As the legislative session shifts into high gear, the debates become less academic. It’s no longer general ideas and vague improvements that are on the table; it’s real, often substantive changes. Once those changes become state law, it’s difficult to undo them.
The initiative to improve the way the Land Use Regulation Commission functions was, at the conceptual level, sound. Rural economies have changed in the years since LURC was formed, mostly for the worse. The large tracts of forested land, once held by a handful of paper companies with long ties to Maine, are now sold and resold on a global market.
And increasingly, recreational development is seen as the best-case scenario for rural regions decimated by declines in employment in resource-based businesses.
But the bill to transform LURC that has won committee approval contains some fatal flaws. The eight counties that have the largest amount of Unorganized Territory could see development that permanently degrades the environment and causes long-term harm to communities. Groups such as GrowSmart Maine, the Maine Association of Planners, the Natural Resources Council of Maine and others are opposing the majority bill because of its flaws.
Chief among them is the provision that would allow any of the eight counties with large amounts of land under LURC jurisdiction to opt out. An improvement from an earlier version is the requirement that a county wait five years after the new law goes into effect before seeking to withdraw. The counties that drop out also must adopt charters, establish planning and appeals boards and demonstrate the financial ability to manage the reviews LURC often conducts.
But the ability to opt out of LURC remains a problem.
There is no need to conjure up a hypothetical to illustrate the risk. The Plum Creek development in the Moosehead Lake Region is a perfect example. A sparsely populated county with little in the way of professional government would not be able to evaluate a project that included two large resorts, 950-house lots and all the associated roads, wells and septic systems.
If two or three counties opted-out of LURC, what would follow is clear: those counties would seen as “easy” by developers — ripe for exploitation. Developers could promise donations to fire departments or investments in schools in tacit exchange for approving projects that adversely impact lakes, rivers, forests and wildlife that are, in fact, statewide resources.
Bringing more local voices to LURC would be a welcome change. The majority bill would expand the commission from seven to nine members, with eight members living in the eight counties with the most land under LURC jurisdiction. This, too, is risky. Commissioners or their designees could act in their self-interest or trade votes to win project approval.
The bottom line is that changing LURC to bring more local control must not come at the loss of a statewide perspective. And counties that opt-out, believing residents will be able to build camps with less red tape and that they will be more appealing to larger resource-based and recreational businesses, will not find smooth sailing. It will just be another set of problems they face.
On the surface, a compromise between the majority and minority versions appears to be close. Legislative leaders ought to step up and make it happen.
The headline is correct;
LURC Change Is Risky.
Everything after the headline is pure drivel from someone who has not, nor ever will be impacted by this environazi bureaucracy.
Abolish LURC.
DO IT NOW !
Sorry, but the work of Lurc is necessary to protect our environment and our resources from developers and worst of all, ourselves.
The “WeNeedBigBrother” comment and those who like it spotlights the arrogant political elitism of the viro left out to control other people’s private property under oppressive, centralized bureaucratic control.
If the citizenry could “control” itself it would not be necessary for centralized control, that fact is it has proven incapable of doing so.
We live here you don’t. Let us decide what we want or don’t want. Screw “statewide perspective”
I live in Maine, therefore I do have a say regarding Lurc – sorry to attempt to offer an opinion you don’t like – so therefore my state taxes shouldn’t go to help your area out by your own logic? If it wasn’t for gross mismanagement locally then Millinocket wouldn’t be in the predicament it is in, therefore as a state citizen I do have a say when your area expects the state to bail it out of its current blight.
LURC must go the way of the Buggy Whip.
It is no longer needed.
I don’t need any government bureaucracy telling me what to do with my property, thank you!
Who wrote this article anyway?
When radical viro pressure groups were first imposing their progressively increasing social controls under state law, BDN was no where to be seen arguing that “Once those substantive changes become state law, it’s difficult to undo them”.
We know how “hard it is” to throw out entrenched power, which is exactly what BDN is trying to stop right now with its reactionary opposition to any reform of LURC and DEP. A previous BDN editorial denounced representative self-government accountable to local people as “pandering to local voters“. BDN has been propagandizing throughout the reform process on behalf of the radical little tyrants in the viro pressure groups demanding “one voice under central state control” — their “voice” ordering other people what we cannot do because the viros want to control other people’s private property land under their oppressive Greenline Park agenda.
LURC was supposed to be abolished. In this country we are no longer supposed to have to argue about the right of democratic self-government. Get out of the way.
LURC, much like Quimby, The Nature Conservancy, the Penobscot River Restoration Trust & all other tree-huggin groups need to be driven from Maine once and for all…!
When the writer of this editorial has a horse in the race, then I will read the drivel. Bye, Bye LURC!
