Brunswick needs to reconsider reassessment 

The recent surprise announcement about revaluation of property in Brunswick is very disturbing and needs to be stopped immediately.

The process is flawed. It has been overly secretive, and the short timing required for homeowners to review, rebut and submit significant previously unanticipated payments — much more than the previously announced 7% tax increase — is without precedence.

The lack of transparency regarding the property reevaluation and significant upward revision to tax payments for this year is unjustified. Expecting many taxpayers to come up with a “surprise” need for several thousand dollars on very short notice is simply not just.

Not providing explanation or justification of how the “surprise” jump in revaluation was calculated adds further frustration. Use of “COVID bubble” real estate sales data is suspect. Why was this re-evaluation process so different than our previous (2017-2018) methods? It’s not clear “why the rush” and need for this revaluation now?

The methodology used (lack of individual property appraisals and unavailability of real “comparable sales” linked to specific properties) is not correct — and many of us are “paying a heavy penalty” for unanticipated significantly increased property taxes.

Pause this inequitable process. If a revaluation must be done (it’s not clear why?), do it right with proper planning and explanation to the public over a reasonable period of time. For now, send out property bills with the approved (and previously announced) 7% increase (over last years).

James E. and Theresa K Baskerville,
Brunswick

I live in a $1 million house I could never afford today

As a widow for 12 years and, after 62 years, a recent, fully-retired educator, I never expected to live in a million-dollar house — especially since we purchased the property 52 years ago as a badly winterized cottage with only 50 feet of waterfrontage for $28,000 dollars.

One month after moving in, we had to put on a new roof, install a new septic system, and stop water from pouring through the walls of the daylight basement area behind where our bedrooms were located. 32 years ago, we were able to build a much better house along with a third new septic system. The original cottage had six rooms but, thanks to Mother Nature, it now has only three rooms with a magnificent water view.

Four years ago, by making it a rental, I managed to live and pay property taxes with income from only from this rent, Social Security, and RMDs from retirement savings. With the proposed new valuations in Brunswick, I will also have to dip into savings. I am lucky I can do this, but others are not and may have to move.

Rural residents have extra expenses not factored into current valuations: maintenance of septic systems, wells, and near the coast, systems to filter water to remove high levels of iron. The town does not maintain or remove snow from our roads. Unlike those in town with lower property valuations, we pay these expenses ourselves.

My friend, who lives in a million-dollar house in Arcadia, California, pays half in taxes of what I did in Brunswick in 2022-23! In 1978, the California constitution was amended: property valuations returned to 1976 levels and annual increases limited to less than 2% unless ownership changes or there is new construction.

Even if we can’t pass a similar law, we must protect long-time residents from increases caused by out-of-staters paying prices most Mainers can’t afford. When properties sell, their valuations should immediately reflect the selling prices. Could some level of equalization be achieved by collecting higher taxes from every new buyer?

The town council needs to consider some creative ways of meeting state requirements so that old-timers can stay where we’ve loved to live for half a century.

Anne Wescott Dodd,
Brunswick

Treatment of tribal sovereignty a letdown

As a new immigrant to Maine, I am disappointed in Governor Mills and her decision to veto her own party’s preference for Wabanaki Alliance sovereignty. All LD 2004 would have done was provide Maine’s tribes access to federal laws that have passed prior to or since the 1980 Settlement Act. These are laws which already benefit every other tribal nation in the country.

I am from the Philippines, where we have our own indigenous peoples, and I see how their lack of political power can render them second-class citizens in the eyes of their own government. Ironically, I remember when it was common to see some of them begging on the streets during festivals meant to honor them and their traditions. The Wabanaki Alliance must fight on because, whether in the United States, the Philippines, or any other country, the rights of indigenous people are always in danger of encroachment and erosion.

Miguel Amador,
Brunswick

Do we really need this landline? 

Following up on Danny Tyree’s op-ed in the Aug. 4 edition of The Times Record, I am declaring that my wife and I are unapologetic baby-boomers who have hung on to our landline since purchasing our home 40 years ago. We do so despite each having cell phones for many years. Maintaining a landline phone is becoming increasingly hard to justify these days, however.

One excuse for keeping it was the fact 911 centers could trace the call easier if we were unable to speak. I have since learned that tracing cellphone calls has greatly improved.

I too no longer get my Wi-Fi through the phone company and as of late, rarely receive legitimate phone calls through our landline. I sympathize with Mr. Tyree as we too receive voluminous calls that are for the most part unsolicited and downright annoying. I filled my phone’s capacity in blocked numbers and have given up on the veracity of the no-call list. Reaching 65 was a momentous time in our lives and one to be celebrated until the calls from various Medicare supplement agencies started. And then there are the calls from foreign speaking callers asking if I received my new Medicare card and then asking for my Medicare number so they can order me a new one. And Spectrum, if you are reading this, your services aren’t even offered in my area so stop calling.

Of course, the most egregious calls are those from people claiming to be my grandson who was involved in a crash and needed bail money. My grandson is 10 years old, by the way. We are at the point we no longer believe our caller ID and simply check for voicemails later in the day.

It is due to all of these circumstances that my wife and I are having the discussion about keeping the landline or not. It seems to me that Consolidated Communications has the most to lose so I would think they would do more to step up and stop the annoying calls. Can you hear me now?

Steven Edmondson,
Topsham