Connect with us

Maine

Maine girls track star calls Laurel Libby a 'hateful' bully

Published

on

Maine girls track star calls Laurel Libby a 'hateful' bully


A freshman high school track star is pushing back against state Rep. Laurel Libby’s campaign against transgender athletes.

In a letter published by the Portland Press Herald, Anelise Feldman, who attends Yarmouth High School, defended Soren Stark-Chessa, a transgender athlete who recently took first place in both the 1600- and 800-meter events.

Feldman placed second in the 1600, clocking a personal best of 6:16.32, she wrote. It was enough to earn her varsity status at Yarmouth High. Stark-Chessa finished 5:57.27 in the 1600 and 2:43.31 in the 800, just a second ahead of her next closest competitor.

“The fact that someone else finished in front of me didn’t diminish the happiness I felt after finishing that race. I don’t feel like first place was taken from me. Instead, I feel like a happy day was turned ugly by a bully who is using children to make political points,” Feldman wrote in the letter to the editor.

Advertisement

Stark-Chessa, a junior at Maine Coast Waldorf School in Freeport, testified last week before a legislative committee hearing a slate of bills concerning transgender athletes.

In an interview on Fox News last week, Libby lamented Stark-Chessa’s performance at the track meet earlier this month, accusing her of “pushing many, many of our young women out of the way in their ascent to the podium.”

But Feldman pushed back against Libby, saying that personal improvement is valued as much as the place where athletes finish. She wrote that athletics are the highlight of many students’ time in high school.

“No one was harmed by Soren’s participation in the girls’ track meet, but we are all harmed by the hateful rhetoric of bullies, like Rep. Libby, who want to take sports away from some kids just because of who they are,” Feldman wrote in the Press Herald letter.

In February, Libby took to social media to lament the performance of a different transgender athlete who had won a girls indoor track title. That post thrust Maine into the crosshairs of President Donald Trump, who threatened to withhold federal funding from the state over the inclusion of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports, saying that violates an executive order he signed that month.

Advertisement

The day after Trump singled out Maine at a Republican governors’ event in Washington, he crossed paths with Gov. Janet Mills at an event at the White House. In a heated exchange, Trump pressed Mills on the state’s policy toward transgender athletes and the governor told the president that she would “see you in court.”

State law, specifically the Maine Human Rights Act, prohibits discrimination in education, employment, housing and more on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, ancestry or national origin.

There are no transgender athletes competing on any University of Maine System sports team. At the high school level, only two transgender athletes are competing during the current school year.

For the 2023-2024 school year, about 45,000 students participated in high school sports in Maine, according to the National Federation of State High School Associations. (That does count students who participated in two or more sports multiple times.)

Between 2013 and 2021, the Maine Principals’ Association, which oversees scholastic sports for 151 public and private schools, heard from 56 trans students wishing to participate on a high school sports team consistent with their gender identity, only four of whom were trans girls.

Advertisement

Since that verbal sparring at the White House, the Trump administration has launched an unprecedented pressure campaign against Maine over the inclusion of transgender athletes. Key to that has been a slate of Title IX investigations from six federal agencies targeting the state, the Maine Department of Education, the Maine Principals’ Association, Greely High School in Cumberland and the UMaine System.

Last month, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi sued the state alleging it was discriminating against and failing to protect women and girls in violation of Title IX, a landmark 1972 anti-discrimination statute. Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey responded late last week, accusing the Trump administration of a slew of constitutional violations and asking a federal judge to toss out the case.

That case could ultimately land before the conservative U.S. Supreme Court, where the Trump administration could ask it to rule that Title IX outlaws athletic policies like the ones in Maine and more than 20 other states.

The U.S. Department of Education, whose Title IX probe is behind the civil rights lawsuit, has launched a separate probe into its state counterpart over allegations that dozens of school districts are hiding students’ “gender plans” from parents in violation of the   Family Educational Privacy Rights Act.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also has referred a Title IX case to the Justice Department.

Advertisement

The Maine House censured Libby in February for her social media posts. She has sued House Speaker Ryan Fecteau in federal court to get her speaking and voting privileges back. But the courts have handed her two  setbacks.

