Kate Sykes for District Five

The District Five Insider is a newsletter about the big decisions making their way through the City Council, what they mean for District Five, and how you can get involved. Enter your email and click subscribe to receive this newsletter in your mailbox.

Wednesday, March 18, 2026

Turning Point USA, the Expo, and the work of Public Trust

I’ve received many emails over the past few weeks about the May 15 event scheduled at the Portland Expo, and I want to take a moment to lay out the facts as clearly as I can, explain why many people are concerned, and share how I’m thinking about this.

What we know

Last fall, Calvary Chapel Greater Portland, a local church, entered into an agreement with the City to rent the Expo for what was described as a worship event. According to staff, the event was presented as a free gathering that would include music, prayer, and food.

The contract was signed in October 2025, and the event was booked at the City’s standard nonprofit “exhibit” rate. Later, the City was informed that Turning Point USA Faith would be a sponsor of the event and would send a speaker.

Turning Point USA is a conservative political organization closely aligned with the MAGA wing of the Republican Party, and its “TPUSA Faith” initiative works with churches and religious leaders to encourage political engagement and voter participation. The event is now being publicly promoted as part of a national tour.

Why people are upset

I have heard three main concerns from residents. First is whether the City was given a complete and accurate description of the event at the time it was booked. Second is whether it is appropriate for a large national organization to benefit from a nonprofit rate intended for local events. And third is whether this event could create safety concerns or harm members of our community, particularly immigrants and LGBTQ residents who have often been the targets of harsh rhetoric in our divisive national politics and the media’s often incendiary coverage of it.

I want to say clearly that these concerns are valid. They reflect a broader moment we are living in where many people feel vulnerable, divided, and uncertain about whether institutions will protect them.

What the City can and cannot do

When the City rents out a public facility like the Expo, we are bound by the First Amendment. That means we cannot deny access to a group based on its political or religious views. Even if many residents strongly disagree with those views. Even if I personally disagree with those views.

However, the city is still responsible for enforcing our contracts, ensuring rates are applied consistently, requiring appropriate insurance and security, and making sure events are conducted safely and within the rules.

What about the “bait and switch” concern?

Some residents have asked whether the contract should be cancelled because the event now involves a national organization.

The key legal question, as I understand it, is not whether outside groups are involved. That is pretty common in events like this. The question is whether the original renter has transferred the contract to another entity.

Courts generally look at three things: who signed the contract, who carries the insurance, and who is financially responsible to the City. If Calvary Chapel remains the tenant and is responsible for payment, insurance, and compliance, then the involvement of Turning Point USA Faith is typically considered to be a co-sponsorship, not a reassignment of the contract. If facts emerge that show the contract was misrepresented or improperly assigned, that would warrant further action. But those determinations must be made carefully and based on evidence.

The trust question

There’s another layer to this situation that I think is important. Some have asked why the event may not have been fully described at the outset. One possibility is that the organizers believed that, as a progressive city, Portland would not treat them fairly if they were fully transparent about their political associations.

If that’s true, then this moment is also a test of us. We can respond by confirming that fear, or we can respond by demonstrating that our commitment to fairness is real, even when we disagree.

Allowing this event to proceed is not an endorsement of its message. It’s a recognition that in a pluralistic society, the government does not get to decide which viewpoints are acceptable.

At the same time, we should not ignore harm or the fear people in our community who are targeted by certain rhetoric feel right now.

I think we can hold both truths at once. We can uphold constitutional protections, and we can stand firmly for the dignity and safety of every resident.

Where we go from here

City staff are continuing to evaluate security needs, insurance requirements, and logistical planning. Event organizers will be responsible for any additional costs required to ensure safety. I will continue to ask questions and expect clear answers about how this event was booked and how it will be managed. And I will continue to listen to your concerns.

One final thought

We are living in a time when deeper forces are pulling us toward conflict, when outrage is rewarded, institutions are tested, and people are tempted to believe that division is inevitable or even necessary.

We shouldn’t take that bait. Portland can be a city that is both principled and compassionate, one that protects free expression while standing firmly against exclusion and the kind of rhetoric that puts members of our community at risk.

And because so much of this moment is being framed in the language of faith, I’ll just say this plainly. Christ is invoked often in our public life by people across the political spectrum to justify power, to organize movements, to draw lines between who belongs and who doesn’t. But the life of Christ, as many understand it, as I understand it, does not point us toward domination, exclusion, or fear. It points us toward humility and understanding, toward care for the vulnerable, toward treating others with dignity, even those with whom we profoundly disagree.

That doesn’t mean we abandon our convictions or stay silent in the face of harm. But it does mean we resist the pull to become cruel, reactive, or self-righteous in the process.

I short, we shouldn’t become what we oppose in order to oppose it. We can do better than that. And we will.

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Notice: Under Maine law, documents – including e-mails and text messages – in the possession of public officials or city employees about government business may be classified as public records. There are very few exceptions. As a result, please be advised that what is written in a text message or e-mail could be released to the public and/or the media if requested.

Friday, March 13, 2026

2025 Annual Report to Constituents

Dear neighbors,

Over the past year we’ve worked together to tackle major challenges facing Portland, from housing and street safety to strengthening our local economy and public institutions.

When you elected me, I promised to fight for housing that Portlanders can afford, public safety rooted in care, living wages, and a local government accountable to the people it serves. With your help, we made meaningful progress on many of these goals in 2025.

