AUGUSTA, Maine — A controversial regulatory takings bill was dealt a significant setback Thursday when lawmakers moved to replace it with a standing committee to address onerous land-use regulations.
Fearing a rash of lawsuits and increased costs for the Maine Office of the Attorney General, a majority of lawmakers on the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee voted against LD 1810, a bill designed to compensate landowners if a state regulation diminished more than half the market value of their property.
The vote was 6-5 but is likely to increase to 8-5-1 once absent lawmakers log their votes.
The bill was drafted by Catherine Connors, a Pierce Atwood takings attorney. Critics of the legislation argued that Connors could financially benefit from a new takings law due to an increase in caseload and because her potential clients would have an easier path to victory in court.
Property rights activists said the bill was long overdue because the state has gone too far with regulations that restrict landowners’ ability to use their property.
The majority of the committee was sympathetic to that argument. However, they worried about the complexity and the impact of the original proposal, which allowed landowners to sue the state, yet didn’t provide funds to compensate aggrieved property owners or litigate cases.
The original proposal had been assailed by environmental groups, who feared it would effectively freeze regulations. Representatives for the Attorney General’s Office argued that their budget would also increase because the office would have to hire more staff to defend state agencies that had been sued.
The bill also ran into opposition from the Maine Municipal Association, which feared towns could be sued by landowners. Although the bill was amended to ensure that municipalities could not be defendants in a dispute, AG representatives said there would be many cases when towns would be called in to help the state during a case.
Rather than vote to kill the bill outright, Rep. Bradley Moulton, R-York, and Rep. Charlie Priest, D-Brunswick, crafted a bipartisan amendment that would essentially make last year’s Regulatory Fairness Committee a standing legislative committee. The panel would meet at least twice a year to hear complaints about regulations that were affecting landowners. It would also have the power to recommend legislation to address those issues.
Moulton, an attorney, said the original bill was “flawed from the outset” and could have dangerous implications. Other lawmakers agreed, including Rep. Michael Beaulieu, R-Auburn, who said the bill would have “a chilling effect” on regulations.
Sen. David Hastings, R-Fryeburg, said the bipartisan bill didn’t go far enough to address the problem. Hastings noted that a 1995 takings bill had produced a study group and a regulation mitigation panel within the State Planning Office. However, he said, the problem of regulatory takings hadn’t disappeared.
Priest noted that state agencies have granted 99 percent of land-use permits and that nobody had complained about the mitigation panel process, either. The panel is expected to disappear as Gov. Paul LePage’s implements his plan to dismantle the State Planning Office.
Although a majority of lawmakers supported the amended bill creating the regulatory fairness committee, the original takings proposal isn’t dead. Hastings and Republican Reps. Ralph Sarty of Denmark, Joan Nass of Acton, and Paul Waterhouse of Bridgton, each voted for a minority report, which will allow the original bill to be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives.
The Legislature resoundingly rejected a takings bill 17 years ago, as have a host of other states. A few states like Florida, however, have adopted takings laws.
Proponents of the LD 1810 say the bill is closely modeled after the Florida law, which they say, hasn’t produced the deluge of lawsuits that opponents claim will occur in Maine. Environmental groups, however, say there have been enough lawsuits to cause concern. They also note that Florida has witnessed a freeze in land-use regulations.
Similar takings bills have been advanced by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a national group funded by corporations that drafts model legislation.
To see more from the Sun Journal, visit sunjournal.com.
Stop letting Industry insiders write Legislation.
Again, I suggest that a law allowing a property owner to force the state to buy property for 90% of its assessed value – which the state could then resell at a profit if the assessment is accurate – would discourage both unrealistically high assessments and a blithe disregard for the effect of regulation on the value of a particular property. The state would have the ability to re-assess the property in lieu of purchasing it, which would eliminate over-value assessments and provide the property owner with a basis for demanding compensation (old assessment minus new one) in the case of a regulatory taking.
There is no “blithe disregard for the effect of regulation” on property values. Each regulatory proposal in this state has been vigorously debated and almost always watered down from the scientific recommendation due to the spectre of property devaluation, even when that has been largely unsubstantiated. Each and every one of the claims that the Tea Party takings complainants have made during this latest round of takings discussion has been shown to be a sham. If you have a specific instance of an actual significant or even somewhat substantial diminution in property value due to regulation, please share it. If not, please stop demanding that this state bend over backwards to create laws based on fiction.
And, you’re welcome for the property value increase that you reap due to our state’s environmental standards.
Oh. Well, if The Unclean are against it….
You do realise that if there is no significant diminution in property values, the proposed law would never come into play, don’t you? Or is the thought of The Unclean enough to forestall further thought on your part?
Speaking of thought: you did bother to read the bill, right? So you do realize that the proposed law would come into play simply by asserting, through a private appraisal, that such a taking had occurred? Necessitating a dueling appraisal? The wasteful administrative costs associated with this were clearly one major problem. The second major problem is that this bill would create an impetus for unethical property line drawing, to try to create a lot (perhaps during those many months of comprehensive analyses of impacts to property by proposed regulations) that maximizes the impact of a new regulation, thus achieving the 50%.
Moreover, if in fact, as you apparently are happy to concede, there is almost never any significant diminution in property values (due to the rigorous regulatory development process) then there is no need for this legislation. It is a bizarre argument to make that we should pass pointless legislation because it can’t really harm anyone. And not exactly a conservative or even Tea Party philosophy (“Let’s write pointless laws!”) Not a stitch of evidence has ever been provided to substantiate the need for this legislation, thus this has no point, and your argument is fatuous.
I’m not saying anything at all about the bill before the legislature, I’m suggesting an entirely different approach. I may have been remiss in not making it clearer that by “assessed value” I mean the official assessment for tax purposes, not some private assessment done at the owner’s behest.
And I certainly didn’t “concede” that “there is almost never any significant diminution in property values,” I just pointed out that unless such a diminution occurs the proposed law has no effect.
I’m with you PFP on the assessment point, 011 just has a hard time thinking outside the big government socialist box. On the other hand, with the proposed legislation,
” . . to compensate landowners if a state regulation diminished more than half the market value of their property.”
Half the value? HALF? So the state/ town can take up to 49% and there’s “no problem”?
There is Way too much “Adgenda 21” going on.
Stand Up, Push Back!
How about a bill that prevents people from submitting self-serving bills?
Then we could reduce legislative sessions to a couple of weeks and save a bundle!
The legislature should look into Lepage taking 17 million tax payer dollars and giving it to his pals in Canada. This was in direct violation of the Maine constitution and yet the Republican controlled legislature and the AG refuse to enforce the law.
If something happens to an area to my property causing environmental damage as the result of state or town negligence you can bet I would sue. At the very least fix it !!!!! I’m sure the local and federal government would have insurance for that. If not tough luck !!!!
How about a bill that requires the state legislature to introduce no bills that have a “taking” impact on the rest of us?
Thank you BDN for that last sentence. Mr. Cushing, the sponsor of the bill, seems to take his direction from ALEC. He went on the record with you saying he found ALEC useful. More like they found him useful. Oh, and kudos to the legislative committee for seeing the problems before they became problems. Nice that they listened to their communities.