Question 3: Do you favor a $5,000,000 bond issue to purchase land and conservation easements statewide from willing sellers for public land and water access, conservation, wildlife or fish habitat and outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing and deer wintering areas, and to preserve working farmland and working waterfronts to be matched by at least $5,000,000 in private and public contributions?
During its 25 years, the Land for Maine’s Future program has expanded its focus from public access-based land conservation to farm and working waterfront preservation that maintains important elements of Maine’s heritage. Through grants, conservation easements and partnerships with private landowners and trusts, Land for Maine’s Future has protected almost 200 properties that add to the state’s quality of place.
Enhancing Maine’s value as a place to live, work the land, hunt, fish and enjoy nature yields tangible economic benefits. A February 2012 study by The Trust for Public Land calculates that “every dollar invested in land conservation through LMF returned $11 in natural goods and services to the Maine economy.”
Passage of Question 3 will further expand the program’s worth to sportsmen. The bond question designates funding to conserve deer habitat and help restore healthy deer numbers, according to the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, which endorses the bond.
Better conditions for the deer herd in Maine’s more remote regions will draw hunters and wildlife observers, translating to better economic conditions for small-business owners.
The Land for Maine’s Future program has a proven record of benefiting all segments of the state’s population. It continues to adapt to support the state’s farmers, fishing families and outdoorsmen.
A yes vote on Question 3 represents a worthy investment in what’s best about Maine.
Voting YES on this one.
Maine needs protecting.
Is there any point to passing bonds since Lepage continues to defy the will of the people by refusing to go forward with them? Yet another reason to vote Democrat for all legislative seats. We need to stop Lepage.
This is a great time for Maine to be purchasing land, prices low and lending/bond rates are lower.
Once a property is developed it’s essentially off the board forever for natural resource uses or parl like use or possibly wildlife habitat, and they’re not making anymore of it.
No one is practicing sustainable forestry on most tracts and as a result many are diseased and full of dead wood waiting for the ultimate forest fire.
Not really sure of your point.
No more bonds!
Communal Property is not the path to prosperity. It is the path to poverty.
The problem is, that, most of the land this bond money is for, is already sitting waiting for the bond money, these are inside deals, somewhere someone is waiting to unload what they have to move on to something else, I say no, let people donate the land, instead of soaking the poor into paying for bonds, NO NO NO.
Get the bond/grants now, raise taxes later. Bonds are just more taxes.
We can`t afford road and bridge rebuilding but they want to pass a bond to buy land that could be donated or bought privately. The state buys the land and then the land becomes tax exempt and puts addition burden on the locals.
These bonds are pimped by the natural resource nonprofit industry. They are only in business to keep themseleves employed. These are the same groups who are in the pocket of the wind industry who is really destroying our natural beauty. Hypocrites maximus!
No!!! on bonds for this reason.
Maine…. The tree hugger’s mecca……….
NO! No more wasted spending on land by the state! We have enough land already! STOP WASTING OUR MONEY!
Brian be nice now… you’re in the BDN not the PPH, and stop yelling, it’s not nice.
Well, DICK…ya gotta yell…lots of stupid people out there ya know!
No on ALL the bonds….We need to pay off the credit cards we have maxed out already…
Nearly all the land acquired and often taken off of tax roles or productive use; is in N. Maine; far from population centers in S. Maine. The criticism has resulted in push-back on the ‘deals’; but in return I and others point out the small estates that could be acquired in S. Maine that would be far more heavily used than large tracts.
Nor do I believe the study about a 10:1 R.O.I. since many acquisitions are remote and of little scenic value.
Then there is insider trading of adjacent parcels whose value as second or primary homes increases when they are adjacent to protected lands.