Residents like you organized, canvassed, spoke out, and stepped up to serve on boards and commissions, helping move important policy changes forward. Together we delivered real wins for working families while also laying the groundwork for long-term solutions to our most challenging issues.

Meaningful policy change rarely happens in a single vote or a single year. It requires sustained effort in building coalitions, strengthening institutions, and putting the pieces in place for long-term change. This report highlights some of what we accomplished together this year and the work we’ve done to set Portland on a stronger path for the future.

As I share this update, I also want you to know that I will not be seeking re-election to the City Council when my current term concludes. I feel proud of the progress we’ve made together and confident about the direction we’ve set.

I still have eight months left in my term, and there is plenty more work to do. One of the most important efforts now underway is the Social Housing Task Force, which is halfway through its year-long charge to develop a plan for permanently affordable, publicly owned housing in Portland. This work has the potential to shape our city for generations, and it will be essential that the momentum we’ve built continues. That will be my primary focus for the remainder of my term.

Thank you for the trust you placed in me and for everything you have done to help move our city forward.

-Kate

2025 Annual Report Final Download

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Tuesday, March 3, 2026

Explainer: What’s Actually Happening with Nonprofit Property Tax Exemptions in Portland?

Over the past several weeks, a number of Portland nonprofits have received notices from the City Assessor’s Office indicating that their municipal property tax exemption has been revoked.

Understandably, this has created anxiety, frustration, and confusion.

I’ve fielded calls from nonprofit leaders who feel blindsided and politically targeted. Some have said to me, “The last time something like this happened was during the LePage years. We expect this from the right, not from the left. What gives?” I even received calls from state legislators who didn’t realize that municipal property tax exemptions are governed by state law.

This tells me there’s a real gap in public understanding about what’s happening here.

So, why are some nonprofits in Portland being told they no longer qualify for property tax exemption? The public deserves a clear explanation of what is happening, and what is not.

Federal nonprofit status is not the same as property tax exemption

Many people assume that if an organization is a 501(c)(3), it is automatically exempt from property taxes. That’s not how the law works.

Federal nonprofit status governs income tax. Municipal property tax exemption is governed by Maine state law, specifically Title 36 of the Maine Revised Statutes.

They are separate systems with different standards.

Property tax exemption in Maine is narrow and “use-based”

Under Maine law, all property is taxable unless it falls within a specific statutory exemption. Courts in Maine have consistently held that exemptions must be interpreted narrowly. Taxation is the rule. Exemption is the exception.

It is also important to understand that the statute contains different categories of exemption, each with its own standards. Not all nonprofits fall under the same subsection of the law.

Many community organizations, including arts and cultural nonprofits, rely on the “charitable and benevolent institution” category. Under that provision, the law requires that:

The property be owned by a charitable or benevolent institution;
The institution be organized and conducted exclusively for charitable purposes; and
The property be occupied or used solely for those charitable purposes.

That third requirement: “occupied or used solely” is where most questions arise.

The standard is not whether the organization is valuable or does good work in the community. The standard is how the property is used.

Examples that typically qualify:

A museum open to the public for educational purposes.
A food pantry distributing goods to people.
A shelter providing housing as part of its charitable mission.
A nonprofit operating free or low-cost educational programming.

Examples that can raise statutory concerns:

Regularly renting space for weddings or private corporate events.
Alcohol sales
Leasing portions of a building at market rates to unrelated tenants.
Operating substantial revenue-generating activities not directly tied to the charitable mission.
Using significant portions of a property for non-charitable administrative or commercial activity.

Other institutions, such as houses of religious worship or certain hospital facilities, may qualify under different statutory subsections with distinct legal standards.

This does not mean that revenue-generating activities are unethical. Many nonprofits rely on creative fundraising to survive. But under Maine law, exemption depends on statutory use standards, not institutional goodwill.

If someone believes those standards are too narrow, that is ultimately a question for the Maine Legislature, not something a councilor or municipal assessor can change.

Who makes these decisions, and why Council cannot reverse them

In Maine, assessors occupy a unique legal position. Although they are appointed by municipalities, assessors exercise independent professional judgment, are supervised by the State Tax Assessor, are not subject to direction by the municipality in carrying out assessment duties.

This structure exists to prevent political interference in tax administration. And it means the City Council and City Manager are not authorized to direct or reverse individual exemption determinations. Even when controversy arises, the legal structure is intentionally insulated.

If there is disagreement with a determination, the proper avenue is the appeal process, not political intervention.

Why this is happening now

These exemption revocations we are hearing about in the paper arose in the context of Portland’s 2025 property tax revaluation, which requires a comprehensive review of properties on the tax roll.

Under state law, parcels owned by tax-exempt non-profits are supposed to be reviewed annually. In practice, a full annual review of every exempt parcel is administratively demanding and not always possible. From what I have been told, this recent review was likely the most thorough review of tax-exempt properties conducted in many years. (As in, no one seems to remember the last time it was done.)

When regular maintenance doesn’t happen consistently, later corrections feel abrupt. That dynamic can create the appearance of a sudden shift in political ideology or a revenue grab, when, in reality, it reflects a system catching up.

What has occurred so far

According to information provided by City staff:

Since March 2025, the tax-exempt status for 48 parcels has been revoked.
41 revocations took immediate effect.
7 are deferred to April 1, 2026.

