Letter: Voters should consider Fort Williams fees carefully (Printed Sept. 22)
Editor:
On Sept. 11, Cape Elizabeth councilors agreed to language of a non-binding referendum question concerning fees at Fort Williams Park.
Councilors approved, 4-3 the following question for the Nov. 7 ballot: “Would you favor the Town establishing a ‘pay/display’ parking fee for non-residents at Fort Williams Park to help support park maintenance and improvements?”
During the discussions prior to the vote there was a great deal of wrangling over the exact wording of this referendum, especially: “fee,” “non-residents” and “help.”
Mary Ann Lynch, the primary mover behind the fee charging idea, really resisted the use of the word “fee,” desiring instead “pay and display program.” She would agree to the word “fee” if “non-resident” was also included. Councilor McKenney wanted the word “help” so that everyone would understand that Cape Elizabeth residents already support the maintenance/improvements of Fort Williams with their tax dollars which amount to .4 of 1 percent of the towns annual budget.
Chair David Backer objected to “fees for non-residents” because a future council will decide this issue; and since they are not obligated in any way to abide by the referendum in whole, or in any part; they may well decide to also charge Cape Elizabeth residents fees.
In voting on this referendum we are basically participating in an opinion poll. Councillors, Dill, Swift-Kayatta, McKenney and Lynch say they will bow to the will of the people in making their vote when this question of fees is once again presented to the town council. But the composition of the council will include three new members (unless Mr. Backer is re-elected) when it comes up. Councilor Mowles, who voted against sending the referendum to the public, says the question can not be re-submitted in exactly the same way as it was voted on and defeated on August 14.
So what we have is a referendum that is non-binding, that may lead to a vote for fees at Fort Williams, that will not reduce anyones tax bill, that will not cause a transference of any funds to any other part of the towns budget (so councilors say). That may lead to townspeople also paying a fee.
If a fee-paying system is put in place we will definitely have the expense of installation of equipment, salaries/benefits for personnel. A cost that will be borne by the taxpayer and that has not been discussed at all as far as I know. There have also been no studies made public about any potential revenue to be realized, nor traffic studies made of parking at the Fort.
Yes, costs for maintaining/improving Fort Williams are rising. So is everything else, including incomes. In 1971 when we moved to Cape Elizabeth the average price of a home was about $25,000. When my daughter started Bates College in 1980, her tuition was $2,000 less a year than we now pay to educate each child a year in Cape Elizabeth.
Councilor Dill thinks this referendum is fair because only 27 people spoke against a fee-paying program at the August 14 town council meeting. She quoted the statistic of what percent that represents from the population as a whole (It’s actually a little higher than she said as she must have included school children who will not be voting). It is a very small percent either way, but wouldn’t a more fair comparison be between the speakers at that meeting and those attending any other town council meeting where councilors have voted on a particular question?
This question of fees has been a thorn in the side of us all for many years. Why then wasn’t a referendum suggested before the current proposal was voted on by this current town council? Why was it decided on only after the defeat of the proposal? Will all other difficult decisions be put out to voters for their opinions? Why then do we have a town council?
I hope all the people who think establishing a fee paying program at Fort Williams Park is the answer to the town’s perceived budget woes will carefully consider all the above facts before they make their vote on November 7.
Emily Materson
Cape Elizabeth
On Sept. 11, Cape Elizabeth councilors agreed to language of a non-binding referendum question concerning fees at Fort Williams Park.
Councilors approved, 4-3 the following question for the Nov. 7 ballot: “Would you favor the Town establishing a ‘pay/display’ parking fee for non-residents at Fort Williams Park to help support park maintenance and improvements?”
During the discussions prior to the vote there was a great deal of wrangling over the exact wording of this referendum, especially: “fee,” “non-residents” and “help.”
Mary Ann Lynch, the primary mover behind the fee charging idea, really resisted the use of the word “fee,” desiring instead “pay and display program.” She would agree to the word “fee” if “non-resident” was also included. Councilor McKenney wanted the word “help” so that everyone would understand that Cape Elizabeth residents already support the maintenance/improvements of Fort Williams with their tax dollars which amount to .4 of 1 percent of the towns annual budget.
Chair David Backer objected to “fees for non-residents” because a future council will decide this issue; and since they are not obligated in any way to abide by the referendum in whole, or in any part; they may well decide to also charge Cape Elizabeth residents fees.
In voting on this referendum we are basically participating in an opinion poll. Councillors, Dill, Swift-Kayatta, McKenney and Lynch say they will bow to the will of the people in making their vote when this question of fees is once again presented to the town council. But the composition of the council will include three new members (unless Mr. Backer is re-elected) when it comes up. Councilor Mowles, who voted against sending the referendum to the public, says the question can not be re-submitted in exactly the same way as it was voted on and defeated on August 14.
So what we have is a referendum that is non-binding, that may lead to a vote for fees at Fort Williams, that will not reduce anyones tax bill, that will not cause a transference of any funds to any other part of the towns budget (so councilors say). That may lead to townspeople also paying a fee.
If a fee-paying system is put in place we will definitely have the expense of installation of equipment, salaries/benefits for personnel. A cost that will be borne by the taxpayer and that has not been discussed at all as far as I know. There have also been no studies made public about any potential revenue to be realized, nor traffic studies made of parking at the Fort.
Yes, costs for maintaining/improving Fort Williams are rising. So is everything else, including incomes. In 1971 when we moved to Cape Elizabeth the average price of a home was about $25,000. When my daughter started Bates College in 1980, her tuition was $2,000 less a year than we now pay to educate each child a year in Cape Elizabeth.
Councilor Dill thinks this referendum is fair because only 27 people spoke against a fee-paying program at the August 14 town council meeting. She quoted the statistic of what percent that represents from the population as a whole (It’s actually a little higher than she said as she must have included school children who will not be voting). It is a very small percent either way, but wouldn’t a more fair comparison be between the speakers at that meeting and those attending any other town council meeting where councilors have voted on a particular question?
This question of fees has been a thorn in the side of us all for many years. Why then wasn’t a referendum suggested before the current proposal was voted on by this current town council? Why was it decided on only after the defeat of the proposal? Will all other difficult decisions be put out to voters for their opinions? Why then do we have a town council?
I hope all the people who think establishing a fee paying program at Fort Williams Park is the answer to the town’s perceived budget woes will carefully consider all the above facts before they make their vote on November 7.
Emily Materson
Cape Elizabeth
Comments