Post Posts: Recent Comments

Comment on Letter: Lawsuit will waste money (Printed March 5, 2010)

2010-03-12T17:38:55Z

If these property owners were to have suggested a cutesy sign that said "The geese don't clean up after you, please respect our rocks." there wouldn't be any uproar, The proposed language of their sign so early on in this issue makes it crystal clear the intentions of maybe not all, but at least some of the plaintiffs who have filed suit.

The thing to remember is that if the beachfront property owners were to win, and the majority of the beach is made private property, legally it is in their best interest to not allow for public use for fear of being held liable if something happens in front of their home,

Surely an out-of-court solution where they are absolved of that liability while protecting the entire beach from any special interests and over use is possible. Isn't that what the beachfront owners who gave the beach to the KCT back in the day currently enjoy?

Both the courts and Save-Our-Beachs.org have offered the plaintiffs a venue to discuss any specific concerns they have beyond that and not only have the willingness, but the means to meet any reasonable demands they may have. These offers to negotiate have either been refused or sabotaged early on by unrealistic demands made by the plaintiffs, and yet the offer is still there to talk and try to resolve this before things get ugly and costs begin to skyrocket.

Anyone who says that the Town and Citizens of Kennebunkport should give up their right to freely access one of their biggest natural resources in the name of fiscal responsibility is advocating appeasement to a small special interest group in the midst of a land grab during tough economic times. Times like this make me glad we have govenment, to stand up for me when I don't have the means to do it myself.

Comment on Letter: Problems still plague FairPoint billing system (Printed March 5, 2010)

2010-03-10T17:53:23Z

BTW, their HQ phone number is
(704) 344-8150

Tell them in writing as well as by phone "Look, this is what the errors are,this is how long you've dragged it out without correcting the issue, the entire world knows you can't straighten out your problems, which is precisely WHY you're BANKRUPT right now, this is how long I've had this issue and I want the following taken care of: 1. I want my billing for (insert service) stopped immediately and an updated zero balance final bill sent to me within 7 business days from the date of this letter.

2. Due to the stress and harassment of being billed for services I don't owe and the wasting of my time dealing with your company, Fairpoint needs to send me a $75 refund check (NOT a credit on my account) within 14 business days from the above date.

3. I understand the definition of harassment according to the USPS is as follows: Harassment:* A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose (including words, gestures, and actions that tend to annoy, alarm, or verbally abuse another person).

This includes erroneous billing harassment by mail.

Make sure you sign and date the letter stating at the bottom after the signature "copy retained" and "copy forwarded to PUC" (if you intent to send it to your state PUC as well.)

When I called them, I made sure the letter was in the mail before I picked up the phone.
Good luck!

Comment on Letter: Problems still plague FairPoint billing system (Printed March 5, 2010)

2010-03-10T17:25:13Z

John:

Just send them a firm but detailed letter to their HQ. It took me MONTHS of basically yelling at them and writing down the date, time and every person I talked to for every call for them to finally straighten it out for me. I would just automatically call their HQ every time they told me wrong information or screwed up my bills again. Finally I asked for and received a large refund check. My relatives still have problems with this company and always call me to deal with their problems cause they hate Fairpoint. LOL They kept lying to me telling me they couldn't make their computer print me a corrected final bill, I told them that if I went over to their office I could make it happen cause I can build a computer! I'm not stupid. Funny how a bill showing no balance owed came to me in the mail from their VERMONT office within 4 business days after that call....Gotta love it. It never hurts to send a copy of the same letter to your state's PUC either. PUC tries to say that they have no control over Fairpoint, but I think thats a crock. At least if you mail them or email them a copy of the same letter they can't say they never knew about any issue.

Comment on Letter: Lawsuit will waste money (Printed March 5, 2010)

2010-03-09T14:30:33Z

Bill, many of us wish the 23 of 88 oceanfront homeowners had not filed this expensive lawsuit against the Town of Kennebunkport and "all unascertained persons.....". But they did.

And as noted, be careful what you wish for. While you note that the Maine Courts decided the issue, that was quite some time ago, and recent decisions by other Northeastern States and their High Courts (NJ and CT), along with many states across the country, have ruled that beach recreation is uniquely protected for the public. So what was may not be what is.

While I appreciate the picture you painted of simple signs urging politeness, that is a far cry from the suggested wording the 23 homeowners asked the Town to build and maintain, and I quote: ""PUBLIC WAY TO THE WATER, PRIVATE BEACH ON BOTH SIDES OF PUBLIC WAY. INTERTIDAL AREAS ON EITHER SIDE OPEN FOR NAVIGATION AND FISHING ONLY, NO PUBLIC FACILITIES." (Per Robert Alemeda and Jack Fleming)

I think intent and legal language are two different things. I don't see many of the homeowners actually chasing people off of their beach blankets, but there might well be a growing number each year, and no one can say that would or would not happen.

Larry Mead put the best historical perspective on this I have heard yet. Way back in 1647, against a backdrop of a King and mother country that could care less about citizen rights, our forefathers recognized the unique character of the ocean and beaches.

Protecting those unique characteristics for all citizens was part of the deed language, building into every deed exceptions for use of beaches by citizens for common enjoyment of the time, 1647, protecting fishing, fowling and navigation. How unique! They did not do this for any other land use, but clearly recognized that we were blessed with a wonderful asset that should be enjoyed by the population at large.

Of course no one sunbathed then. And if the Frisbee had been invented in 1646, we might have a whole different scenario! But from the effort our legal forefathers made to legally build in protection for rights of the times, it is clear their intent, and it is highly likely that the Courts in Maine will recognize this in 2010.