Those revocations add approximately $46.3 million in assessed value back to the tax roll.
Using the FY2026 mill rate of $11.98 per $1,000, that equates to approximately $555,000 in anticipated annual revenue.

Additionally, the Assessor has statutory authority to issue supplemental assessments going back up to three years in certain cases. Approximately 39 supplemental assessments totaling about $189,512.57 are being issued or processed.

It’s important to be clear that these revocations do not automatically imply bad faith by nonprofits. It may reflect evolving uses of real property, administrative capacity constraints, or reporting gaps over time.

The larger issue is consistency and fairness in application of the law.

What organizations can do next

Organizations have several options:

Request an in-person meeting with the Assessor’s Office
Submit a written request for reconsideration
File an abatement and appeal to the Board of Assessment Review
Appeal further to Superior Court
In certain cases, seek a declaratory judgment

If an organization believes it can modify its use to comply with the statute, it may also simply reapply for exemption.

What this is not

This is not a City Council vote targeting nonprofits.

This is not a judgment about the cultural value of institutions like the Maine Irish Heritage Center, Maine Public, Mayo Street Arts, or others.

This is not the same thing as the proposed PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) program that the Finance Committee has been working on for two years.

The broader context

Portland has a significant amount of tax-exempt property—estimated at $4 billion. When exemptions are granted appropriately, they reflect legitimate public benefit and help relieve the burden of government. But, when exemptions drift beyond statutory standards, the funding needed to deliver core municipal services shifts to homeowners and businesses.

Portland’s nonprofit sector plays an outsized role in civic life, in part because our private-sector base is relatively thin and public investment has fluctuated over decades. Many nonprofits provide services that are valuable and loved by many, but that does not eliminate the need for statutory compliance. Allowing exemption standards to drift for years without review undermines public trust, erodes our tax base, and ultimately creates sharper corrections down the road.

What comes next?

When you elected me to serve in City Hall, I made it clear that I would fight for tax fairness. That means making sure our laws are applied consistently, transparently, and without political interference.

It is evident to me that the Assessor’s Office has undertaken a more comprehensive review of exemptions than has occurred in many years. The fact that this feels sudden to many organizations suggests that past oversight may not have been as regular or as visible as it should have been. Going forward, our responsibility is to ensure that review is consistent and predictable.

I believe the best work of the Council right now is to insist on:

Clear, proactive communication about process and timelines;
Better public education about the difference between federal nonprofit status and municipal property tax exemption;
An honest discussion about our capacity to conduct regular reviews;
Respect for the established appeal process.

Portland values the services nonprofits provide. We love our cultural institutions. We must also insist that tax law be applied consistently and fairly.

If you would like to understand your organization’s specific situation, I encourage direct engagement with the Assessor’s Office and use of the established appeal pathways.

The standards are written in state law. A fair process exists. This is a complex issue, but it is not a mysterious one.

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Monday, March 2, 2026

Tonight’s Drone Vote: Why I believe regulation is the responsible path

Over the past several weeks, I’ve received many messages and calls urging a “no” vote on the Portland Police Department’s request to purchase a drone. These concerns are thoughtful, deeply felt, and they deserve a clear response.

For me, this decision is not about whether drones are “good” or “bad.” It’s about how we regulate their use here in Portland, and whether that regulation is under strong local control.

I’m weighing several things at once: community trust in a moment of federal overreach and fear; the reality that drones are already being used here in Portland; and my responsibility as a policymaker to regulate what already exists in practice.

Trust and Context

The recent ICE surge changed the emotional climate in our city. Even though that surge has been scaled back, a lot of fear and uncertainty remain. For many residents, distrust of surveillance and law enforcement has been a lived reality for generations. I know that policing and technology can disproportionately impact immigrant and Black and brown communities, and any expansion of law enforcement tools must be considered in that broader context.

That is precisely why I have spent the past two years working with City staff to strengthen the guardrails around this policy. If this technology is going to exist, it must operate under strict constitutional limits, clear use restrictions, and meaningful transparency.

What the Policy Now Requires

The current Standard Operating Procedure is significantly stronger than the original draft. It:

Prohibits passive or warrantless surveillance
Requires prosecutorial approval and a warrant (or recognized legal exception) for criminal investigations
Limits use to defined public safety situations
Mandates documentation and public reporting of each deployment
Bans facial recognition
Restricts enhancement technologies

The vote the council will take tonight will not give police a blank check, rather it proposes a tightly regulated framework designed to prevent misuse.

The Reality: Drones Are Already Being Used

Portland police already use drones by borrowing them from surrounding municipalities. When that happens, the other municipality’s policy governs the use. The data collected may be stored outside Portland’s control, and we have limited oversight over retention, deletion, or potential sharing.

Public Safety Considerations

Drones also have legitimate public safety applications. They can help locate missing persons more quickly, including people with dementia who may wander into wooded areas, assist with fire scene assessment without placing personnel at additional risk, and provide aerial visibility in hazardous or high-risk situations where distance can reduce escalation.

When properly regulated, this tool can protect both the public and first responders.

If a tool can help find someone faster, prevent unnecessary danger, or reduce escalation, I believe it should be available, under strict regulation and meaningful oversight. And I believe that here in Portland we are capable of being a model for that kind of regulation.

Governance in a Changing Technological Landscape

Trust in government is fragile right now, particularly for communities that have long experienced over-policing and surveillance. I take that seriously.

