AUGUSTA, Maine — Should Maine give landowners more recourse when state regulations affect what they can do with their property?
Lawmakers expect many people to testify Tuesday at the State House in Augusta during a public hearing on LD 1810, “An Act To Implement Recommendations of the Committee To Review Issues Dealing with Regulatory Takings.”
Environmentalists and other opponents of the bill believe it would turn the Pine Tree State into a legal quagmire, cost taxpayers a lot of money and weaken laws passed to protect the environment.
“It will be unlike any bill adopted anywhere in the United States,” Pete Didisheim, advocacy director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said Monday. “These laws have been defeated in the past for a very good reason. They’re expensive. If you’re actually going to pay compensation claims, it could be millions, or tens of millions of dollars.”
But those in favor say that current laws do not compensate landowners at all when their property has been affected by regulatory actions that include environmental legislation, mandatory setbacks or other rules.
“I’m not looking to create a wave of new lawsuits from this, but I do want to put the Legislature on notice,” said Rep. Andre Cushing, R-Hampden, who is in favor of the bill. “When they enact a broad, sweeping law, they will have to consider the effect on property owners.”
As written, the bill would establish standards for relief when state regulation imposes an “inordinate burden” on a property owner, according to the legislative summary.
It would not be retroactive, but instead would apply to regulations that have yet to be enacted. Property owners who can show that the fair market value of their entire parcel of land has been diminished by at least 50 percent because of state regulations may apply to the state for relief.
They could file suit for financial compensation — and if the state does not have the money to pay the landowner his claim, officials could grant variances allowing the restricted development to occur.
Cushing, who submitted a bill in 2011 that did not pass but led to the creation of the review committee, said that the law currently does not allow for compensation if land has been affected by regulatory actions.
“The courts have established that if you can still park a trailer on the site and have a picnic there, you have not lost the value of your property to a point where you should be compensated,” he said. “People don’t advise their clients to sue, because they know they’re not going to win, based on previous cases.”
Didisheim said that similar bills have come before the Maine Legislature five times since 1995, with all being handily defeated.
“This time, there are significant outside interests who are pushing hard for it,” he said.
Among the bill’s opponents are the Maine Municipal Association, Maine Preservation, Maine Audubon, Maine Conservation Lawyers and the Maine Planning Association.
Didisheim said that establishing the 50 percent property value reduction would be a “creative heyday” for lawyers and appraisers.
“This is a lawyer’s paradise,” Didisheim said. “They’ll be duking it out in courts. One thing that has been learned — the people who benefit the most are corporations and large landowners who have the money to hire consultants, attorneys, to creatively make the case that the state owes them millions.”
Both Cushing and Didisheim alluded to an Oregon law governing regulatory takings that was passed by a citizens’ vote in 2004 and then rejected two years later.
That law was valid retroactively and more than 7,000 lawsuits were filed for claims against the state that totaled nearly $20 billion.
Didisheim called the Oregon law “somewhat similar” to the Maine bill, but Cushing said that they differ on the the most important point.
“It was, quite frankly, disastrous for Oregon, because it was retrospective,” Cushing said. “If Maine does adopt this law — it would only be for new laws passed by the Maine Legislature.”
Supporters of the bill include the Maine Realtors and Developers Association, the Maine Farm Bureau and the Maine Forest Products Council.
Jon Metrick, director of communications at the Maine Forest Products Council, said that his industry group definitely supports the bill. He hears often from people who say they have lost as much as 90 percent of the value of their land because of regulations that include wetlands setbacks.
If the bill is passed, it would be a more balanced approach, he said, and would really benefit small landowners rather than large ones.
“Because of the whole parcel rule, the whole parcel of contiguous land would be considered,” Metrick said.
The way the bill is written, landowners would have to prove a 50 percent decrease in value for their whole property — which would make it nearly impossible for large landowners to sue the state for millions of dollars, he said.
“There has been a lot of ‘The sky is falling, the sky is falling,’ but as long as the Legislature acts responsibly, there could potentially never be a legislative takings case,” he said.
State Sen. Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, said he was on the committee and supports compensating landowners for action that reduces their property value but he does not believe the solution is to grant variances to existing regulations if the state doesn’t have the money to pay the landowners.
“I’m totally against that,” he said. “I already know what’s going to happen. People who are well off will get waivers. Other people won’t. It makes no sense in my mind for the state of Maine to institute laws and then have them apply to a group of people.”
