Library Foundation, in the wake of a disagreement between councilors and leaders of another charity supporting a major town operation, the Fort Williams Charitable Foundation.

McGovern said the agreement needed to be in place so town and library foundation leaders can properly allocate donations made by community members. The town owns the library building and employs its staff. The foundation would raise money to donate to the town from time to time, in support of library activities. The town also accepts donations toward library operations costs from other private citizens and organizations.

Councilor Mary Ann Lynch said she had “some concerns, which I think have increased over the past few weeks,” and worried about some printed materials directing members of the Friends of Thomas Memorial Library to donate to the foundation rather than to the town.

Lynch, who said she helped revitalize the Friends group about 20 years ago, asked for the council to discuss the matter more fully at a workshop with the foundation directors before approving the arrangement.

Several councilors expressed concern about the possibility of a conflict between the town and the foundation, if each were pushing the library in a different direction. That is similar to the recent push by the Fort Williams Charitable Foundation to get the town to grant a permanent easement over the fort property to a local land trust, a move resisted by the town, which says the park is fully protected under existing agreements.

Library Director Jay Scherma said he had no problem with the foundation and the town working together.

“I personally don’t perceive a conflict. It’s clear to me that I am an employee of the town. … I answer to the town manager,” he said. “Foundations have become part and parcel of what is almost expected or de rigeur in the library community.”

He said the Friends group had never formally filed for tax-exempt status, and the foundation was taking over. “The Friends are being subsumed under the foundation,” he said.

McGovern said he would sign the agreement as an administrative action so there is a temporary agreement in place until the council can act on the matter.

Dogs to be election issue

Published in the Current

SOUTH PORTLAND (Aug 11, 2005): Dogs are shaping up to be an election issue in South Portland, with a proponent of dogs on Willard Beach planning to run against a dog-control advocate for the City Council District 1 seat.

David Bourke, who has asked the police department to enforce literally the city ordinance's requirement that dogs not on leashes be "at heel," has taken out nominating papers for the seat being vacated by David Jacobs.

Also taking out papers was Claude Morgan, president of the South Portland Dog Owners Group, who has worked to revise city laws to allow dogs in public spaces.

Paul Nixon, who failed to defeat incumbent Larry Bliss for a Statehouse seat last year, has also taken out papers for the seat. He is in his second term on the city's Planning Board.

For District 2, R. Anton Hoecker has taken out papers, as has incumbent Thomas Maietta.

For District 5, Brian Dearborn, a member of the Community Development Advisory Committee, has taken out papers to run against incumbent James Hughes, who has also taken out papers to run for what would be his second term.

For School Board, incumbent Chairman Mark Reuscher has taken out papers to run again, and William Harris, a member of the Conservation Commission, has as well. Two seats are vacant. Incumbent Lori Bowring Michaud had not taken out papers as of Wednesday.

For the Portland Water District seat representing South Portland and Cape Elizabeth, incumbent John Brady has taken out nominating papers.

Nominating papers are now available from the city clerk's office. Completed forms can be filed no sooner than Aug. 29 but no later than Sept. 12, for the Nov. 8 election.

Clarification Aug. 16:
The position held by David Bourke about dogs' access to public spaces was improperly characterized in last week's issue, in a Page 5 article about candidates for City Council. On Aug. 8, at the City Council workshop, Bourke reversed his earlier position. He now supports the proposal of a city task force studying the issue, which would change the dogs ordinance and then provide enforcement of the changed law.

Wheelchair athletes roll to the finish

Published in the Current

(Aug 11, 2005): The first racer across the finish line at Fort Williams Park Saturday was a wheelchair athlete, Tony Nogueira, who won the race for the sixth time, in 0:25:35, a 4:07 mile pace.

The wheelchairs reach speeds of about 30 mph, according to Peter Hawkins, who finished seventh in the division, in 0:31:57.

Hawkins and six others, including Nogueira, second-place Kamel Ayari (0:26:31) and Erik Corbett (fifth, in 0:29:07), spent the night before the race and the night after at a Cape Elizabeth assisted-living home, which opened its spare rooms at no charge to the racers, who needed wheelchair-accessible bathrooms and eating facilities.