At the same time, technology will continue to evolve whether we welcome it or not. I believe it is our responsibility as policymakers to ensure democratic oversight keeps pace with that change. If we step back from setting rules, enforcing limits, and governing responsibly, we don’t strengthen trust, rather we erode the civic institutions that allow communities to shape their own future.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and continued conversation.

-Kate

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Thursday, October 30, 2025

Reflections on the District 5 Community Meeting

Last night, I had the honor of hosting residents of District 5 for a community meeting at Casco Bay High School. We were joined by City Councilors Ben Grant (At-Large), Pious Ali (At-Large), Mayor Mark Dion, State Senator Jill Duson, State Representative Sam Zager, Superintendent Ryan Scallon, City Manager Danielle West and more than City Staff representing many different departments. This annual event offers residents the opportunity to raise concerns, ask questions, and hear directly from the elected and appointed officials working on their behalf. For me, it was a chance to listen, learn, and take the pulse of our community.

Below are a few of the major themes that emerged and some reflections I want to share as your District 5 Councilor.

Emergency Shelter at 166 Riverside: The Right Service, the Wrong Fit

The most urgent concern raised by Riverton residents involved the city’s plan to open 166 Riverside as an emergency warming shelter this winter. Many neighbors voiced fears about increased crime, public drug use, and the disruption of neighborhood safety and cohesion.

I understand these concerns and expressed similar ones myself, especially around the location of the shelter, which is far from where unhoused individuals are currently living, and not set up for this kind of use.

Meeting the needs of unhoused individuals trying to survive on our streets is not just a Portland issue. It is a county issue, a state issue, and a federal issue. I have and continue to encourage constituents to contact our Cumberland County Commissioners, the County Sheriff’s office, and State lawmakers across Maine to demand action. No single level of government can shoulder this crisis alone; but every level must be part of the solution.

It is long past time for a political reckoning on this issue. Taxpayers deserve more than the rhetoric we hear from both political Parties. Democrats must recommit to long-term fiscal responsibility, and prove to the public that strategic, preventative investments reduce the need for high-cost emergency interventions. And Republicans must recognize that simply cutting services in the name of budget discipline does not save money in the long run. It simply shifts the burden, pushing people into jails, emergency rooms, and shelters that were never built to serve as housing, healthcare, or recovery programs.

A functional society invests in its people. Not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because it is the smart thing to do.

Development in Riverton: Growing with Intention

We also discussed Belfort Landing, an approved 50-unit housing development near Talbot School. This is a market rate development that complies with the Green New Deal’s environmental and inclusionary zoning requirements that 25% of units be affordable to people making 80% or less of the Area Median Income. This is precisely the type of infill development we need in District 5. It is located along a public transportation corridor, walkable to schools and amenities, and designed to accommodate Portland families, the teachers, essential workers, and young parents that will help our city thrive.

Some neighbors have expressed concerns about density, traffic, and safety for children walking to school. Those concerns are valid, and they have been heard and responded to by both the Planning Department and Planning Board. The project is proceeding because it meets our zoning and development standards, which were themselves developed through a rigorous democratic process.

Good community decisions happen when we set fair and inclusive rules, elect representatives to make decisions in the common good, and then hold them accountable to those decisions. That is what the city’s zoning reform efforts (ReCode), the Comprehensive Plan, and State level policies like LD 2003 have accomplished, and we must abide by those rules.

I support this development, and I also support the efforts of the neighborhood to organize a Friends of Riverton group to help guide future development in a community centered direction. Those efforts will be most successful when they align with our broader, democratically decided goals for housing, equity, and sustainability and add value to that by partnering with local developers and business owners to bring more people and amenities to the area. We need more housing in District 5, not less. And we need it to reflect the investments that taxpayers past and present have made in our transportation corridors, utilities, and infrastructure, as well as the vision and values of the current residents.

Rising Property Taxes: A Call for Equity

This year’s tax assessments have hit some District 5 residents especially hard, and I want to acknowledge that pain. For many homeowners, it has meant rebalancing budgets, tightening spending, and worrying about the future.

The City Manager encouraged homeowners who have concerns about the accuracy of their assessment to email her directly at: citymanager@portlandmaine.gov to get information on how to appeal.

On the Council I am working through the Finance Committee on two concrete solutions:

Expanding the Senior Tax Equity Program to include residents of all ages.
Advancing a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program that asks large nonprofits to contribute to the cost of city services.

A Word on Social Housing

One of the most promising initiatives moving forward in Portland right now is Social Housing, and it could be a game-changer for how we solve our housing crisis at scale. The establishment of the Social Housing Task Force marks a turning point in how we think about housing not just as a commodity, but as essential public infrastructure, just like roads, bridges, schools, and fire stations.

The basic idea is this: we use public funds to build and permanently own mixed-income housing that serves low-, moderate-, and middle-income residents. This housing is off the speculative market. It is not beholden to profit margins or outside investors. It is publicly owned, permanently affordable, and aligned with our values and our needs as a city.

When we invest in social housing, we stabilize families, reduce emergency shelter use, relieve pressure on rental markets, and lower the demand for crisis-level public services. The public pays less over time because we are solving problems upstream, not scrambling to manage them after the fact.

Unlike subsidizing private development, which requires continual reinvestment to maintain affordability, social housing is a one-time capital investment that pays long-term dividends. It generates revenue through rent, maintains affordability in perpetuity, and gives the city a real asset—public housing stock that is aligned with our goals.