This is elitism at its worst. The we know better then you attitude coming out of certain political circles is exactly what the people of Maine do not need. It’s not that they really care about the land, lakes, rivers, etc., they are mostly worried about who might profit.
Anyone that wants to keep LURC has never had to deal with them!
Once you put LURC under a County-type control you can bet that the developer’s are gonna’ come racing with all kinds of promises and pledge’s to ‘help out the community’. Yea, right. And once that horse starts to feed at the trough, you are never gonna get it out of town. This type of economic suicide was seen in Connecticut with the tribe’s casino’s back in the 90’s. Oh, the money to the local community’s came in alright, upfront. After that the money dried up, the service cost’s went thru the roof (and the community’s and Connecticut were stuck with the bill’s) and the casino’s operators and developer’s all suddenly had a massive attack of corporate amnesia. Now one of the tribal casino’s is closed, the unemployment rate is hovering around the 10% mark and the promises made to the local community’s are being seen as ‘Charmin’ wallpaper. So much for developer’s and operator’s commitment’s.
LURC provides some serious protection’s from speculator’s and others who are little better than thieves and rapists of the public trust. Putting LURC authority under local control may make for a nice political speech about smaller government. But it puts the overall public trust at huge risk, both money wise but also politically. The recent MTA scandal should provide a more than ample reason to keep those Agencies responsible to the public under the control of the State where they can be overseen and kept free from local developer’s influence and their frequently ‘found’ envelope’s of suddenly appearing cash every time a local election or vote is called for concerning land use issue’s. The current GOP Primary shows us all both how much money is available out there that can be thrown around and how much it buy’s. We should all take a big step back and see where this is heading. The picture, from up here in The County, isin’t one that that a lot of folk’s would be in any big hurry to see, much less experience.
You apparently don’t have to worry about making a living in the county.
Sir, I do have to worry. But I also have seen the reality of these developer’s and ego freak’s who use the media generated ‘Chicken Little’ panic attack’s to scare and bribe people who are hurting into surrendering their common sense in return for a short term pacifier. I am in no hurry to see any of the RQ-type antics result in a ‘new National Park’ when it is clearly not warranted, especially given the ‘ not very well publisized or understood’ restriction’s that such a park would impose on the entire surrounding region. Responsible and controlled development is more than called for. But it needs to be balanced against what we are going to leave behind for our kid’s and grandkid’s. Consistent, responsible and sustainable growth are the key’s. The frequently cited ‘cut 1 and re-plant 2’ philosophy is just one example of that type responsible and sustainable growth. The moose raffle is similarly responsible by providing a way to both enjoy the hunting in Maine while being effective in maintaining the herd’s for the future.
The same can be said of the dam’s in Maine. How many have been built, then been so loudly called for to be torn down, when their benefit’s are either forgotten or ignored. And especially with the dam’s, their much needed hydro power potential being convieniently forgotten simply because someone wants to make a fast buck at the expense of the future. Go ask Vermont about their dam’s and what they did last year. A lot of folk’s wanted any number of Vermont dam’s torn down because ‘they simply weren’t needed’. Yeah, right. And how many town’s in Vermont are still standing simply because the dam they wanted torn down STOPPED THE FLOOD WATER’S ? Does anyone hear these call’s for dam demolition now ? No and you won’t. When people are pushed to ‘the wall’ and see just where this type of ‘quick buck’ development leads to you can bet the farm that they are going to get a real big dose of reality. And that look into reality, with the future now being seen as something to protect and build for, is what is so badly needed now.
You have some good points, but the overall focus of LURC has been to force the rural residents to move away with the end result being an area with no votes that is easily taken over for a national park.
Those dams you speak of will be the first feature of the region to be taken away for the sake of the green preservationist’s long term goal.
There are more than enough qualified individuals in the rural parts of Maine that can oversee their own LOCAL planning requirements, just the same as the rest of the state.
With people like Jym StPierre in it’s past lineup of directors, how can anyone defend what LURC has done to the rural parts of Maine. His rural cleansing policies of the 70s and 80s set the stage for the economic downfall of rural Maine.
LURC does not have rural Maine’s best intrests at heart. They are there to further the long term green objective of primitive, untouched wilderness restoration.
LURC MUST GO !
Does LURC need to be reformed and updated as you so clearly point out ? No doubt it does, given the times that LURC was originally formed under and how much the State and economy, on both sides of the arguement, has changed. But does anyone, after seeing the recent indictment’s and trial’s of how many local official’s for embezzlement over the last 2 year’s, really want to push that issue right now, especially with the economy in the shape it’s in ? I for one do not. Local input, with a corresponding vote on the LURC Board, would seem to be the best way to go. Just going out and constantly saying NO to every option offered or pointed out is just as bad as trying to go out and either intimidating or outright buying these same local politician’s votes when it comes time for a LURC-type vote. Either way, nothing gets resolved and the situation just keeps getting worse. It’s time to put the screaming and whining back where it belongs, namely back in the box, and start working together to find a common sense and ethical solution to the issue’s.