Now she’s asking the Supreme Court to take up her case.

Beyond the investigations, the Trump administration has been trying to leverage federal funds to get the state to reverse its policies toward transgender athletes.

Almost immediately the Trump administration pulled funding for Maine Sea Grant. More than 30 states, Puerto Rico and Guam participate in the national Sea Grant program. No other Sea Grant program has seen its funding cut.

That funding was restored earlier this month after the Commerce Department renegotiated the award, though it’s unclear what — if any — changes were made.

Advertisement

In March, the Social Security Administration ended two programs allowing Maine providers to share birth and death information electronically, a move that meant new parents would have to travel to one of eight Social Security offices to register their newborns for a Social Security number.

The agency reversed that decision within 48 hours.

The acting Social Security administrator, Leland Dudek, took that move in retribution against Mills over her war of words with Trump, despite earlier statements calling it a “mistake.” He even brushed off a senior aide’s warning that it would increase fraud. In an email, Dudek acknowledged “improper payments” would increase, but it was necessary in order to punish a “petulant child.”

And on April 1, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins informed Mills that her department was pulling funding for programs that feed schoolchildren, children in day care, at-risk youth outside school hours and adults in care settings. In a letter to the governor, Rollins warned that “this was just the beginning” for Maine because of alleged Title IX violations.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration signed a settlement with Maine agreeing to “refrain from freezing, terminating, or otherwise interfering with the state of Maine’s access to United States Department of Agriculture funds” over “alleged violations of Title IX.” In exchange, Maine dropped its lawsuit challenging the freeze.

Advertisement

In April, Bondi announced that her department was pulling $1.5 million in “nonessential” funding from the Maine prison system because of a transgender inmate housed in a women’s prison.



Source link

Maine

State recommends major changes for Maine’s mobile home parks

Published

on

State recommends major changes for Maine’s mobile home parks


Residents of Bay Bridge Estates in Brunswick said that Tuesday was the day that their homes were being hooked up to the town’s water supply. (Daryn Slover/Staff Photographer)

A new state report offers a series of recommendations to expand existing mobile home parks in Maine and build new ones, allow homeowners to obtain traditional mortgages at more favorable rates and overhaul the state’s oversight of parks.

The 30-page report, written by the Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future and mandated by legislation passed last year, is intended to be a blueprint for future proposals as lawmakers seek to protect the roughly 45,000 Maine residents who live in mobile home parks.

It will be presented to the Housing and Economic Development Committee this month.

Advertisement

Mobile home parks in Maine and across the country — often considered the last form of unsubsidized affordable housing — are increasingly being purchased by out-of-state investors who raise the monthly lot rents, in some cases doubling or tripling prices, according to national data. 

Park residents, often low-income families or seniors on a fixed income, own their homes but not the land they sit on and residents are essentially helpless against rent increases.

“If they’re forced to lose their housing because the rents get too high, it’s hard to see where they’d be able to go,” said Greg Payne, senior housing adviser for the Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future.

The state is feverishly trying to build tens of thousands of housing units in the coming years, but Payne said in an interview it’s just as important to “protect the housing that we do have.”

Advertisement

“If we lose any of our affordable housing stock, that’s going to make our challenge even greater,” he said.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR OWNERS, RESIDENTS

Many state officials would like to see more mom-and-pop or cooperatively owned manufactured housing communities, especially as the state tries to ramp up production.

But according to the report, the number of locally owned communities has been dwindling, and smaller owners and developers frequently struggle to increase available housing in their parks.   Boosting supply could also help lower costs for existing residents. 

As with all construction, it has gotten expensive. 

“There are plenty of owners who I think would be willing to expand if the math worked,” Payne said. “If we’re able to help with that, it creates more units that we desperately need across the state and creates the opportunity to spread existing costs across more households.”

Advertisement

The report recommends, among other things, making it easier for park owners to access MaineHousing construction loans, which state statute currently prohibits. 

The office also suggested developing a subsidy program that would give owners a forgivable loan if they agree to charge income-restricted lot rents to income-restricted households. 