Those are hard to find in private homes in Cape Elizabeth, where many out-of-town runners stay, but Village Crossings at Cape Elizabeth on Scott Dyer Road had just renovated several rooms, which were slated to be vacant while work finished up.

David Rogers, assistant executive director at Village Crossings, said the building had the space and it seemed to fit a need. Some years as many as 12 wheelchair racers have competed, according to Russ Connors, a Cape resident who coordinates their arrangements.

The stay at Village Crossings was a good change for Erik Corbett, 25, of Methuen, Mass., who drove up from his home early in the morning of race day 2004, rather than struggling to get ready in unfamiliar and difficult surroundings. This year, he got to “sleep in,” he said, because he was already in town, in accessible accommodations.

Hawkins, a Long Island native who drove up Friday in his van, and gave his friend Ayari a lift, participates in several races each year. He likes the Beach to Beacon for the workout.

“It’s a challenge because it’s not flat,” he said. But the hills also bring risk: “The most dangerous part is when you go down into the park,” heading downhill at top speed into a sharp right turn in toward the finish line.

Hawkins has been racing in his wheelchair for nearly 20 years now. “You have the opportunity to race almost every week,” he said.

He was paralyzed in a car crash during his senior year in high school. Hawkins, the captain of his school’s football team and a member of the lacrosse team, was sleeping in the passenger seat of a car whose driver was drunk.

Hawkins said it took him several years to get into wheelchair athletics after his accident, and he also had to adjust to an individual sport, in which he can compete against himself, from a team-sport mindset, in which winning is everything.

The biggest wheelchair race in the world is the Oita International Wheelchair Marathon in Japan, which attracts as many as 500 racers from around the world. In the 2004 race, Hawkins finished 74th, with a time of 2:05:59.

More than 100 wheelchair athletes compete in the New York City Marathon, which is where Ayari met his wife after winning the 2000 race. She asked for his autograph at the finish line, and he asked for her phone number.

Hawkins calls Ayari and others, who are professional racers rolling for a living “big-time athletes,” who are “as good an athlete” as the runners in the races.

Ayari, a native of Tunisia, North Africa, now living in New York said his wheelchair – all the racers’ chairs are custom-made – costs about $5,000, and when a tire blows that costs him another $150. A blowout happened in last year’s Beach to Beacon, during the rain squall that hit during the race. Ayari was able to change the tire and still finished third.

Though the wheelchair itself weighs only about 25 pounds, with the 135-pound Ayari aboard, it’s hard work. “You have to push all the weight with your fingers,” he said.

But for him it is work. He is sponsored by a wheelchair manufacturer and races for the prize money. He will be in the Falmouth Road Race on Cape Cod next weekend, and wants to do well there too.

“I’m not looking to come to the race just to have fun,” said Ayari.

Fort Williams fees on the way

Published in the Current

CAPE ELIZABETH (Aug 11, 2005): With the Cape Elizabeth Town Council poised to look at a new report on fees at Fort Williams, November's election could decide whether visitors to the park will pay admission.

Although fees at the park have been shot down repeatedly in the past, a majority of councilors now say they either support fees or are at least open to the idea.

Two sitting councilors are in favor of fees at the park. In interviews with the Current, one additional councilor said he is “likely to favor” them and two others said they are considering the idea.

The remaining two oppose fees on a philosophical basis, with one, Councilor Jack Roberts saying “I think they're a terrible idea.” If the town is going to charge admission to the landmark, which has been kept free until now, “why don't we just gate the community,” he said.

Five different ways fees could be charged are outlined in a report from a Cape Elizabeth town commission, and will be discussed by the Town Council this fall. Councilors say any final decision will be only after public hearings and debate, bringing the decision after the Nov. 8 local election, when the occupants of two council seats are up to voters.

A proposal for fees was rejected by the council in 2003, considered again during 2004’s budget process and then put off, and was floated as one possible consequence if the 1 percent property-tax cap referendum had passed in November 2004.

A 2003 statewide survey by Critical Insights, a Portland research firm, showed 74 percent of Mainers supported a $5 annual per-vehicle fee at the fort; 69 percent of people in Southern Maine supported it. The question has not been asked since then, according to company president MaryEllen FitzGerald, a Cape resident.

