Testimony at the Maine Legislature
by Cathy Johnson, NRCM North Woods project director
Senator Hobbins, Representative Pelletier-Simpson, members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Cathy Johnson. I am the Acting Advocacy Director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine. I am here today to speak in strong opposition to L.D. 668, An Act to Amend the Land Use Regulation Laws.
L.D. 668 is another version of “takings” legislation that this Committee and the Legislature have defeated several times before. We urge you to do the same this year.
In 1995, this Committee spent dozens of hours in hearings and work sessions addressing legislation very similar to the bill before you today. By a decisive 10-3 majority vote of the Committee, Republicans and Democrats found common ground in rejecting takings compensation bills similar to L.D. 668.
The Judiciary Committee recommended that a task force be established to do an exhaustive review of the complex legal, Constitutional, fiscal, public policy, and health, environmental and public welfare issues associated with the takings issue, and to provide recommendations to the Legislature.
After hundreds of hours of further study and review of the “takings” issue, the 24-member Task Force on Property Rights and the Public Health, Safety and Welfare unanimously recommended the establishment of a land-use mediation process. That process was embodied in legislation and received unanimous support from both the House and Senate in early 1996.
The Land Use Mediation Process is still in place today and there is no evidence that it is not successfully resolving whatever issues may remain. Therefore, this bill is unnecessary.
For instance, commonplace zoning laws adopted by communities across the state are designed to ensure that incompatible uses, such as residences and heavy industry are separated. These laws may have the effect of limiting the speculative value that a landowner might get from selling his land for a new factory. However, without these laws, communities would have not control over their neighborhoods.
Likewise, shoreland zoning ordinances are designed to protect the water quality, wildlife habitat and natural beauty of our lakes, rivers and streams. If this bill were passed, these laws would be invalidated because no town nor the state could afford the cost of paying for any reduction in value caused by these laws.
Under this bill, a landowner would be entitled to compensation for Even if every town and the state concluded that they could not afford to pay for the challenged regulation and simply stopped enforcing the regulation, the costs of this bill would be huge as landowners and towns and cities litigated whether or not a regulation in question had, in fact, diminished the value of a landowners land. Many landowners find that land use regulations adopted by their communities increase the value of their land, by protecting desirable natural habitat and preserving the character of their neighborhood. Only lawsuits would be able to determine the whether or not a landowner’s claim that the particular regulation reduces the value of his land is accurate. The Natural Resources Council of Maine urges you to vote Ought Not to Pass on L.D. 668. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