And that begins with both the State, LURC itself, local business’s, landowner’s, and the local community’s At-Large, all coming together and working not just on LURC reform but appropriate and reality-based corresponding local type-use planning, objective control’s and practical oversight, and locally viable when documented, waiver’s of the current LURC reg’s. No one has ever proved, much less shown in person, that LURC in Augusta has more and better knowledge of, not just ‘black and white ‘ academic information, the woods and associated ecology of the North Woods itself than the local communities. And anyone that can, well, maybe it’s time they stood up and spoke up instead of just playing church mouse. That’s where local control, thru actual knowledge, begins. Knowledge is power. It also requires responsibility to be used properly. It’s high time that the responsibility was used for everyone’s benefit, not just the few on either side who enjoy screaming.
There is no “public trust”. Try seizing control of the private property, impoverishing people, and removing local government in towns in southern Maine and see far you get.
“Developers could promise donations to fire departments, investments in schools and similar in tacit exchange for approving projects that adversely impact lakes, rivers, forests and wildlife that are, in fact, statewide resources.”
The BDN seems to forget a little group (400 employees) called DEP, who wield enormous control over development throughout the state.
The BDN is apparently pro-fairy shrimp, anti-prosperity.
It’s easier to influence and outright buy politicians when they’ve got control of committees that steer legislation. How many times has the LNG pipline in downeast Maine been veto’d, and by people who don’t even live in Washington county… But we can’t vote on things that go on down in the southern part of the state!? Oh that’s right, they’re “statewide” resources.
People complain about the economy and how Mainers know how to milk the system, but as soon as we get any job prospects, they’re shot down because of crap like this! Want people off welfare? Let us have some jobs.
The left doesn’t want people off welfare. They want everyone dependent on, and therefore controlled by, government.
I disagree, as a socialist I want people off welfare; during the great depression the government set up the Civilian Conservation Corps to provide work for people. I would propose establishing the same type of camps to get people off welfare and make them productive members of society. IN other words – if you’re able, you will work.
We’re in this mess because of government tinkering. The last thing we need is their help getting us out of the mess they caused.
No, you placed yourselves there with local mismanagement and false expectations. I mean really – look at the school district fiasco, its sad to say the locals just can’t govern themselves.
The BDN writes: “with little in the way of professional government would not be able to evaluate a project…” Once again the leftest elite think the rest of us are just plain stupid. At least the BDN is honest enough to admit it. Perhaps, just maybe, so called “professional governement” is the problem, not the solution.
Professional government is the solution; wake up!
I scariest words you will ever hear “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Not in my view, I feel we need more government regulation as common citizens have proven over and over that they have an inability to do what is in their own best interests.
You are a very scary person. Are you a fascist or a communist? I am serious. Freedom and liberty are a good things. Self Government is the best of things. What makes you think you are smarter than everyone else? Don’t confuse being book smart with wisdom. People like you are part of the problem.
No – I’m a socialist; you are just scared people clinging on to your old way and destructive ways while ignoring common sense. I don’t confuse “book-sense with wisdom”; welcome to the brave new world.
No thank you Mr. Huxley. This brave new world you talk about is the same old/same old just plain simple totalitarianism with a shiny bow on it. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, right? In the end the human spirit of freedom always prevails.
Freedom only occurs when there is equality; it does not currently exist in this country – that is why the United States has the highest numbers of incarcerated individuals in prison in the world and the severe economic disparity that exists currently. If you think you are free you are misguided.
You’re correct of course. I know what’s best for you much better than you do. Lucky for you I happened along here.
And lucky for everyone the Democratic Party is actually becoming “progressive” for the first time in the past few years since the depression – I can only hope it moves further left than it has for the benefit of the people of this state.
If it moves any farther left, the democrapt party will have to secede from the union and join their brothers in Cuba.
Cuba has an excellent health care system and excellent public education system far superior to that here in Maine.
It’s worse than that, they think their self interest and their own lives are relevant rather than the Good of All http://www.landrights.org/VideoGoodOfAll.htm
All must follow the sage wisdom of St. Quimby, who tells us:
“To me, ownership and private property were the beginning of the end in this country. Once the Europeans came in, drawing lines and dividing things up, things started getting exploited and overconsumed. But a park takes away the whole issue of ownership. It’s off the table; we all own it and we all share it. It’s so democratic.”
