Thank you for your thoughtful editorials about the affordable-housing bill, L.D. 2003 (Our View, March 8 and March 18).

I agree with you, with one exception (“Municipalities will have … resources to guide development to … areas of town where it makes sense,” March 18). The bill directs higher density to town centers, where services are available. This is good.

However, two sections of the bill direct increased development to the wrong places – rural areas, which do not have services.

This is mandated sprawl, particularly in southern Maine, which is closest to Boston’s expanding housing market. The unintended impact will be southern New Hampshire- and Massachusetts-style development. Its unintended consequences will be increased costs for towns, the state and the residents the bill intends to help.

Without nearby services, residents will need to drive everywhere for everything, increasing miles traveled, which conflicts with the governor’s Climate Action Plan.

It will also increase market value and pressure to develop rural lands statewide, making it harder for farmers and small-woodlot owners to operate. In Maine, we still have viable rural industries. They are already having a tough time making ends meet. With an aging population, increased property values and the need for new infrastructure to serve an expanded population, taxes will rise and push more owners to “cash out” to those who can pay a higher price for housing.

See the 1997 Maine State Planning Office report “The Cost of Sprawl.” I encourage the Legislature to amend L.D. 2003 to remove sections that mandate sprawl into rural areas. Then pass the amended bill.

Beth Della Valle, AICP
Portland

Copy the Story Link