Rep. Charlie Priest, D-Brunswick, said his concern is similar to Jackson’s — that granting variances to existing regulations is the wrong way to go.
“It will lead to a patchwork system of environmental laws,” he said. “It will do away with a rational environmental policy.”
The Judiciary Committee will hold the public hearing on LD 1810 at 1 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 21, in Room 438 of the Maine State House.
……………….
If you are arguing about the rights of search and seizure, then I am going to suppose that the state’s setbacks, as well as the town’s ordinances and variance procedures are just as unconstitutional? I’m not sure what you are saying?, the “extremeist” want to preserve the land, you want to preserve yours?…..what’s the difference?
I have the Right to Protect My Private Property from those that would attempt to seize it from me.
and those that “seize it from you” are who? not your neighbor, not your relative: it’s your town, and therefore, the state because it’s had said that the town can do this, how far do you want to take this ?
The real question is how far would you, and the Government go with this? How much is too much? It is time to fight back!
Obviously it is government physical force that is being used to seize property rights through regulatory takings. Private citizens stealing are already covered under criminal laws against theft. That is why the government is required to provide the compensation under this bill. Others, however, are still morally responsible for their lobbying and undue influence through which they hijack the power of government to take what they want.
And regulations are trying to keep you from building an out house next to a brook so YOUR waste stays on YOUR private property!
Regulatory takings seizing property rights for preservationism like Resource Protection Zones and ‘bird habitat’ are not keeping harmful pollution from an “outhouse” out of a stream. They are intended to take the land. The preservationists think normal human life is pollution.
The viro pressure groups want to preserve other people’s private property. The owners are entitled to preserve and protect their own private property for their purpose. Those who don’t own it are not. That is the difference.
Good Fellow Citizens of the Great State of Maine, I beseech thee to Carefully consider the following before surrendering your Private Property Rights.
The Constitution of the United States
Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. (Excerpt)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; . . . .
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, (as in “pleading the 5th”)
Nor be deprived of life, Liberty, or Property, without due process of law;
Nor shall Private Property be taken for public use, without Just compensation.
Constitution of The State of MAINE
Article I. Declaration of Rights.
Section 1. Natural Rights.
All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting Property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
Section 21. Private Property, when to be taken.
Private property shall not be taken for public uses without just compensation;
nor unless the public exigencies require it. (in an Emergency)
Section 24. Other Rights Not Impaired.
The enumeration of certain rights shall Not impair nor deny others (other rights) retained by the people.
Too bad it’s just a worthless piece of paper to over 80% of the publicly educated citizens out there….
Revolution is at our doorstep!
If 80% of the people already do not recognize your rights you had better think about educating at least some of them before you think in terms of getting yourself trampled in a “revolution”. It will be hard enough to stop the viro/leftist tyrants exploiting state power from starting a civil war without looking for more overt violence.
Lets get rid of all “variances” for private property and let the tax man have a fair shake at all the land. When thats the case everyones taxes will go down and people will start getting treated equally. Roxanne Quimby and Plum Creek will both get taxed the same on their PRIVATE PROPERTY and LURC and land for Maines Future and the rest of the quasi gov. scams will go away.
How does this bill address the issue of the landowner who experiences reduced property values due to the state’s permitting an industrial wind development nearby? Why should landowners be given regulatory compensation, due to a presumption that their property values will be decreased due to the passage of some land use statutes, when there are landowners whose property values have been shown to be decreased, due to the passage of the expedited wind law.
Ain’t that the truth! Those of us who are so unfortunate to live near the wind farm on Vinalhaven have taken a substantial hit in property values due to the state’s inadequate set backs and insufficient noise regulations. Whose fault is this? It seems law makers agree that the state can not afford to compensate people who have lost their life savings due to the states inadequate noise regulations. Do these law makers believe that the residents who live near wind farms can afford to take such a tremendous financial HIT? Why should some individuals be compensated, but others not get any financial aid, just because the law was enacted a year or two later?!!
The bill also is limited in not compensating people whose rights have already been taken by direct prohibitions on land use like Resource Protection Zones and the equivalent.
But in providing compensation (not “financial aid”) for the loss of rights due to regulatory takings imposed directly on the land, the bill does not “pretend” that there are not other ways the government can improperly destroy value through lack of adequate protection of property rights — such as the nuisance and damage caused by wind mills that are too close to residential property.
The bill addresses the taking of private property by regulations imposed directly on the owner of the property, not indirect affects due to do activities elsewhere. In general, there is no right to a desired value of your property regardless of what else happens in the area or in the economy, but law is supposed to protect you from damage or nuisance directly caused by someone else. “Damage” in this context does not mean something you don’t happen to like, but should include physically damaging noise or subauditory rumbling from industrial machinery. That is a different issue from regulatory takings of the use of private property.
about time…
The eco-terrorists have had a free ride taking people’s property without having to pay a dime for too many years. Now they are squealing that they may have to consider economic impact when they propose theft in the future.
The only bad news here is that it will not allow compensation for thousands of Mainers who have already had their property rights encumbered.
Thing is, responsible environmental regulation IMPROVES property value.
Taking someone else’s land to impose preservationism does not increase the value to the owner. It is theft. That it “improves” the value to you is not an excuse for stealing from the owner.
Is giving people a Tree Growth Status Tax Breaks for 30 years encumbering “their” rights or the rights of the other Tax Payers??
And then by letting them come out of it and developing the land for for a profit encumbering their rights?
What about the guy who builds a nice home out in the country whos property gets devalued because the farmer next door sells his land zoned for agriculture to a commercial developer who gets his crony politician buddies to rezone it!
Should the Maine Taxpayers be forced to pay for the insult done to the homeowner while the realestate mogels stash the cash?
Maybe the property value enhancement should go to State !!!!!
The Tree Growth law was passed way back in 1971 when true conservationists had the quaint notion that property owners ought to receive some benefit for not developing their property.
Since then, eco-terrorists have only been concerned with the removal from development part. They have created laws that cost themselves very little to enforce, but make property owners spend huge sums of money to overcome.
You should go back and read about about the the guy in South Bristol who spent four years and thousands of dollars battling the Department of “Environmental Protection” just to be able to store lobster traps on a pier he built. Our legislature actually had to pass more legislation, just to rein in the DEP’s authority and force some common sense into the regulatory process.
You can also review some of the discussion pertaining to the, so-called, “Informed” Growth Act – otherwise known as the “Stick it to WalMart and Home Depot” law. Remember? This is the one that requires large retail chains to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on “impact studies” that have to follow the law’s guidelines that were carefully crafted to produce a pre-ordained disapproval of any store being opened.
Okay, I can see your point, but what about when a state agency, the DEP is headed by the chief lobbyist for gas and oil for the past ten, eleven years? Instead of weighing pros and cons, DEP has issued permits for a monster tank in the mid-caost in a ridiculously minor minute of time compared to the lobsterman who wanted to store his traps. Government is owned by big corporations. All those state administrators wear tasseled loafers and hob nob with the “big boys”if they aren’t the big boys themselves. And they all get their jollies at the expense of the majority of landowners and the profits all go to the big corporations. Too bad we can’t require those corps. who operate in Maine to hire from Maine, then we wouldn’t see teams of guys from Tennessee clearing trees, or guys from Mass. and Conn. driving the lead cars for wide loads and our unemployment rate would be lower than the 7% it is.
According to the article, the land in question must be devalued by at least 50% before it becomes eligible, pretty unlikely to happen in your scenario.
I agree that tree growth tax breaks are a racket that is frequently abused. All the tree growth tax break recipients that I know are wealthy landowners who had no intention to develop the land anyway, so other taxpayers are subsidizing something that the state (or forest) gets no benefit from. The most glaring example that I’m aware of is a family that owns around one hundred acres of property on the coast. They have all their summer homes on a 3 or 4 acre plot, and the rest of the land that’s not directly on the ocean is in tree growth so their tax bill is significantly reduced. They’d NEVER consider developing or selling this land because for them its purpose has always been to give them privacy and the feeling of solitude that makes their summer homes seem so peaceful. They get the full benefit of all their land, but only pay full taxes on a couple of acres. I think it would be great to have a place that peaceful and private and beautiful too but why should other taxpayers be forced to subsidize it? But that’s what happens when do-gooder enviromentalists are allowed to run amuck in Augusta for way too long.
The tree growth tax program is not a “racket”. It is a current-use tax assessment program that does not tax property owners for the highest potential development value when it is kept in woods. It does not cost the taxpayers anything. Land in tree growth does not create costs for schools and other such ‘services’. A desire to impose higher taxes on someone you resent is not a “cost” the government or other taxpayers. Anyone in the state with at least ten acres is eligible to apply to the tree growth program. It does not discriminate against “the wealthy” nor should it, but the “penalties” for leaving the program are exorbitant and much worse for high value land.
Are we guinea pigs in an ALEC experiment, again ?
ALEC, Maine Heritage Policy Center, Americans For Prosperity, their strings are all pulled by the Koch brothers.
…..sez the sock puppet with Donald Sussman’s hand up his…..
Thanks for your input Mr. Koch!
Thanks for yours Mr. Soros!
Do you think that Donald Sussman is Mr Soros’ sock puppet or is Mr Soros Donald Sussman’s sock puppet?
I think you’re a sock puppet for both of them.
Just like everyone that is anti-slavery and supports human freedom is a sock puppet of the Koch brothers…
And Mr. Koch, you should clean under your finger nails.
You know where they have been, huh ?
There’s some nice property for sale next to the Holtra Chemical factory, want to buy it?
Why aren’t you worried about the corporate-terrorists?
No, your property rights do not include filling in wetlands , clearcutting deer yards, and erecting 500 ft tall pinwheels. Deregulating never works because humans by nature will screw their neighbors over particularly the big landowners who think the state owes them something. The campowners who now look at windsprawl should be compensated by the big landowners who didn’t give a damn about anyone else. Many are already multi millionaires crying poverty. Property rights work both ways.
Okay, let’s just apply the restrictions to “big landowners” and leave anyone with 4 acres or less alone.
Try getting your politicians behind that proposal.
Really not interested in whatever the Natural Resources Council of Maine has to say since they sold their soul to the wind industry. This supposed advocacy group supports the wholesale destruction of Maine mountain tops, by greedy tax/rate payer subsidized, industrial wind farm developers. Folks who really care about the enviorment should not be supporting the Natural Resource Council.
I don’t….and I certainly don’t support the EPA!
All I have to hear is that the Maine Realtors and Developers and the Maine Forest Products Council support this bill for me to know it is a bad piece of legislation. How many more breaks and loopholes do these people think they deserve? The folks who need protection are the regular citizens who are affected by the big landowners’ bad decisions which hurt their property values. Proof is the 17 lawsuits settled in Mars Hill against the rapacious wind developer.
Any bill submitted by a republican,from Hampden, home, of the snooty delusions of grandeur bunch, has got to be a bad idea for the average Joe Mainer.
I always have to chuckle when I read comments like this. I’m about as “average Joe Mainer” as you could possibly get and I live in Hampden, not so much because of my “delusions of grandeur” as you call them, but because I was born and brought up here, as was my mother, and grandparents, and great-grandparents well over a hundred years ago. They had such “snooty” jobs as dairy farmer, poacher, schoolteacher, shoe factory worker, salesman, phone company worker, real estate agent, and car painter, and members of every generation have served in the US military. Hampden just seems like home to me. We do now seem to have more than our share of people who’ve moved in from away, and a few McMansion neighborhoods have even sprouted, but if you actually checked you might be surprised to learn that many of them are owned by people like myself who were born and brought up here with very modest means who have been successful in various local businesses and many others are owned by area doctors who choose to live in Hampden because of the perception that the school system is above average. Of course you could say the same for Bangor or any many other towns in the area who have superior schools.
When you make broad generalizations about a group of people you obviously know little about, you reveal much more about yourself than you do the people you are attempting to discredit. The next time you consider making such a sweeping statement, try actually getting to know the people you are tempted to criticize, and I’m pretty confident that you’ll find the they’re a whole lot more like yourself than you initially thought. The same concept applies whether you are a local yokel generalizing about those “snooty people” in the next town, or a high powered politician generalizing about those XXXXX’s from another country, or part of the world, or of another religion. If you take the time to actually check, we ALL have a lot more in common than we have differences!
I think he was just kidding around, and you did chuckle…
Taking private property is not a “break” or a “loophole” for the property owners.
The bill does not allow compensation for regulations preventing nuisance as opposed to preservationism. There is no “right” to prevent someone else from using his property in a way you don’t approve of.
Better late than never. A bill like this should have been passed thirty years ago.
There would be no need for a bil like this if LURC hadn’t been formed, and DEP had been reigned in.
That’s it — the Republicans have completely lost their marbles. This party bears no resemblance to what it once was.
Yes they have, they should learn to love our police State created by liberal left wing extremists.
Social Conservatives and Neo-cons created our current ‘police’ state.
LOL….you left out the progressives
It hasn’t been the same since they turned the stars on the elephant upside down!
I hope these supporters also are willing to give the State the Increased Value and Associated Taxes when the State enacts a law that “increases” their land Value!
Changeing a piece of property from Tree Growth Status to Ocean Front Beach Club comes to Mind!
Whats fair is fair!
Why do you want to take something from someone else that does not belong to you. I suppose it makes sense if you are the thief. Are you a thief? Perhaps you are just jealous?
Private Property is the foundation of Public Justice. If the man can steal from anyone, he can certainly steal from you too.
State regulations prohibiting use of private property do not increase value for the victims whose rights are taken. There is nothing to give back to the state. This bill pertains to the property under the restrictions, not economic impacts — positive or negative — from the surrounding area.
Property taxes are another form of discriminating against land owners. Tree growth current-use tax assessment has nothing to do with this bill. Not having to pay more in taxes is not an excuse to make people give the state partial or total ownership of the land.
Would I be able to sue if my sporting camp business is encroached on with blinking lights, sound and having to look at 475 foot towers 3/4 mile from my operation? IF so, I’m all for it.
Should the owners of the surrounding property sue for the eyesore of your Hillbilly Shacks?
WOW….stick and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me
Just trying to make a point,
No insult meant!
Actually, I live in a Hillbilly Shack!
Don’t beat yourself up.
Double-wides are not “Hillbilly.”
They are if they’re set at right angles to each other like his.
Only if it becomes a hillbilly shack after you move into your place. Otherwise, you knew what you were getting into.
About time! Industrial wind is going significantly lower my lake front property values. I’d been planning to expand and renovate but not worth it now. I have neighbors who feel the same.
Funny how people complain about their lakefront tax bill, but at the same time think their lakefront property is worth quadruple the amount they paid for it when it comes time to sell. Maybe your industrial wind power will put things back in check. Those cell phone towers we all rely on are just beautiful. I suppose you don’t have a cell phone either.
My issue with wind power goes well beyind the values issue. That was just the focus of this particular story. My real beef is this unproven boondoggle also wants my tax dollars in order to run. Tired of government subsidies. If it can’t stand on its own it should not be built.
Prove it works before raping every mountaintop in Maine.
wow, more money for the attorneys and less for the working person. What a surprise.
Where were your objections to more money for Natural Resources Council of Maine attorney’s? Where were your objections to their taking money from property owners?
Lemme guess…enacted by a Republican…to allow developers to build wherever they want…and probably written and/or endorsed by those same developers.
Your guess is wrong.
A Pandora’s box that should be kept closed.
The viro assault on private property is a Pandora’s box that was opened a long time ago. This bill is only a limited attempt to fight back against the destruction the viros have unleashed on property owners. Don’t condone that abuse and then claim that people defending themselves is “opening a Pandora’s box”.
A benefit I can see would be a defense against industrial wind interests (where turbines are POORLY placed). I’m not COMPLETELY against wind.
I do hope this law isn’t twisted to make responsible environmental regulation difficult.
I imagine responsible environmental regulation does nothing but INCREASE property value.
I agree. Oil is now $105 a barrel.
Taking private property does not increase the value to the people it is stolen from.
This bill is still very limited and much more is needed. One limitation is that its scope concerns loss of value due to regulations directly restricting normal use of the property. Nuisances and damage to external factors like the impact of rumbling noise from nearby wind mills is not covered.
Tea party almost over. Norquist sends marching orders by way of Hampden.
….and Soros sends orders via Orono
what’s your point?
No Point. Did you have one?
And folks wonder why the LURC is so badly needed. This legislation proves that point beyond any measure of reasonableness. This Bill by Cushing is all but guarnateeing that the LURC question is going to wind up on the ballot in November. And one can, literally, bet the farm that this legislation is going to bring out the voter’s in drove’s. Cushing and the Republican’s are playing with fire here, as are the more extremist Democrat’s. Given their recent moderation and working with the moderate Democrat’s on the HHS Bill, this might not be the best time to try and see just how far the GOP Caucus, and the Democrat’s more liberal wing, can go before they risk their recent gain’s. Research, discuss, debate, negotiate and compromise. The formula has been known and worked for a very long time. Add The Court’s into this mix and it all goes to crap. Don’t re-invent the wheel.
“Compromise” has meant the viros taking more and more as they have progressively destroyed private property rights with their lock on government power. They must be stopped and private property rights restored. This bill is not evidence that LURC is “badly needed”. It is a response to the abuse imposed by government agencies like LURC and DEP, and pushed by the viro lobby.
Nulike anything in the nation? See Florida’s Bert Harris Act
“This is a
lawyer’s paradise,” Didisheim said. “They’ll be duking it out in courts. One
thing that has been learned — the people who benefit the most are corporations
and large landowners who have the money to hire consultants, attorneys, to
creatively make the case that the state owes them millions.”
Mr. Didisheim
can you explain how I, as an individual land owner, can afford to fight the
Natural Resources Council? We all seem to have lost our rights to the special
interests on both sides of the political spectrum. While large land owners have
the money to defend themselves against groups like yours, individual land
owners do not. Your group is no different then the groups that develop wind
power, neither cares about individual land owners as long as you are getting
what you want. Let’s give some rights back to the people that pay taxes in this
state. I am all for a law that makes people think about the possible effects of
a law on individual tax payers. Maybe this law would slow the process down a
little so that they can put more effort into research of the effects of legislation.
The viro pressure groups already know the effects of their legislation. They don’t care because they don’t have to pay for it, and they sure don’t care about the damage to private property owners. The viros are opposed to private property rights. They want rule by bureaucracy — their bureaucracy. They shouldn’t be allowed to use the force of government power to take what they want at all, let alone get away with it without paying for it. The viros have already made Maine a lawyer’s paradise — for any lawyer on their side. Whether or not this bill passes, you can be sure that the viros will continue the harassment of their three Ls: lobby, legislate and litigate in their own lawyers’ paradise.
Every land use or zoning regulation benefits some properties and not others. This bill would indeed cause litigation to displace tourism as Maine’s leading industry.
Should property owners whose property values are enhanced are benefited by a regulation–such as the effect of a building height limitation on ocean views from back lot properties–have to pay the Town? Seems as if it should work both ways.
Which goes to show what a stupid piece of legislation this is.
The bill addresses direct restrictions taking someone else’s private property rights. No one has a “right” to “benefit” by stealing and then pretend that it is some kind of unavoidable ‘balance’. The viros have gone crazy for decades taking more and more for their preservationism, always come back for more no matter how much they grab. This has got to stop.
“Environmentalists and other opponents of the bill believe it would turn the Pine Tree State into a legal quagmire” Now THIS is funny stuff. This is exactly how the lunatic Green fringe operates. They twist and pervert the law, filing lawsuit after lawsuit to deprive men and women of their private property. Private Property is the foundation of Public Justice. If they can steal from them someone else can steal from you.
And when gas hits $5.00 a gallon this summer tell us again about lunatic Green fringe theory.
Sure, let’s throw another couple of Billion dollars at Solyndra-like operations……..as long as they are owned by significant contributors to the Democratic Party, of course.
And, how ’bout that $7,500 we taxpayers are coughing up to help someone buy a $45,000 vehicle that, on its fully charged batteries, can go about 25 miles. (At the same time, let’s give all those union workers a $7,000 bonus. It doesn’t matter that the company is still on the hook for Billions of taxpayer dollars.)
Gas is going to hit $5.00/gallon this summer because of the failed policies of Obama and his administration. I know this, because I listened to you quite intently when you screamed that the President is totally responsible for oil price increases during the Bush I and Bush II presidencies.
It’s time for you to take that anger management course, way past time.
People have a right to be angry at the viros for their destruction preservationist ideology and policies. It’s the viros who need to be “managed”.
NObama in 2012 might help oil prices. :)
Dear Paul, surely you must understand the reason why gasoline is closer to four dollars a gallon than one dollar a gallon is the lunatic green fringe. There is no shortage of oil. What we have is a shortage of courage to go and get it.
Exhibit 1) The cancelled pipeline from Canada. Exhibit 2) no drilling in Anwar, Alaska. Exhibit 3) Extremely limited drilling off the coastal areas. Each of these things and many more cause the price of oil to rise and are a direct result of the lunatic green fringe.
Johnny G!
So if you’ve got the courage we can bomb Iran this afternoon!What about the merger of Exxon and Mobil 1n 1999. Poor Exxon complained that it couldn’t compete any more and now it’s making record profits, YEAR after YEAR. What about the direct results of corporations who can buy anything they want. Hey don’t forget corporations are people too they have free speech rights. They’ve got more money and more rights and than any of your lunatic fringe groups put together.
Your pipeline; your drilling in Alaska is going to do more to enrich the salaries of Exxon-Mobil, Shell, and BP executives than it’s going to keep the price of gas stable.
And if you know so much about the pipeline from Canada, than you already know that the oil from that pipeline is going to Asia, it’s not going to lower the price of gas for YOUR car or to lower the price of oil to heat YOUR house.
I’m more afraid of Big Oil Corporations and their lobbyists than I am of your mysterious lunatic green fringe.
Good Grief Paul, you are the only one talking about bombing Iran.
Oil companies making record profits is a good thing, a very good thing. Shouldn’t everyone have the freedom to make profits? Profits are a good thing, the best of things. Profits are an incentive for a man to improve himself and the world around him making life easier for all of us. Profits allow us to purchase food, to purchase homes and to purchase entertainment. Profits allow us the time to think, to reflect, instead of laboring in the field 12 hours a day, seven days a week for a subsistence living. Your rant against corporations is very odd. Do you know what a corporation is? It is a business, owned by people, living breathing people, thousands of them all with their own little piece of the pie. They are called shares of stock. Yes, corporations are people, you, me, my neighbor and everyone in between. Attacking corporations? You might as well attack yourself.
Finally, have you heard of supply and demand? Of course if the lunatic green fringe limit the supply of oil the price will rise. There is no magic that gets the oil into your car. It gets there by hard working people, people working to generate a profit, so that your life and their life will be better.
He hates the people who produce what we need and want. He would wreck the whole economy before he would give up his seething hatred and resentment.
When gas hits $5.00 a gallon this summer, I’ll know with certainty that it is the result of the Federal Reserve’s actions in foreign exchange markets of the past few years and understand fully that we will see $7.00 to $8.00 dollar gasoline within a few years more.
In fact, oil prices are rising for three reasons — none of which has to do with offshore drilling or the XL pipeline.
The first, on the supply side, is Iran’s decision to cut in oil exports to Britain and France in retaliation for sanctions put in place by the EU and United States. Iran’s threat to do this has been pushing up crude oil prices for weeks.
The second, on the demand side, is rising hopes for a global economic recovery — which would mean increased oil consumption. The American economy is showing faint signs of a recovery. Europe’s debt crisis appears to be easing. Greece’s pending bailout deal is calming financial nerves on both sides of the Atlantic, and the Bank of England and European Central Bank are keeping rates low. At the same time, China has decided to boost its money supply to spur growth there.
Neither of these would have much effect were it not for the third reason — overwhelming bets of hedge funds and other money managers that oil prices will rise on the basis of the first two reasons.
Speculators have pushed crude oil to $105.28 per barrel, up 35 percent since September. Brent crude, Europe’s benchmark, is now $120.37 a barrel — also worrisome because many East Coast refineries use imported oil.
Funny, I don’t hear Republicans rail against speculators. Could that have anything to do with the fact that hedge funds and money managers are bankrolling the GOP as never before?
This rambling sophistry avoids acknowledging that the viros are deliberately obstructing energy production, reducing supply and driving up prices. They are also pushing for higher taxes on oil. They are the anti-industrial revolution.
You can understand it now. The viro anti-industrial revolution.
So “Semper FI”,” I got mine. How’d you make out ?” The wave of the future?
“…as long as the Legislature acts responsibly…” and “will do away with a rational environmental policy…” Both of these make me laugh. First one assumes that the Legislature always acts responsibility then one assumes that the environmental policies are rational. Obviously when you speak with many land owners or even property/home owners—too many have been and continue to be hurt by policies/laws that are ridiculous and cumbersome. My rights have been taken away already and will continue to be eroded.
Any one want to buy my property? Beautiful views, spring fed water. Southern exposure.
WIND turbines 3500 feet away, thumming, thumming, thumming at 45 dBa.
Thanks to Audubon.
Groups that have hurt Maine
LURC
RSTORE
The Conservation Law Foundation
The Natural Resources Council of Maine
Its time “they” pay….!
The Maine Coast Heritage Trust, Audubon and Natural Resources Council of Maine are also among the most guilty.
your right
Because everyone knows that it’s far more important to make a buck today than it is to have clean water tomorrow.
Earthling3: “Because everyone knows that it’s far more important to make a buck today than it is to have clean water tomorrow.”
No one claims that and it has nothing to do with this bill. The viros are misrepresenting, as usual, because they don’t want to have to pay for what they steal.
Another “BRIGHT IDEA” from the Republishicans!! And, yes, the spelling is Appropriate…
This is wonderful and long overdue. The only other fair option is to grandfather all lands impacted by such regulations as they take effect.
Sweet. the vernal pond issue made my acreage useless. Town racked up my value because of my land, I can now prove that because it is vernal it is not a asset.
The bill is limited in that it does not apply to what they have already taken. The war on property owners by the viros will take more than just this bill to stop them.
this is good news for coastal property and surrounding areas i wonder which members of the state gov. this will benefit most and what large farmers around the state also. maybe a vote for will get you free membership in a club
Who is going to compensate me for the loss of value my property undergoes when they build a wind farm nearby? Or when a big development goes in on the formerly remote and rarely-used lake where my camp has been for almost 50 years? Who do I sue?
Natural Resources Council of Maine.
You are not entitled to compensation from someone else because they use their own property and you don’t want them to. You don’t own other people’s private property and have no business trying to control it. This bill does not allow anyone to create a nuisance or health hazard.
Add for earthling: The purpose of the bill is not to prevent changes in property values resulting from the surrounding economy or even from state actions not on your property. The bill compensates property owners for their loss of value due to the state taking at least 50% of the value of their property through restrictions directly imposed on the property preventing normal use — not something that imposes damages to neighbors’ health or creates a nuisance.
You confuse what you don’t like with what is imposed on you that is physically harmful to you or a nuisance imposed on you. You can’t sue people for doing things like development on their own property that you don’t like because it wasn’t there before. But if rumbling or noise from industrial machinery gives you a headache then you have been physically harmed and can (or should be able to) sue the perpetrator — and the action should not have been allowed to begin with and this bill does not say otherwise.
So I guess that means my neighbor who wants a wind tower but can’t have it because it gives me a headache will be able to sue the state for big bucks, right? And how come if the evisceration of LURC and the regulations they enforce allows a formerly unallowed operation like a big hotel or something on my lake, and the presence of that newly-allowed-under-new-regulations dramatically decreases my property value, how come then I can’t sue the state? The new regulations allowed the development that killed my property value! Isn’t that what this law is all about?
Something needs to be done, you can’t even cut a dead tree that is threatening to fall on your camper/camp/home if the tree happens be within the “allowed setback” from a body of water. Also, the manufactured “assessed value” on property taxes by some towns are way out of line, just a money maker to keep municipal employees over-the-top benefits and paychecks rolling in. $7,000 Lawsuits tells me something is very wrong about Maine’s Environmental Laws, it appears that the balance tips heavily away from Maine landowners. Common sense does not apply here!
I can’t just do anything I want with my property, and that’s appropriate. But if I own land and the state changes the rules so that it seriously impacts my property’s value, the state also gets to pay for that. It often seems that the same people who hate to have any of their freedoms limited have no problem limiting mine and then saying, “pay your taxes and shut up about it.”
The enviornmental groups have had a free ride now it’s time to give them a taste of what it cost when they make new laws that impact our investment in our home etc. The key word is responsible enviornemental but not all decisions have been responsible.
This is the most absurd bill coming out of the legislature. Do they think they are the first ones to think of it. There is a reason why no other jurisdiction has such a bill. Any first year Land Use course goes through the arguments which first were considered in the 1930’s. It was a bad idea then and it still is. The trouble is the bill’s sponsor never read a land use textbook. You want litigation, you will get it. “I can’t build that shopping center I was gonna build in back yard so pay me. What you wont pay me million? I called Joe ‘ Let’s settle for half”. This should be called the job security bill for lawyers and litigants. “Oh I cant build a snow sled race track in a residential section of Town? Pay me. What I can’t open a skeet range next to a school ? Pay me. You think your taxes are high now. Wait till your town has to defend even one frivolous lawsuit on this bill. Remember Towns cannot represent themselves but citizens can. Whoever supports this has the IQ of fence post.
The bill does not compensate landowners for not being able to cause nuisance. It would make preservationists pay for at least some of what they take. Viros have been obstructing laws requiring compensation for regulatory takings for decades. They oppose private property rights. They want rule by bureaucracy. They don’t want to have to pay for what they steal.
On lakes, it appears some people an do whatever they want and others cannot.
YAY As a property owner in Maine I say great. If you want a property to meet certain guidelines then buy it and you keep it that way. Leave me and my land alone.