Recent letters concerning the so-called “takings bill” are full of half-truths and at least one outright falacy.

One letter asserts that Maine’s property owners will be able to sue the state for damages based on the effects of existing environmental law.

This is untrue. L.D. 1810, the takings bill, was specifically crafted only to affect laws going forward; “prospective,” they call it.

Another letter says that this bill is just a benefit for large landowners, but the vast majority of people affected by land use regulations are just like me, small rural landowners who live on and would like to be able to use the land we own and pay taxes on.

The letter goes on to say we are already subsidized by many programs, the best known among them the tree growth tax laws. All of the cited “subsidies” are public policies created by government in an effort to dissuade landowners who qualify (I’m not one of them) from developing their lands.

To that end, these programs have been very successful. Maine’s people and the tourists who visit enjoy free use of vast areas of privately owned property that are still postcard pretty, thanks in some part to these programs.

Personally, I don’t think L.D. 1810 is fair enough. Who among the readers of this paper would accept the loss of 49 percent of their 401(k), home or income?

I would have to suffer the loss of 50 percent or more of my property’s value to some new rule before I could even ask the state to help share in the loss. Is this fair?

Why is it OK to force this loss on me for the public’s benefit? Shouldn’t we all be willing to pitch in for things that benefit all of us?

Anthony Garrity is a resident of West Newfield.

 

Copy the Story Link