The points you made in the editorial about charter schools (“State should stop resisting charter schools,” Feb. 14) are both clear and excellent.

They imply that what we, as a state, must do is remove citizens’ oversight of schools.

It’s wasteful, and as you point out, the current “public school” system is far too expensive for the results we’re seeing.

Get rid of the school boards and public schools, and use our taxes to support the thoughtfulness and care of the owners of the charter schools. Note that it doesn’t really matter if the charter schools’ teachers are “qualified.”

The owners of any business should be able to make a good cost-benefit analysis, which would be the root of the matter.

After we deal with the schools, the next step should be obvious. Remove the time-consuming and wasteful system of town governance. Currently we have a system that also involves citizen oversight.

No good business operates that way. Why waste time with oversight by townspeople who vote on whim, when this ludicrous and antique governmental model could be replaced by a well-conceived business model?

If citizens of a town don’t like the way the town is being run, they have the choice to move to a town which best suits their needs and desires.

This would send a message to the town’s owners that they need to shift some of their attention to the town-dwellers’ desires. This is exactly what the charter schools model would show everyone who cared about children.

Then, after this system takes hold, which is extremely likely, we can move the process to the state.

We need good business sense to run a state, not the foolish and expensive accommodations of an antique democracy.

Replacing the public schools and their failed work with a charter school system provides an ideal model for the future of our state and eventually even our country.

Jonathan Potter

Rockport

Keep Bridgton’s charm by turning down McDonald’s

After reading Staff Writer Ann S. Kim’s report about Bridgton’s plight regarding business growth (“Bridgton residents must decide whether to allow chain stores in town or not,” Jan. 30), I applaud those who oppose the development of land for a McDonald’s restaurant, which is coming up for a vote March 1.

Many a town has been ruined by those who say the money generated in wages outweighs the naysayers.

They only create jobs that pay minimum wage, provide no benefits and offer part-time employment.

It seems that if someone wants to see the effect that this type of development has, take a look at Windham.

Bridgton is a quaint Maine town that has managed to retain its charm and should keep it that way.

What is the matter with those who feel every square inch of property must be enhanced with businesses that ruin the character of the town?

I also noticed that prospective McDonald’s developer Mark Lopez is both a member of the town’s economic development committee and owner of the property to be developed.

Hopefully, the town will vote against this type of development and retain the warmth and charm that is Bridgton.

Anne Milton

Springvale

Emotional, trite language demeans paper, readership

There is a saying to the effect that if there is to be change, let it begin with each of us.

I noted with dismay the above-the-fold, front-page headline regarding challenges to the school merger law. Just a week after the shootings in Tucson, the copy read “School-merger law again in cross hairs.”

The reporter continued with his metaphor, stating that the mandate is a “target,” requests for bills “take aim” at parts of the law, refers to “multiple rounds,” and repeats the phrase “take aim” when describing opposition to the law’s penalties.

Enough, already! Is our use of language so impoverished that we must stoop to such hyperbole, reporting on a contentious issue with such emotional, trite language? We bemoan the loss of civility in public discourse and yet do nothing to tone down the rhetoric.

Many of us are proud of the slogan that greets visitors as they enter the state: “Maine: The Way Life Should Be.” Surely the state’s largest newspaper can contribute to this view of the good life by being more careful in its choice of language and metaphor and by refusing to pander to our baser selves.

Ann H. Boyce

Arundel

Requiring photo ID to vote fatal to absentee ballots

Rep. Rich Cebra, R-Naples, has a bill to require photo identification for voting. In its current form, it is a piece of legislation that will destroy absentee voting.

How does he expect those who rely on voting absentee to send proof of photo identification? As I am someone who goes to school outside of the state, certainly Rep. Cebra can’t expect me to come home every time there is a vote; the bill is narrow-minded.

I happen to be someone who changed residencies (District of Columbia) because I spend eight months out of the year in Washington.

However, in accordance with Maine law, because I hold a billing address in the state I can retain my voting rights. This is because the right to freely vote is the single most important, but at the same time undervalued, right this country offers.

That being said, the bill offers no provisions about absentee voting and how residents, or those who choose to vote in this state, can freely vote from outside of the state.

And to prevent those people from voting absentee is quintessentially unconstitutional.

John Tranfaglia

Cape Elizabeth

Flag for Fort Gorges fine idea, but fly it outside fort

For the most part, I completely agree with Jake Sawyer on his suggestion for a 200-foot-high U.S. flag to fly over at Fort Gorges.

My only difference would be to have the flag pole and flag established at or near its current position on ground outside of the fort itself. Leave the fort intact but let it be illuminated and highlighted by the accompanying U.S. flag.

This would be an attraction to Portland and the harbor similar in scope to Portland Head Light.

Ray Cady

South Portland

 

Copy the Story Link