Doing away with LURC will be a disaster. I’ve had several permits and attending may meetings. The people who hate it are the folks that get told they are exceeding the limit of the law, and they don’t want to hear that. The typical phrase,”A man ought to be able to do what he wants with his property”, just doesn’t fly anymore. What one person thinks is simple and practical results in disaster for others. As in so many regulatory issues, folks want to throw the whole thing out rather than adjust it. Towns have a hard time filling local committees as it is. If towns opted out for local control, the only people that volunteer are the ones with personal/professional monetary gain.
BS !
Normal people want to “exceed” LURC viro “law” because the law has become oppressive under dictatorial control as it always does. In a free country the purpose of law is to protect the rights of the individual, not control people. Central bureaucratic authority unaccountable to local people can only be reformed by abolishing it. Dictatorial control “doesn’t fly anymore”.
So, unpaid, all volunteer commissioners who are selected so as to represent all regions of the state, are dictators. I would say the purpose of law is to protect the rights of the the citizens, which can often be usurped by the desires of an individual. I’m as sorry for your feeling of oppression under the dictators as I am for those Syrian folks.
The dictatorial bureaucracy is in Augusta using the physical power of the state to enforce the ideology of the viro lobby with no accountability to the outnumbered rural people whose rights are being trampled through non-objective law that denies property rights. The proper purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals from criminals; that has been turned around so the government is now the ‘criminal’ and there is no where to turn for justice. There is no excuse for that and no excuse for the apologists for it. Property owners have been desperately trying to defend themselves for decades and the reactionary pressure group activists and ideologues are doing everything they can to obstruct reform.
The BDN has spoken the truth. Once something becomes law it is difficult to undo it. Take LURC for example.
As for the rest of the editorial–it seems to me that what the writer is ultimately saying is that those uneducated hokey rednecks up in the rural counties–well they might not consider the welfare of the birds and the trees. They might just be so numb as to want jobs and a stable, living wage–and maybe a reliable fire department and ambulance service, or even better funded schools with more children in them even. Those rubes will just get taken advantage of by those big, mean developers.
No, it’s best if those folks up in rural Maine just be happy with what they have, and let those with more eddication and savvy look out for them. After all, those do-gooders would never be swayed by any type of bribe would they?
Nope, the people have to be completely removed. Progressive rural cleansing.
Get rid of the opt out. Have the 8 commission members elected by the residents of the county under current qualifications for the position and vetted by legislature. Must be residents of the territory or property owners in the territory and residents of the State of Maine.
Abolition of LURC is the only option.
There is enough talent in rural Maine to oversee development at a fraction of the cost of the LURC bureaucracy.
I’m tired of the elitist mentality of southern Maine being forced upon my land use decisions so that they will have a place to play..
Abolish LURC.
DO IT NOW !
You wouldn’t dare try to impose such an authoritarian undemocratic scheme with centralized veto power over elections on southern Maine, would you?
The “opt out” should be mandatory as a consequence of abolishing LURC, along with the centralized control over planning imposed on the counties.
MSSCV makes a valid point here, what is good for the goose is good for the gander; southern Maine needs to be just as tightly regulated as any other part of the state.
Yes, let’s not have a democratic election of individuals who represent you and your interests at the Commission. You spout nothing but pure blather and offer no constructive opinions. Pe0ple like you are part of the problem not part of the solution.
No rational, intelligent, informative, caring, honest and fair argument will ever change the minds and attitudes of the Millinocket “stuck in the mud” radicals. They are scared to death that a National Park and the retainment of LURC might bring them some prosperity.
In all your years of visiting the rural parts of Maine,to hunt, fish and generally use up our resources for free, have you ever once had to make a living up here?
“Our” resources??????? The natural resources belong to “all” of the people. Congressman Michaud made a decent living in Millinocket. Do I need to say more?
Natural resources are private property, they do not “belong” to “all the people”. You don’t have to “say more” at all, just get out of other people’s lives.
No! Natural resources belong to the people! Just look at the arguments over Roxanne Quimby and her accumulation of natural resources. These belong to the people (the State) and not private individuals.
No “rational, intelligent, informative, caring, honest and fair argument” can convince any rational purpose to give up his rights and freedom to eco-socialism because there are no such arguments.
This article drips of the liberal agenda, regulations and loss of property rights, telling people what they cannot do with their property., otherwise known as the no boys.
For a Maine paper, the BDN sure is sounding like a big city liberal arm of the northeast commies.
BDN was inherited by 1960s New Leftists.
“…local control must not come at the loss of a statewide perspective.” Of course. It’s important that someone can sit in a cafe in the Old Port, sip their coffee, and say, “I’m glad northern Maine will stay quaint, rural, and poor…especially when I don’t live there.”