So please stop the madness. Drop the costly lawsuit. Sit with us and discuss your needs and issues. We can solve problems together without your bringing a lawsuit against the Town and "unascertained persons". Don't hold us all hostage and keep my grandkids from playing in the warm sand on a spring day, please?

Comment on Weekly Interview: Joyce Butler (Printed Nov. 16, 2007)

2010-03-09T03:54:25Z

enjoyed the book "Pages of a journal". I haven't found any other books by this author but will start looking.

Comment on Letter: Problems still plague FairPoint billing system (Printed March 5, 2010)

2010-03-06T20:21:12Z

I would like to add NH as a state to ban them from. I cancelled service in February of 2009. It is March of 2010 and I still receive a bill every month. Granted they stopped charging me for phone service 6 months ago after many calls. However I still receive a internet bill every month despite calling every month and talking to managers that assure me the problem will be taken care of. Can you sue someone for billing you every month when they know you don't owe them anything?

Comment on Letter: Problems still plague FairPoint billing system (Printed March 5, 2010)

2010-03-06T01:54:36Z

Write their HQ's at

Fairpoint Communications
521 E. Morehead St #240
Charlotte NC 28202

And specify in detail how long you'd had their service, when your service was terminated, etc and tell them they need to immediately stop sending you invoices for services you have not had for X months etc. If they continue to send invoices then you will file harassment charges. Being harassed by mail repeatedly is no different than by telephone or any other means. Then I'd tell them I wanted a $75 cash-able refund check mailed to me within 2 weeks for wasting my time and their repeated errors. :-) Who knows? You might just get what you want if you try it. It can't hurt.

Comment on Letter: Lawsuit will waste money (Printed March 5, 2010)

2010-03-05T18:42:58Z

It does seem like a huge waste of money, but the stakes are pretty large-at least on the town side. I am not so sure the homeowners know what they are in for, and I hope your letter helps them think about a reasonable settlement. Its more important that this issue is put to bed legally, rather than a temporary solution- plus do you really think the homeowners are only looking for a sign? They want to own the beach, otherwise they wouldn't have been talked into something that will potentially break them financially. On the town side, it is a huge expense, but its part of the allure of the town- if it goes private, tourism could drop, and they have to protect that. Read the recent Supreme court rulings and you may see the outcome not so guaranteed for the homeowners. As in the Wells beach case more recently, open and notorious use will probably prevail over intertidal use laws- which the Supreme Cout is prime to change their stance on anyway. Not sure why they are risking so much(if they even aware how much they are risking, even after reading your letter).Probably the attorney has told them the town will give based on the Moody case - probably did not even mention the details of the more recent Wells Beach case. The town has more to lose - I dont see them backing down. The homeowners went this far, so its unlikely they will change their stance until they get a sense that their case will lose.By then it will be appealed and.... Well I guess you know...

Comment on Weekly Interview: Margo Alley (Printed March 21, 2008)

2010-03-03T17:29:11Z

On November 29, 1960 Chief John F. Kennedy and his crew, En3 Kenneth Realue, Seaman Raymond Bill, and Seaman Ed Syvinski rescued Tammy Burnham at Wood Island Lighthouse, Maine. The four Coast Guard men aboard a 30 foot life boat out of Fletcher’s Neck Life Saving Station saved that little girls life that night. An inaccurate story of the rescue has been marketed for many years in connection with the restoration of Wood Island Lighthouse. The story has been published in newspapers, magazines, books, web sites, and a DVD documentary.

It was in 2004 that we discovered that a USCG investigation was conducted in 1992 on behalf of the Burnham family, at the request of Holly Burnham, after she read about the restoration plans of Wood Island Lighthouse in Tim Harrison’s Lighthouse Digest Magazine.

Chief John F. Kennedy, Engine man Kenneth Realue, and the family of Raymond Bill, were never contacted during the investigation that was granted at the behest of Holly Burnham who began her campaign after being made aware of the restoration plans for Wood Island Light and the need for funds for that project. This site explores the events that led up to USCG Lt. Kristopher Furtney’s flawed investigation of 1992 and documents the dire consequences that have followed.

The real USCG rescue of Tammy Burnham can be found at:
"Wood Island Lighthouse The USCG Rescue Of Tammy Burnham"
http://web.mac.com/maurenekennedy/iWeb/Wood Island Lighthouse The USCG Rescue Of Tammy Burnham/Wood Island Lighthouse The USCG Rescue Of Tammy Burnham.html

Consider signing a petition that has been created in honor of the USCG men whose voices have gone unheard for too long. The petition will be presented to Rear Admiral Joseph L. Nimmich, Commandant USCG First District Boston, MA
http://www.gopetition.com/online/34403.html

Comment on Letter: No need for new motorcycle noise laws (Printed Feb. 26, 2010)

2010-03-03T16:53:19Z

Mr Cressey states that there are already enough laws regarding motorcycles and agrees there is little enforcement of existing motor vehicle laws. Maybe this is why the riding loud craze has become an epidemic problem in this country and also why 39% of all motorcycles registered in Maine do not bother to have their bike inspected. The EPA label law has been federally mandated since 1982 yet most States do not enforce the tampering or removal of this equipment. Removing the approved exhaust as we know makes the motorcycle much louder but many do not know it also disconnects the emissions system which can make a motorcycle produce sometimes as much as 200 times the illegal emissions than a car.

While everyone else is required to have an inspection sticker on our vehicles Mr. Cressey feels this should not apply to him the same way traveling around without a proper muffler should not apply to him.
It is far too late to hope for personal responsibility to regulate this noise and pollution problem that is now out of control everywhere.
It is time for stronger laws and enforcement. Contact your Representatives and Senators to help control the illegal removal of mufflers.

Check out the www.meclam.org website and join in to help get the message out about loud motorcycles and LD1675.
Thanks
William Campbell