This approach also allows us to build at a larger scale. We don’t have to wait for the right developer with the right margins; we don’t have to negotiate inclusionary zoning percentages. We can grow in accordance with our own vision for equitable housing development, not according to the bottom line of private capital. That means we can build near schools, near transit corridors, in walkable neighborhoods like Riverton and Deering Center, and build it responsibly.

In fact, social housing is one of the only solutions on the table that addresses every major issue that came up at our District 5 meeting:

Concerned about the shelter system? Build more deeply affordable, stable housing so fewer people ever need emergency shelter in the first place.

Concerned about rising property values and taxes? Invest public dollars in housing to increase supply and reduce reliance of shelters, emergency services, and jails to fill gaps in the social safety net.

Concerned about neighborhood integrity? Plan and design housing that is community-centered, transit-connected, and aligned with long-term infrastructure and land use goals—guided by us as a city, not just the priorities and limitations of the private market.

Social housing allows us to build what we need, where we need it, for the people who need it most—and to do so responsibly, transparently, and in alignment with the values of our city.

That is how we take control of our housing future.

Thanks to everyone who attended the meeting last night, and I look forward to sharing more about the work of the Social Housing Task Force in the weeks ahead.

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Tuesday, September 30, 2025

ONE BIG THING

The Back Cove Festival and the Public Good: Getting to Yes—Together

On Tuesday of last week, the Housing and Economic Development Committee (HEDC) met to review a proposed three-year agreement between the City of Portland and the organizers of the Back Cove Music Festival, a two-day music event held this summer in Payson Park.

The festival brought musical entertainment and summer outdoor fun to thousands of attendees and showcased the beauty of one of our most loved and highly utilized public spaces. Overall, it was a huge success. Cultural events like this can bring people together and support our local economy. But when a commercial group fences off public space and charges admission, we owe it to our residents to make sure the arrangement respects the neighborhood, compensates the city fairly, and strengthens our shared civic life.

At Tuesday’s meeting, the HEDC Committee voted unanimously to send the proposed agreement back to staff for further negotiation. I believe that decision reflects not opposition to the event itself, but a shared concern that the current agreement does not yet represent a just or accountable use of the commons.

Centering Community Voices

Not many people have heard of Elinor Ostrom, but maybe more of us should. She was the first (and still the only) woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics. Her life’s work focused on how ordinary people manage shared resources. Her research challenged the belief that common spaces inevitably fall into disrepair unless controlled by markets or bureaucracies. Instead, she showed that when people on the ground are given clear rules and real decision-making power, they can steward shared resources with extraordinary care.

“There is no reason to believe that bureaucrats and politicians, no matter how well meaning, are better at solving problems than the people on the spot, who have the strongest incentive to get the solution right.”
— Elinor Ostrom

That idea matters here. I strongly believe that the people who live near the park, the ones “on the spot,” have the clearest understanding of what worked and what didn’t.

Here are some of the things they have shared with the Council since the event:

“I shouldn’t have to wear noise-cancelling headphones all weekend in my house.” —Johansen Street Resident

“What we didn’t hear, we felt.”—Randall Street Resident

“Significant frustration was expressed by neighbors at being effectively shut out of their own neighborhood park.” —Friends of Payson Park

Others reported logistical problems:
– Fencing, vehicles, and stage equipment arriving a full week early, cutting off access to playgrounds, courts, bike lanes, and handicapped parking.
– Shuttles and rideshares routed through small residential streets, disrupting traffic and posing safety risks for pedestrians at night.
– Sound levels that made couches shake and homework impossible.
– Confusing or nonexistent communication from organizers or city staff.
– No community survey conducted after the event.
– No transparent financial reporting or sense of where the revenue went, or how Portland taxpayers would benefit.

Neighbors are not asking to shut down the festival. They are asking to be heard, respected, and included in the process.

These concerns should not be brushed aside. Too often in public-private partnerships, it is the private side that dictates the urgency. I know that concert organizers need time to plan, but our job is not to meet someone else’s deadline; our job is to protect the integrity of public space and public process.

In this case, we must resist the idea that taking time to get things right is somehow inefficient. The work of democracy is deliberate by design, and the time we take now will shape not only this year’s event, but the precedent we set for years to come.

Getting to Yes

The Back Cove Festival brought enjoyment to thousands of people this summer. The music, the gathering, the energy is the best of what it means to share space in a city that’s alive and welcoming. Portland should absolutely be a place where events like this can happen. Where local artists can take the stage, food vendors can flourish, and residents of all backgrounds can gather in celebration.

I believe we can reach an agreement that honors the values of all parties. The organizers of the Back Cove Festival should be commended for investing their time and vision in Portland. I hope we can work together to create a stronger agreement, one that:

Reflects the true value of using public land for private events
Creates opportunities for local participation from artists to vendors to neighbors
Provides clear communication and protections for nearby residents
Includes meaningful public feedback and transparency
Safeguards the future of the event if its ownership or character changes

I know the idea of “the commons” may feel a little old-fashioned or academic to some, but to me, it’s one of the most powerful ideas we have.

Our public spaces are valuable not just because they’re green or beautiful, but also because they are governed by us, together. They embody the democratic spirit and ask us to flex the muscles of civic engagement: participation; accountability, and shared decision-making—values that sit at the heart of this country’s founding promise.

That’s why I committed to doing this work, and why I want us to get this right.