“We may ask it again” in a September statewide survey, she said, adding that she did not expect a big change in the outcome.

The latest report, from the Fort Williams Advisory Commission, gives five options: charging a per-person fee, which would extend to cyclists and walkers, as well as people who drive to the park; charging a per-vehicle entry fee, which has raised concerns about traffic backups on Shore Road; charging a per-vehicle exit fee, which would move any traffic backups inside the park; installing “pay and display” parking meter machines; or an “envelope system” based on the largely voluntary process used in the White Mountain National Forest.

“For me it comes down to this: The park right now is free for everyone except residents of Cape Elizabeth, who pay for it with their tax dollars. I’d like to see that reversed,” said Councilor Mary Ann Lynch, a leading proponent of park entry fees.

Lynch said specifically that she does not want to charge walkers and cyclists, or Cape residents, for entry.

Need for money

Upkeep of the park costs taxpayers $115,000 in operating expenses and $37,000 in capital improvements in this year’s budget, according to Town Manager Mike McGovern.

“The park is expensive to maintain, and we are not really maintaining it,” Lynch said, citing the estimated $500,000 cost to preserve Goddard Mansion as a ruin.

She said a small fee for a year-long pass could bring in a lot of money. Estimates from 2003 indicated that charging $5 per car and $40 per bus would raise about $200,000, about 70 percent of which would come from out-of-staters. About 20 percent would come from Maine residents – half of that from Greater Portland residents.

Swift-Kayatta said she likes the idea of a fee “in the $5 per year range. … I don’t think it’s unfair” to have people who use the park contribute to its upkeep.

McGovern said he has “no idea” how many people visit the fort each year, and said the 1 million figure the town has used for more than a decade “seems high.”

Lynch said a $5 or $10 fee is similar to fees at other lighthouses she has visited, and less than beach parking in other towns, such as Scarborough’s $10-per-day parking at Pine Point.

“Let’s raise the money from our vacationing tourists,” said Lynch.

The plan could run up against the Fort Williams Charitable Foundation, created by the council in 2001 to raise money to support the park’s operations.

“For whatever reason it has not been as successful a fund-raising effort as people had hoped,” Lynch said. The foundation has asked for an easement on the fort property be granted to the Cape Elizabeth Land Trust, saying the park needs “permanent protection” to garner big donors' dollars. The foundation disputes town officials’ claims that Fort Williams Park is already permanently protected, without an easement.

Councilor Carol Fritz said the foundation’s lack of success is because the council has “put a real damper on” its fund-raising ability, by refusing to grant an easement.

Election outcome key

Lynch said she expects the workshop to lead eventually to a formal proposal for the council to vote on.

Timing matters: Two years ago the council rejected the idea of fees by a consensus, with five councilors objecting to them and with Lynch and Anne Swift-Kayatta in the minority, supporting fees. Of the five-councilor majority, only two, Fritz and Roberts, are still on the council.

The seats now held by Roberts and Swift-Kayatta are expiring this year. Both are still undecided on a reelection bid.

Fritz said Tuesday she is “still pretty much opposed to having fees,” saying free access to the fort is “something that Cape Elizabeth contributes to the regional communities,” though if she had to choose, she would pick the “pay and display” option, as less obtrusive and possibly cheaper.

Fritz noted that three previous reports from the Fort Williams Advisory Commission have opposed fees. “It’s been shot down so many times, and the public says ‘no we don’t want it,’” she said.

Citing several local spots that are free for the public, including the trail around Back Cove and the Eastern Promenade, both in Portland, as well as Willard Beach and Bug Light Park in South Portland, Fritz said she “would hate to see us start a trend that closes off or begins to really charge for all these wonderful places.”

She also was concerned that fees could lower attendance at the museum and reduce income at the gift shop, which would reduce town revenue now used to support the fort, and about public perceptions of Cape Elizabeth.

“People think of the community as wealthy,” she said. If the town began charging, “would we then look like we’re trying to keep people out and have an elitist kind of park?”

Roberts could not be reached for comment.

