More on the LURC Debate

I haven't posted about anything political in a while, so I guess it's time to wade back into the fray.  (I say that mostly because I'm sitting at the airport in Detroit on my way back to Maine, so I don't have any actual Camp news to post.)

This legislative session, a bill was introduced to abolish the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC).  Ultimately, the bill lacked legislative support, and lawmakers retreated from it.  However, the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee passed (7-5 along party lines) one of two proposed amendments to instead form a study group intended to make recommendations to the legislature next January. 

Debate on the subject included a majority report proposed by Republicans and a minority report proposed by Democrats.  Both reports include thirteen (13) members, but the breakdown is different.  (I'll italicize the differences.)  The minority report includes three members of the Senate (two Republican and one Democratic), four members of the House of Representatives (two from each party), two county commissioners, one major landowner, one statewide conservation organization, one regional planner, and one member representing the outdoor recreation/tourism business.  The majority report includes the Department of Conservation, two residents, one major landowner, one minor landowner, two county commissioners, one sportsmen's representative, one statewide conservation organization, one regional conservation organization, one member representing the outdoor recreation/tourism business, one economic development representative, and one regional planner.

While I think the breakdown of the majority report study group is fine (although I reserve judgement on the actual members until we see who they are), I do have some concerns with the fact that the only mention the amendment makes of LURC is in one passage that "ensure[s] that any recommendation which entails the elimination of LURC provides an effective transition process, including a plan for LURC to complete any pending work or transfer it to relevant agencies."  The remainder of the amendment focuses on reforming governance and "increased self-determination" in the Unorganized Territories.  (Self-determination usually requires some manner of governing one's self, so I'm not sure what they're going for there.)  The minority report amendment seems much more balanced in its focus on reforming and improving land-use planning in the Unorganized Territories, including a focus on improving the relationship between LURC and landowners.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't believe the counties, especially Aroostook, can take on the burden of effectively governing the Unorganized Territories.  The Unorganized Territories are a land mass (and a huge one at that) belonging to the entire state, and they should not be governed piecemeal along county lines.  They need an overseeing body, and that overseeing body must be able to pull resources from across the state.  Yes, LURC needs to be updated to be more effective, streamlined, and efficient, just like any other organization created 40 years ago.  No, it does not need to be abolished.

I apologize for ranting about this.  When Governor LePage's LD1 proposal came out in January with the provision to open no less than 30% of the state's Unorganized Territory to unspecified development, it raised my hackles.  That being what it is, I do hope the Commission picks me to be one of the study group's two resident members.

Hey, anything can happen. 

As a side note, did you know that Maine's Unorganized Territories comprise over half the state and yet have only 9,000 year-round residents?  (There are, of course, many additional seasonal residents, including yours truly.)