‘TOO GOOD TO MISS’

The report also recommends allowing mobile home buyers to take out traditional mortgage loans.

Historically, loans for manufactured homes have been titled as personal property or “chattel” loans, similar to cars. These loans, according to the report, typically have shorter terms, higher interest rates, fewer lenders to choose from and inferior consumer protection. 

Over the years, construction technology and government regulations have evolved and factory-built houses are now often comparable to site-built housing, according to the report.

Advertisement

The price gap between the two is also narrowing, with many mobile homes selling for well over $200,000.

Payne said he spoke to an Old Orchard Beach resident whose interest rate is more than 11%, and is paying about $640 a month for a $60,000 loan, on top of her monthly lot rent. Comparatively, according to mortgage buyer Freddie Mac, the current interest rate on a 30-year mortgage is about 6.15%. That would save her hundreds of dollars a month.

“We don’t often have the opportunity to increase affordability and have nobody losing,” Payne said. “It’s an opportunity that could be too good to miss.”

‘SYSTEMIC LACK OF SUPPORT’

The report recommends an overhaul or “reimagining” of state regulation and oversight of mobile home communities to better serve residents. 

Currently, the Maine Manufactured Housing Board is in charge of licensing and inspecting parks, while landlord and tenant issues and consumer protection claims are enforced by the Office of the Maine Attorney General or the court system. 

Advertisement

But according to the report there is a “systemic lack of support” from state government in addressing some of the more common problems in parks — poor living conditions, untenable community rules and fees, disregard of state laws — and attempts to get help from either agency often result in referrals elsewhere. 

“This pattern of circular referrals, rarely leading to support, often leaves park residents feeling isolated and unheard,” the report says. 

The office recommends that the Legislature transfer the responsibility for certification, technical assistance and regulatory coordination from the Office of Professional and Occupational Regulation, where the board is currently housed, to the Maine Office of Community Affairs, which would also serve as a “first call” for residents seeking assistance.

Compliance with state rules would be handled by the attorney general’s office, which may need to find ways to provide more legal support to homeowners.

Finally, the report recommends directing more private resources toward supporting a housing attorney at Pine Tree Legal Assistance who has expertise in mobile home park issues.

Advertisement

LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS

Mobile home parks have been a hot-button issue in the last few Legislative sessions.

Lawmakers last year passed a series of bills designed to protect mobile homeowners, including one that gives park residents the “right of first refusal” if their community goes up for sale. 

In addition to the recommendations outlined in the recent report, the state is seeking to collect more data about the state’s parks.

Historically, the Maine Manufactured Housing Board has not tracked whether the parks are owned by resident co-ops, out-of-state corporations or Maine-based operators. It also collected no information about how many lots are in each park, vacancies or average lot rents.

That information is now required in order to license a park.

Advertisement

Another bill, which has resulted in confusion and some retaliatory rent increases, requires owners to provide 90 days written notice of a rent increase and establishes a process for residents to request mediation if the increase is more than the Consumer Price Index plus 1%. While owners are required by the new law to act in good faith, they are not prevented from moving forward with an increase.

Efforts to institute statewide rent control failed in the last session, in part due to Maine’s long history of local control, but many communities, including Brunswick, Saco and Sanford, have passed rent control measures or moratoriums on rent increases as they grapple with how to protect residents. 

The state report includes a model rent stabilization ordinance for municipalities but no mandate.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Maine

How labels make or break Maine’s recreational cannabis compliance system

Published

on

How labels make or break Maine’s recreational cannabis compliance system


A group of recreational cannabis flower products purchased in October at Brilliant Buds in Bethel were fully compliant with state requirements.

The stickers for the “Find.” brand products displayed required warnings, strain names, potency values, processor license information and batch identifiers.

A Find-brand package purchased at Brilliant Buds in Bethel shows a medical-use label faintly visible beneath the recreational sticker, including the strain name MAC 1. Find is Curaleaf’s economy and mid-tier product line, typically selling for about $75 an ounce in Maine’s medical market and around $125 an ounce in recreational retail. (Courtesy photo)

But when the recreational stickers were peeled back after being purchased on Oct. 24, medical cannabis labels were found underneath. The labels included Curaleaf’s Auburn facility address and medical-style batch data. Curaleaf is one of the largest multistate medical cannabis operators in the United States.