Of the three councilors elected since the 2003 rejection, none has had to take a formal position on fees at the fort.

Councilor David Backer said Wednesday that despite his opposition to fees when he ran for council two years ago, “I’m coming around in my thinking.”

He cited the council’s self-imposed 3 percent spending cap as a reason “all sources of revenue have to be looked at as fair game. … I think that fees at Fort Williams may be an appropriate way to help supplement the income-versus-expenditure collision” the council is now experiencing. “At this point I’m likely to favor fees at the park,” he said, though he is not sure how they should be administered.

Councilor Paul McKenney said Tuesday that he had not made up his mind on fees. “It would be nice to see Fort Williams as a self-sufficient entity, but I’m not sure that fees are the way” to achieve that. His “first choice” would not be fees, but he said it is “reasonable” to ask park users to support the park financially.

Councilor Michael Mowles blamed the lack of state tax reform for the issue’s reemergence. “I don’t like the idea of having to charge fees at Fort Williams, but I’m open to considering the idea,” Mowles said Wednesday. “Given our current tax situation I’m more open to considering fees than I would have been a year ago,” he said.

Editorial: How could it happen?

Published in the Current

SCARBOROUGH (Aug 4, 2005): If the state is serious about driver safety – and they say they are, even recently stepping up police patrols on busy stretches of highways – it’s time for a registry of dangerous drivers, similar to the one we have for sex offenders.

A bad driver can pose a greater risk to more people in a single day than some sex offenders may in their whole lives. It’s time we knew who the worst drivers are, so we can protect ourselves and each other.

It’s shocking and tragic enough that Tina Turcotte of Scarborough was killed in a car crash last week. Our sympathies go out to her family and friends, who are no doubt reeling in shock. We hope they are also feeling love and support from those around them.

But what’s worse is that the driver of the truck has an extended history of traffic violations, including more than 42 convictions, has had his driver’s license suspended 19 times, and has been involved in five crashes, two of which have killed another driver.

Deputy Secretary of State Doug Dunbar said there are even more convictions that are not shown in state records, because of complications of the state’s computer system.

Scott Hewitt of Caribou, who was bailed out of jail just hours after the crash, might even be back on the road. The state has no way to know, and no way to prevent him from driving again.

And when he was driving Friday, Hewitt’s license was again under suspension, this time for failure to pay a court-imposed fine.

His state driving record starts when he was 19, showing Hewitt has had an average of more than three convictions every year.

Several of those convictions are for serious violations, including two for operating after suspension and one for operating after his license was revoked because he had so many driving-related convictions.

Among his 16 speeding convictions are four for driving double the posted speed limit – 50 mph in a 25 mph zone, 59 mph in a 30 mph zone, 53 mph in a 25 mph zone and 29 mph in a 15 mph zone. He also was convicted for breaking commercial trucking rules 10 times.

That’s just Hewitt. What’s even more scary is that there are others we don't know about. The state needs a way to get drivers them off the road, permanently.

Right now, there’s no way a person’s driver’s license can be permanently revoked. Even a person convicted of driving drunk and causing an accident that kills a person can appeal a revocation after 10 years.

It’s true that there is no practical way to monitor a person to make sure that they are never actually behind the wheel of a car. And such a person can still drive, and can get away with it.

There are parallels here with sex offenders, who also cannot practically be physically monitored to keep them away from children or other potential victims. They must be allowed to go about their lives after serving their sentences.

But they potentially pose a danger to the general public, and enough convicted sex offenders have committed subsequent offenses to generate public outcry.

Gov. John Baldacci has asked for a review to see what the state can do better.

It’s time for Maine to have a dangerous driver registry. After some number of convictions for traffic infractions – say six over three years – or even just one of a very serious nature, like doubling the speed limit, a person should be placed in a public registry for a period of time.

Residents in their communities should be notified. The dangerous drivers should have to register with their local police, and should know that their neighbors are watching them closely.

While that might not make the dangerous drivers reform, it would help neighbors in their communities to know what’s going on, and perhaps encourage the neighbors to call police when the offender backs out of the driveway.

Roads are public spaces, and when dangerous people are in control of heavy machines, we are all at risk.

Jeff Inglis, editor