BRUNSWICK A bill that would have added two seats to the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority’s Board of Directors died of non-concurrence Monday when neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate would budge in a legislative standoff. LD 1476, “An Act to Protect Local Input in Economic Development and Redevelopment Efforts,” sponsored by Rep. Mattie Daughtry, D-Brunswick, passed the House on May 30 by an 88-55 vote. However, it was rejected 30-5 in the Senate a day later on May 31. The House subsequently insisted on a report of “ought to pass,” setting up the bill’s eventual demise when Sen. Seth Goodall, R-Richmond, in turn, moved to accept the Senate’s majority report of “ought not to pass.” Without resolution or either side willing to budge, the bill died in legislative limbo. Daughtry proposed LD 1476 as a solution to Brunswick and Topsham’s lack of dedicated municipal representation on the redevelopment agency’s controlling board. While five of the current board’s roster are Brunswick residents, each was appointed by Gov. Paul LePage and confirmed by the Legislature for his or her business acumen, not because of residency. Opponents of the bill, including Sen. Stan Gerzofsky, D-Brunswick, and Rep. Charlie Priest, D-Brunswick, said its passage would have created a dangerous precedent by providing for direct appointment by the municipality and taking the Legislature out of the board’s oversight role. Daughtry disagreed. She noted that neither today’s Senate vote to insist, nor the floor vote on May 30, involved any discussion. “I’m disappointed to see that once again the Senate chose not to discuss the merits of LD 1476,” Daughtry said. “This was a piece of common sense legislation. Today’s vote took place with no discussion. In the House, we had a lovely discussion and were able to hear and consider all elements of this bill.”
The Times Record Sustaining Sponsor
We believe a community must be informed to thrive. bowdoin.edu
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less