Was it a labeling error? Was the product for medical use instead of recreational? Was it simply a case of recycled packaging?

Advertisement

Those questions and more are at the core of labeling irregularities in Maine’s cannabis packaging, verification and retail compliance model: repurposed or mislabeled consumer packages can move through intake, stocking and point-of-sale without triggering an alert.

One recreational-use bag labeled “Turnpike Cookies” revealed a medical label beneath it printed with the strain “MAC 1.” A second bag of “Mintz Snackz” had the same label. In both cases, the originally labeled strain name was faintly visible through the sticker.

The discovery does not establish wrongdoing or intentional misconduct, but it does raise questions for consumers and regulators who may not necessarily be able to distinguish if a product on the shelf had an old label that was not properly removed or if the product was intended for one market but was being sold in the other without following all required rules.

In the case of the layered labels at Brilliant Buds, it was all legal. Maine’s recreational cannabis rules do not prohibit layered labels, and the final, visible sticker is treated as the compliance record at retail.

With labels from different regulatory programs remaining visible beneath a retail sticker, however, it has created confusion among consumers who want to know exactly where their cannabis is from and raised questions about packaging quality control.

Advertisement

Under Maine rules, the label itself is the mechanism by which retail compliance is communicated and enforced. The Office of Cannabis Policy allows multiple labels on a recreational package, provided required information is not obstructed.

Maine’s recreational cannabis program includes mandatory testing, track and trace, stringent labeling and universal symbols. The medical cannabis program does not require mandatory testing or track & trace.

Kaspar Heinrici, chief executive director of SeaWeed Co. in Portland, said the recreational cannabis market operates under a level of scrutiny that is often misunderstood by the public.

“There is still a misperception that cannabis operators are putting a plant into a bag with little oversight,” he said. “The reality is that regulated recreational operators are working with a level of organization, testing and standard operating procedures closer to the medical or financial services industries.”

TRACING CANNABIS

Maine’s recreational system requires cannabis sold at retail to be identifiable for recall purposes through batch information printed on the label.

Advertisement

Heinrici said Maine’s batch-based approach is intended to balance public health protections with operational practicality.

“If there is an issue with one unit of a product, it likely extends to the rest of the package and potentially the package it came from,” he said. “Being overly specific at the individual unit level is not going to provide additional benefit.”

At the retail shelf, compliance and recall depend on the accuracy of the information printed on the visible retail label. Inspection quality can vary depending on staffing levels, lighting, workflow and training. Batch numbers are often printed in small type.

The rule does not require individual retail units, such as eighths, quarters, ounces or pre-rolls, to carry a unique electronic identifier, radio frequency identification tags or scannable code. But it does for cultivation and wholesale inventory movement.

Maine uses Metrc (short for Marijuana Enforcement Tracking Reporting Compliance) a track-and-trace inventory system adopted in many cannabis jurisdictions.

Advertisement

Other states use different track-and-trace platforms. For example, Connecticut uses BioTrack. In Connecticut, each retail cannabis unit carries a printed unit identification number with a machine-readable barcode, as well as a QR code with a link.

A Curaleaf “Ched-R-Cheez” cannabis label from Connecticut shows a printed unit identification number with a machine-readable barcode and a QR code intended to link consumers to batch-specific test results. (Courtesy photo)

Curaleaf is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, and operates more than 150 operates medical and recreational dispensaries nationwide.

Maine consumers do not have a comparable consumer-facing verification tool.

Heinrici said that while testing and traceability are essential, additional regulatory layers do not always translate into better consumer outcomes.

Advertisement

“The track-and-trace and testing requirements are important for public health, but they verge on being overly detailed and overly burdensome for the end consumer,” he said. “More regulation always comes with a cost, and that cost ultimately shows up at the register.”