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Thursday, September 25 2025

ONE BIG THING

Politics can be all-consuming.

For many people right now, the political arena has become the place where all of our feelings get expressed. The frustration, the anxiety, the sense that something is out of balance all gets poured into politics.

And with constant media and social media at our fingertips, it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that politics is the only place where change happens. But the truth is, most things cannot be solved in that space.

Our city ordinances, state laws, and federal statutes can’t heal what is spiritual, emotional, or psychological in nature. They can’t restore meaning or calm or clarity. These are things we have to find for ourselves, through quiet reflection, creative pursuits, and in community with others.

So this week, I want to share something that has nothing to do with the City Council. This week’s Big Thing is about pepperoni.

It’s the end of the growing season, and if you have a garden, you probably have a few tomatoes on the vine that will never ripen. They’re small, firm, and easy to overlook or toss in the compost. Please don’t!

Last year, I fermented some green tomatoes as an experiment, put them in the fridge and then promptly forgot about them. Around about February, I sliced a few onto a pizza because I didn’t have much else on hand and realized, to my surprise, that they taste just like pepperoni. As a vegetarian who is still nostalgic for the salty-sour-spicy flavor of a classic pepperoni slice, this discovery was a revelation. Here’s how to make them:

Fermented Green Tomatoes for Pizza (Vegetarian “Pepperoni”)

Ingredients:

Whole Green tomatoes

Garlic cloves (2–3)

1 tsp black peppercorns

½ tsp red pepper flakes (adjust to taste)

2 tbsp salt

1 quart water

Instructions:

Pack your tomatoes into a clean glass jar with garlic, peppercorns, and red pepper flakes.

Dissolve the salt in water to make your brine.

Pour the brine over the tomatoes until they’re fully submerged. Push them down and wedge them against the jar to keep them under the surface.

Cover loosely and let ferment at room temperature for 5–10 days. Taste every few days.

Once tangy and flavorful, move the jar to the fridge.

Top a pizza with a few slices of these, sprinkle some smoked paprika over the top, and you’ll have something rich, spicy, and satisfying—no meat required.

In fermentation, the flavors develop over time, and so does the bio-availability of the nutrients in the food. The process happens slowly, naturally, when the conditions are right. With the days getting shorter and the nights colder, this is a season for doing the same. Turning inward. Slowing down. Letting things settle and change in their own time.

We’re all carrying a lot. The world feels heavy, fast, and unpredictable. But underneath that, there’s still something steady. Something waiting to change and to take a new shape, if we give it time. Autumn is a season of both creation and ending. The leaves that fall are returning their energy to the soil; the trees are pulling nutrients back into their roots; the bulbs of spring flowers are quietly storing up strength for their big reveal. Fermentation reminds us that these forces are not separate. What is breaking down can also be what is being born.

We don’t have to fix everything right now. We don’t have to be constantly reacting.

We can just be here, alive and present in the world, paying attention to what’s growing, even if we can’t quite see it yet.

Let that be enough for today.

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Tuesday, September 16 2025

Breaking: City of Portland Submits Plan to Use 166 Riverside as Winter Emergency Warming Shelter

Late last week, the City of Portland submitted a grant application to MaineHousing that will shape the City’s emergency response to homelessness this winter. The application proposes to use 166 Riverside Industrial Parkway as the site for this winter’s emergency warming shelter, with a capacity of up to 60 individuals. The shelter would be open overnight during extreme cold weather only, activated when the daily low temperature reaches 15 °F or below, or snow accumulation of more than 10 inches occurs. It would operate from 7:30 pm to 6:00 am, with city staff on-site, and transportation provided via shuttle bus from the peninsula.

This decision will have sweeping consequences for residents, local businesses, and the most vulnerable people in our community.

As the District 5 Councilor, I want to be clear that I do not condone this plan. It is deeply flawed. It’s a last-resort measure driven not by thoughtful strategy, but by sheer necessity. It reflects a breakdown of systems far beyond the City’s control, and it underscores how urgently we need action at the state and county levels.

An Operational Decision—Not a Council Vote

This plan was not voted on by the Portland City Council, nor was it discussed in any public committee meeting. The decision to apply for the grant and designate 166 Riverside as the warming shelter site was made by City staff, under the authority of the City Manager’s office.

Under Portland’s Council-Manager system, many day-to-day operational decisions, especially those related to grant applications, emergency shelter operations, and city facility use, are made administratively. Councilors are often informed after the fact, especially when timelines are tight. That was the case here: the grant application was submitted on Friday to meet a deadline, and Councilors were notified shortly afterward.

I am sharing this information now because I believe residents deserve to know what’s happening and why.

A Broken System Leads To A Broken Response

City staff have spent nearly a year trying to find a more suitable location for this winter’s emergency shelter. They explored every avenue: outreach to private property owners, appeals to local churches and faith organizations, and conversations with nonprofits and service providers. All declined to take on this responsibility.

That is not a moral or professional failure. The reality is that the people this shelter is intended to serve require care and supervision far beyond what any church basement or volunteer-led space can provide. Many are in active substance use, in severe mental health crises, or have been chronically unsheltered for years. No amount of goodwill can substitute for the medical and behavioral health infrastructure needed to intervene.

What this situation reveals is not a failure of compassion; it is a failure of capacity. And Portland cannot solve it alone.

