I have found recent statements in the press and at the public hearing on the regulatory takings bill, LD 1810, misleading on many counts.
Contrary to the opinions of some, the primary beneficiaries of LD 1810 would be small landowners, not large landowners.
They would be the farmers who planted trees in their fields but now want to cut those trees and return the land to agriculture but new rules mean they cannot do so. It would be the moms and dads who have planned to give a few acres to their grown children to build homes nearby only to find new regulations make that impossible. It would be the small woodlot owner who planned to harvest her woodlot to support her retirement only to find she cannot cut her trees because it has since become a deer wintering area.
How do I know this law would benefit primarily small landowners? Because I was a member of the Regulatory Takings Study Commission that constructed the present bill and voted 8-2 to present it to the Judiciary Committee.
Most folks would agree that as a matter of fairness you don’t take something that belongs to someone else without paying for it. This applies to government as well. If the government takes your land to build a road, a school, or a town office, they pay you for it. If you don’t want to sell it, they may take it through eminent domain, but either way they pay you for it.
But what if the government doesn’t want to take title to your land, but wants to require you to manage it for public purposes rather than your own? Therein lies the rub. You bought it, perhaps paid a premium for it because it provided special value, and continue to pay the taxes on it going forward, but now find you cannot use it for what you intended. Most of the land’s value has been taken for public purposes, but you are expected to cover the loss all by yourself. Is this fair? Of course not.
The Regulatory Takings Committee that developed LD 1810 worked very hard to assure that its bill was fair both to property owners who lose land value, and to the public who would reimburse landowners when they could no longer use their land for what they bought it for.
So how did we do that? First we made it clear that there would be no reimbursement for costs incurred by landowners to protect public health or safety. We made it clear that all presently existing regulatory takings would not be eligible for compensation, not because that wasn’t justifiable, but because the public simply couldn’t afford it.
We made it clear that a regulatory taking had to be substantial (at least 50 percent of total land value) before a landowner could even seek redress, and we made it clear that demonstrating the 50 percent taking would apply to the entire parcel’s value, not just the footprint of land within the regulated area.
That is why large landowners would get very little relief under this bill. Their parcels are generally very extensive, hundreds or thousands of acres, with only a very small portion bordering or containing a regulated area. It would be very difficult for them to demonstrate a 50 percent taking on such large parcels and qualify for compensation. And remember, since LD 1810 is prospective only, everything presently regulated would not be eligible for compensation.
I think everyone should get behind this bill. It’s not only fair to landowners, but would help ensure that privately owned land would continue to be available to support the recreational and economic interests of the state.
Landowners who voluntarily open their land to the public not only support hunters, fishermen, hikers and bird-watchers, but also support the industries that cater to these recreational users, the sporting goods stores, the motels and restaurants and tourism in general. Landowners who feel the state is taking advantage of them by keeping them from using their land for what they bought it for are in no mood to share it with others, and increasingly are posting it in protest.
This is a good bill, patterned to embrace procedures that have worked well in other states. It deserves our support.
Clark Granger is a Christmas tree farmer and served as a member of the legislative study committee created to examine the issue of regulatory takings. He lives in Woolwich.
So: I have $51 in one pocket, and $49 in the other. If I give someone pointing a gun at me the contents of one pocket, he’s a thief; if I give him the contents of the other pocket, he’s not?
Pretty much. And when you tell the town you don’t owe them for taxes on the whole $100 anymore, they will say, “Yes you do…shut up and pay it.”
This bill will FINALLY put a price tag on what the environazi organizations have been doing to private landowners.
That is what all the uproar is about.
Rampant environmentalism has been quietly and incrementally encroaching on private property for years.
Landowners are fed up and will not allow it to continue.
This bill may be defeated, but the issue will not go away.
article: “Most folks would agree that as a matter of fairness you don’t take something that belongs to someone else without paying for it.”
Most people understand that as a matter of fairness you don’t take something that belongs to someone else at all. The least the viros could do is pay for what they steal.
Yes, of course, and we have a specific constiutional gurantee that government can’t do that. I don’t think you will find much disagreement on that point. But this bill is about profit taking by land specuators not about ordinary citizens like you and me.
Think about it,do you personally know of even one person whose propert was actualy reduced by 50% or more in value as a result of a state regulation pursuant to State Law? Under the LURC land use plan in the unorganized territories and under shoreland zoning existing non coforming uses were automatically grandfathered in effect giving a fair market value bonus to those existing non conforming uses that perpetuates to future generations and can be realized substantial profits on sale.
Every regulatory agency in Maine is accessible by phone, email, visit, home visit with the code enforcement officer to discuss and resolve any issues or concerns. Often once the reg is explained and the owner goes over it in person with the regulator fears are eased or , if there is a serious issue, a variance is granted, provided there are no nuisnace, safety or health hazards to the variance. Variance is standard and common in all regulations and is available for any land use plan where justified by undo hardship. You don’t need an attorney for this.
In addition to that we have a mediation process already for “regulatory takings” that can make compensation if a variance isn’t possible and there has been a demonstrated financial loss as a result of the reguation. You don’t need a lawyer for that and you don’t need this law for that justice. It’s aleady alvailable to you..to all of us.
It is very very very rare that an odinary citizen like you or me could suffer a real economic loss as a resylt of a state regulation, an actual permament domunition of fair market value and we already have very faor remedies for that that don’t require you to have an attorney to seek justice.
Clark,
As you well know this and the so called “Landuse Reform Bill” are efforts of the now predominantly speculative invetsment owners of land in the unorganized territory to dismantle LURC so that they can maximize profits. This from today’s BDN”Hank McPherson, a landowner and developer who has sparred with LURC over the adjacency standard, said such regulations lessen the value of property.
”Any time you remove value from a landowner, you remove economic development” opportunities in the UT, McPherson said”.
This bill is trojan horse partner to the LURC reform and its all about speculative invetments in land..not about us ordinary Mainers who live and work here. This, in tandem with LURC Reform is all about speculators and all about an attempt to use Maine’s legsulature to further the profits and interests of land speculators and predatory companies like Nestle ( Poland Spring Water).
So how does this work? Well first through “LURC reform” you get rid of the adjacencey standard allowing developmment outside of areas currently zoned for developmnet by the LURC ( that”s what the whole plum Creek plan was about), then with deregulation effected via “LURC reform” and with this regulatory takings law in place and with no other constraining muncicpal or county land use laws in place you subdivude, lay in infrastructure for a subdivision, develop a glossy brochure of a “concept plan” and resell at ahuge profit with no threat of restraint..no threat of the “adjacency rule being reinstated.
This is a scheme, in partsership with LURC reform to manipulate state laws for the exploitation annd profiteering of land speculators like Plum Creek, like Mr. McPerson, like the predatory Nestle Company
Notice that while the law ( which is very badly written and internally self contradictory) says compensation is only awarded when the new state regulation reduces the fair market value of the land by 50%, the criteria given for consideration include “the reasonably expected investment return”.
There is quite a bit of supreme court history “regulatory takings” and in essence what the supreme court says is there is no consituional guatee of profits or maximum profits. This in conjunction with LURC reform is tanatmount to asking the state to guarantee investment returns.