SHIFTING MARKET IN MAINE

Curaleaf entered Maine in 2016 through its relationship with Remedy Compassion Center, one of the state’s original eight nonprofit medical cannabis dispensaries and the first to open under Maine’s medical program.

While Curaleaf exited recreational retail storefronts in Maine in 2023, citing competitive pressures, the company remained active in the state’s medical cannabis program as well as recreational cultivation and manufacturing.

It appears Curaleaf is dipping its toes back into recreational retail. In late November, job postings for Curaleaf-managed operations at Brilliant Buds in Bethel signaled a return through a licensed partner rather than a Curaleaf-branded store. Additional Curaleaf job listings in Bangor indicate a recreational retail component planned for that location.

Curaleaf did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article. Attempts to seek comment from Brilliant Buds were also unsuccessful.

Advertisement

A reporter visited the Bethel store in person but was asked to leave upon entry. A follow-up phone call to the store and subsequent emails seeking comment were not answered.

Office of Cannabis Policy Data Analytics Director Eric Miller said recently that recreational sales are strongest in western and southern Maine, particularly in border-adjacent regions near New Hampshire, a factor that may help explain Curaleaf’s focus on Bethel.

John Hudak, the director of Maine’s Office of Cannabis Policy, said sales data suggest some border effects, but emphasized they are not the primary driver of Maine’s recreational market.

“I think New Hampshire is having an impact in York and Cumberland County, but it’s not the major driver of Maine’s cannabis economy,” Hudak said, adding that tourism and Maine consumers account for most recreational sales.

MEDICAL vs. RECREATIONAL

Maine regulates cannabis under three distinct frameworks: medical cannabis, recreational cannabis and hemp-derived products. Each system operates under different statutes, labeling rules, testing standards and tax structures.

Advertisement

Recreational cannabis is overseen by the Office of Cannabis Policy and is subject to labeling rules, mandatory third-party testing, Metrc oversight and a 10% excise tax. As of late 2025, Maine lists roughly 180 licensed recreational cannabis stores, along with 78 cultivation facilities and 81 manufacturing facilities statewide.

According to data from the Maine Office of Cannabis Police, monthly taxable cannabis sales in Maine show medical sales peaking earlier and then leveling off, while recreational sales rise steadily after legalization, narrowing the gap between the two markets from 2022 through 2025. (Rebecca Richard/Staff Writer)

Maine’s medical cannabis program is also overseen, separately, by the Office of Cannabis Policy. Maine lists 86 active medical dispensaries and approximately 1,554 registered caregivers statewide. A medical cannabis caregiver is an individual or business authorized to grow and sell cannabis directly to registered patients, often operating at smaller scale and under less prescriptive labeling and testing rules.

“From a caregiver standpoint, testing and transparency matter because trust is everything,” said a Franklin County-area medical cannabis caregiver who requested anonymity. “Even unintentional confusion around labeling or testing can make patients question whether a product is safe.”

In July, cPort Credit Union notified many medical cannabis caregivers and caregiver storefronts statewide that their business accounts would be closed, citing evolving compliance expectations and regulatory risk. The decision did not apply to licensed medical dispensaries, which are subject to higher levels of oversight.

Advertisement

“Patients ask more questions now than they did a few years ago,” said the Franklin County caregiver. “Public perception around safety is shaped as much by labeling and communication as by the product itself.”

The labeling incident in Bethel illustrates a possible hole in Maine’s recreational oversight model. Cultivation and wholesale movement can be tracked with some accuracy, but at the retail shelf things can get much more dicey, relying on individual inspectors and label accuracy — rather than actual traceability.

At the point of sale, the sticker is the system. Against that backdrop, state regulators are continuing broader discussions about testing standards and consumer protection.

The Office of Cannabis Policy hosted a Cannabis Conversation on Testing Lab Standards on Dec. 22, hosted by director Hudak, which focused on how the state and the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention work together to ensure certified cannabis testing labs, examining laboratory procedures, oversight and public health standards. The video can be watched on Maine OCP’s YouTube page.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Maine

Maine secures $1.9M settlement for bitcoin kiosk scam victims

Published

on

Maine secures .9M settlement for bitcoin kiosk scam victims


A major cryptocurrency ATM operator will pay $1.9 million to Maine residents who were defrauded by scammers using the company’s kiosks, according to a consent agreement with the state.