Why This Site Is Problematic

Unlike last year’s downtown warming shelter at First Parish Church, this year’s proposed site is far off-peninsula, located in an industrial area without access to services, social networks, or foot traffic. The building at 166 Riverside, a retrofitted warehouse, is already operating as a shelter for asylum-seeking single men.

The City’s plan calls for partitioning the shelter to house two distinct groups:

Recently arrived immigrants, often fleeing trauma but generally in stable condition
And individuals with extremely high needs, including active drug use and severe behavioral health crises.

This is an extraordinarily difficult environment to manage, even with trained city staff on-site. City staff hope to serve both populations in separate spaces, but it raises concerns about the safety and stability of both populations, and about whether either group will get the support they need.

Who Will Actually Use This Shelter?

Based on last year’s experience, only about 10% of those who sought shelter on cold nights would be able to use 166 Riverside. These are individuals who may be newly displaced, temporarily un-housed for a night or two, but otherwise able to board a shuttle bus and comply with shelter rules.

The other 90% are the hardest to reach and the most vulnerable:

They are in active addiction and may not be willing or able to follow shelter rules.
They may be experiencing mental health episodes, paranoid or disoriented.
They often refuse to leave their belongings—shopping carts, bikes, bags of personal survival gear—on the peninsula.
They may not even perceive the shelter as a safe place.

Last year, even when shelter was available downtown, many left in the middle of the night—sometimes inadequately clothed in dangerously low temperatures—to go outside and use. They could not tolerate the indoor environment, even with peer support and counseling available.

Now imagine this happening miles from the city center, in a residential neighborhood.

The County and State Must Act

This is not a City of Portland failure. This is a failure of a statewide system that has refused to acknowledge the depth of this crisis for decades.

At the County Level:

Portland residents and businesses contribute millions each year to the Cumberland County budget.
For years, Portland has allowed our voting seats on the County Finance Committee to sit empty.
The Sheriff’s Department has not stepped up to offer the kind of medical or recovery-based intervention that other counties have implemented.
There is no sobering center, no detox facility, no jail-based treatment pipeline.

We need county-level infrastructure. And we need it now.

At the State Level:

Governor Janet Mills is sitting on a $1 billion rainy-day fund while Maine’s largest city, and its primary economic engine, is scrambling for short-term grant dollars just to keep people alive this winter.

Portland’s downtown—home to small businesses, vital services, and thousands of workers—has become the default safety net for the state’s most vulnerable residents. Our sidewalks and public spaces are not designed to function as an emergency shelter system, yet that’s what they have become.

Our city’s businesses are being pushed to the breaking point. They are showing compassion, hiring locally, and staying open, but it’s hard to operate when your storefront becomes someone’s last refuge from the cold. These businesses deserve support. So do the people who are sleeping outside their doors.

The Maine Legislature must take emergency action now to:

Develop a statewide emergency housing plan for winter 2025 that does not rely on municipal patchwork and last-minute scrambling.
Fund low-barrier treatment facilities for people with severe addiction,
Stand up stabilization shelters for those in acute mental health crisis,
Tap the Governor’s billion dollar rainy-day-fund to address this emergency.

I’ll say this plainly: I am beyond asking politely. This is a public health emergency that demands a FEMA-scale response, not municipal triage. If a fire or flood had displaced this many Mainers, we would not tolerate bureaucratic delays or jurisdictional finger-pointing. This is no different. The winter is coming. People will die. We need an emergency response to match the scale of the emergency.

It’s Time to Stand Together And Demand More

We’re doing everything we can at the city level, but we’ve reached the end of our toolbox, and our budget.

Portland cannot do this alone. We cannot be the shelter system, the detox system, the mental health system, and the refugee resettlement system for the entire state. And yet, we try, every single day, with fewer resources than we need, and more need than we can carry.

I know Riverton residents will be upset. They already voiced concerns when this facility was opened to asylum seekers. I expect the opposition will only intensify with this announcement. We need everyone—neighbors, businesses, advocates, and elected officials—to lift your voices where it can make a difference: the State House, the County Commission, and the Governor’s office.

This is your moment. If you’ve ever said, “Why aren’t we doing more?” — here’s your answer. And here’s your assignment:

Email the County Commissioners and Sheriff. Demand that they step up and take action now to protect public health this winter.
Call your State Representatives and Senators. Demand a comprehensive response to homelessness and behavioral health crises.
Contact Governor Mills. Ask why she’s hoarding a $1 billion surplus while people freeze to death in Portland.

Temporary Shelter Is Not a Solution, It’s a Band-aid

This plan is a stopgap. It will not solve anything. It will not reach most of the people who need help. It will not prevent winter deaths.

What we need are long-term investments in treatment, housing, and care. We need leadership from people with the power to act, not just from those of us trying to patch the system from below.

This is where we are. And unless we fight like hell to change the trajectory, it’s where we’ll be next winter too. And the one after that, and the one after that… I am asking Portland citizens to stand up and demand change, demand that our county, state and federal partners do their duty.

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Friday, September 12 2025

ONE BIG THING: Sharing the Responsibility for Portland’s Future

Last night, the Finance Committee had two big conversations about how we pay for City services: the Portland Senior Tax Equity Program (P-STEP) and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Program. Both are about making sure the responsibility for funding our City is spread fairly, so that no one group is left carrying more than its share.

What Happened

The P-STEP Program was created in 2017 to help seniors—both renters and homeowners—who were struggling to keep up with rising housing costs tied to property taxes. The program was designed this way because state law recognizes that whether you rent or own, property taxes affect your housing costs. What many people don’t realize is that the state law enabling this program allows municipalities to design it for seniors, but does not require it to be limited by age. In other words, Portland could choose to expand this type of relief to younger residents as well. In the last couple of years, P-STEP has reached more households than ever, which tells us the need is growing. That success raises a bigger question: should this kind of relief be available to younger families too? After all, the rising cost of housing isn’t just affecting seniors.

We also discussed a revised draft framework for two approaches: a voluntary PILOT Program, and a municipal service charge. The service charge is authorized under state law (Title 36, section 508) and applies only to a narrow category of tax-exempt properties—those that generate rental income, but are otherwise exempt from property taxes. The law has been on the books since the 1970s, but Portland has not previously used it. It is mandatory rather than voluntary, but because it applies to a much smaller pool of properties, it would not replace a broader PILOT framework. Instead, Portland could use the service charge in conjunction with PILOT, ensuring that nonprofits benefiting from rental income, along with larger institutions like hospitals and universities, all contribute something toward the City services they rely on.

Why It Matters

Think about two neighbors on the same street. One is a retired senior who depends on a fixed income, and the other is a young family with kids in school. Both are facing rising costs, and both need the same services: safe roads, reliable emergency response, and schools that prepare the next generation. Expanding P-STEP to all ages would mean that both of those households could get help shouldering the cost of staying in their homes.

Or take another example: when a fire truck rolls out of the station, it doesn’t stop to check whether the property it’s headed to is taxable. Hospitals, colleges, and large nonprofits get the same protection and use the same infrastructure as everyone else. A PILOT Program would mean they contribute a small share back into the system that keeps their doors open and their staff and patients safe.

These aren’t abstract policy debates; they’re about whether Portlanders—young or old, homeowner or nonprofit—are all pitching in together to keep our community strong.

What Comes Next

The Finance Committee will keep working on both proposals this fall. No decisions have been made yet, but these conversations are setting the stage for policy changes that could have a real impact on households across the city.

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Sunday, September 7 2025

The Rich Got a Break. Working People Got the Bill. It’s time to Re-Balance the Books.

You may have heard by now that Portland just completed a citywide property revaluation, and new tax bills will be arriving in mailboxes any day now. Residential property values went up by an average of 43% while commercial rates rose only 19%. The mil rate (the tax rate per one thousand dollars of assessed value) has been lowered to $11.98, but that doesn’t mean your bill will go down, especially if your property value jumped significantly.

For many households, this will mean a higher cost of living in a city that’s already difficult to afford. It raises serious questions about tax fairness, economic stability, and how we protect long-term residents from being priced out of Portland.

And it speaks to the core of what’s broken in American politics.

For decades, the Democratic Party has told working people that the only way to fund public services is to raise taxes on the middle class, while avoiding real fights with the wealthy and powerful. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has slashed taxes for billionaires and corporations and paid for it by cutting the programs working families rely on.

I believe we can do better in Portland. We can tax those who can afford it, and use that revenue to help everyone: renters, working-class homeowners, seniors, and low-income families just trying to stay housed.

That’s why I’ve been advocating for the Finance Committee to expand the Portland Senior Tax Equity Program (P‑STEP). At our upcoming meeting on Wednesday, September 11, the committee will begin formal discussions about how we can do that responsibly, effectively, and equitably.

What Is P‑STEP?

P‑STEP is a local rebate program that supplements the Maine Property Tax Fairness Credit. It was originally created to help low-income seniors stay in their homes as costs rose around them. Since then, more and more seniors are using the program, but today the need goes far beyond this one age group.

What’s Being Proposed?

I’m asking the City to expand P‑STEP eligibility to all income-qualified residents—not just seniors—and to do so gradually over the next five years by:

Lowering the age threshold each year, until it’s fully removed in FY31.
Continuing to include renters and expand outreach to them, so they know how to access their rebate.
Keeping the program revenue-neutral by modestly adjusting the property tax rate so that those with the most valuable properties help fund relief for those with the least room to spare.

I’ve also asked the Finance Committee to request a formal mil rate modeling analysis from City staff, so we can understand what adjustments would be needed to make the expanded program work, without increasing the City’s budget.

Why Now?

Because the moment demands it.

Trump’s federal tax policy rewards the wealthiest Americans while shifting the burden onto working people. Local governments like Portland are left to pick up the slack, with fewer tools and tighter budgets every year. Increasingly, that gap is becoming unmanageable.

But all politics is local, and here in Portland, we already have the tools to fight back. We can expand an existing program that works, and help the people Trump left behind. We can rebalance the equation, right here, right now.

Make no mistake: there will be pushback. Some of Portland’s biggest property owners and corporations will try to keep passing their responsibility onto the rest of us. Some folks who’ve done quite well will claim they can’t possibly give more. But I didn’t run for office to protect the powerful. I ran to fight for working people.

So let’s get ready, with facts, with fairness, and with a plan. Tune in to the Finance Committee meeting on Thursday. Write all of your Councilors and the Mayor. Share this newsletter. Let’s move this forward together.

Finance Committee Meeting
Thursday, September 11
Time 5:00 pm
Remote Via Zoom

Thank you for being engaged and for continuing to demand fairness in how we govern. I’ll keep you posted as this conversation moves forward.