The agreement, between Bitcoin Depot and the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection, follows a two-year investigation that included the Office of the Maine Attorney General. It was signed in December and announced Monday.

Bitcoin Depot is based in Atlanta and operates over 25,000 kiosks in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Mexico and Hong Kong, according to its website. The company operated about 80 unlicensed kiosks in Maine — until the state passed emergency legislation in June to regulate virtual currency ATMs.

Bitcoin Depot’s website no longer lists kiosks in Maine. “They’ve been gone since last summer,” said Linda Conti, bureau superintendent.

Advertisement

Most of the company’s machines were in York, Cumberland, Kennebec and Penobscot counties, Conti said.

It’s unclear how many Mainers have been scammed through Bitcoin Depot kiosks, exactly where they were located or how much money each victim might receive.

“We will not know how much each refund will be until we have received and reviewed all of the claims,” according to information posted on the bureau’s website.

Claims must be filed on or before April 1, 2026, and may be submitted online. The bureau will begin issuing refunds in May.

INVESTIGATIONS UNDERWAY

The bureau said the scams involved transactions made at Bitcoin Depot kiosks, where people purchased cryptocurrency and deposited it into “unhosted wallets” provided by third-party fraudsters.

Advertisement

An unhosted wallet is a type of digital wallet that is hosted and controlled by a user, rather than by a financial institution, money transmitter, exchange or other virtual asset service provider.

Although Bitcoin Depot no longer has kiosks in Maine,nearly 100 other cryptocurrency ATMs are still operating across the state, Conti said, including CoinFlip, CoinStar and Coinme machines.

In March 2023, bureau investigators found that Bitcoin Depot kiosks in Maine appeared to provide money transmission functions and invited the company to apply for a money transmitter license, according to the consent agreement.

The company applied for a license that month, but the application wasn’t deemed complete until February 2025 and was denied in April 2025. Bitcoin Depot appealed the decision in May.

In July 2025, the bureau provided Bitcoin Depot with a list of consumer transactions at its kiosks in which Maine consumers may have suffered financial loss and harm as a result of third-party fraudsters.

As part of the consent agreement, Bitcoin Depot must send a $1.9 million check to Maine’s attorney general by Feb. 2 and has agreed to fully comply with Maine’s consumer protection laws as a now-licensed money transmitter.

Advertisement

Bitcoin Depot is still licensed to transmit funds in Maine through online transactions, Conti said.

The bureau continues to investigate other cryptocurrency kiosk operators, she said. “The kiosks are where the trouble happens,” Conti said.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Gov. Janet Mills praised the bureau for securing an agreement with Bitcoin Depot “that will put money back into the pockets of Maine people who were defrauded by predatory third-party scammers.”

Mills urged all Mainers “to talk with their loved ones about the threats of scammers and precautions to take to avoid these cruel and often sophisticated schemes.” 

Maine has recently adopted laws that protect consumers from third-party scammers, including the Maine Money Transmission Modernization Act, which the governor signed in 2024.

Advertisement

In June 2025, Mills also signed emergency legislation that limits daily transmission amounts from virtual currency kiosks, caps fees and exchange rates, and provides redress for consumers.

“Maine’s new consumer protection laws have allowed us to reach this consent agreement,” Conti said. “Whenever you have new technologies, you’re going to have people who are vulnerable and need to be protected.”

The laws include an unhosted wallet provision, which requires money transmitters to employ new technologies to ensure that Maine consumers own and control their virtual wallets.

To be eligible for a portion of the $1.9 million, claimants must have been a Maine resident between 2022 and 2025; used a Bitcoin Depot kiosk in Maine during that period to convert cash to cryptocurrecy; and deposited the cryptocurrency into an unhosted wallet provided by a scammer or third-party fraudster.

The full consent agreement and FAQs for consumers are available on the bureau’s website. For more information call 800-332-8529 or 207-624-8527.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending