On Nov. 5, Scarborough will vote on a $6 million land bond. It is being pitched as a solution to the runaway growth that a clear majority of residents strenuously object to. Before voting on Question 3, it’s important to understand what the land bond can and cannot do.
Scarborough is rich in natural resources, and we all value them highly. Proponents of the land bond claim it will “protect our land and water.” But what does that claim really mean and how would it be accomplished?
Prime development parcels in Scarborough now sell for up to $100,000 per acre. It is unrealistic to think that taxpayers can outbid developers on enough land to protect the quality of our land and water. The town and its taxpayers simply cannot afford to buy our way out of the runaway growth spiral created by town leaders.
A more practical solution would be for town leaders to take meaningful steps to control growth and protect our natural environment.
Creating effective zoning and growth ordinances would be the obvious place to start. The town currently has 600 pages of zoning ordinances that meticulously detail restrictions on matters such as signage and parking. Our ordinances can and should be strengthened to protect our land, water and incredible marsh.
As part of a renewed commitment to conserving the best of Scarborough, our leaders also need to learn how to say no to developers. That doesn’t happen often enough now. Town leaders need to adopt an approach that values preserving our natural world over the desires of developers.
In addition to recognizing the critical need for stronger environmental leadership, voters should be aware of three other aspects of the proposed $6 million land bond.
First, taxpayer funding of conservation through land bonds is very uncommon in Maine. In the past 28 years, only nine Maine municipalities have issued land bonds. And – with $7.5 million of previously issued land bonds – Scarborough is tied with Falmouth for the most bonds issued. Private donations to local land trusts are far and away the most common method of funding local conservation efforts. Scarborough needs to join the mainstream and lift the financial burden from local taxpayers.
Second, the land bond may be used for several purposes other than conservation. Among others, they include “to support recreation” and “to expand existing conservation or public areas.” These vague guidelines could allow the Town Council, by majority vote, to make major property purchases for decidedly non-conservation projects, such as new school athletic fields or the land for a community center/pool. Such purchases would not require voter approval as they otherwise would.
Finally, the proposed land bond forces all taxpayers to support a specific charitable cause over others that they may prefer. While land conservation is a worthy cause, there are many others that individuals may choose to support – health, education, religious or civic organizations. This forced donation is particularly challenging for those residents who are unable to afford to make any donations. If Scarborough followed the model of the vast majority of other Maine cities and towns and supported conservation by private donations and grants to the Scarborough Land Trust, this issue would disappear.
We strongly support local conservation. But we, the members of SMARTaxes (Scarborough Maine Advocates for Reasonable Taxes), believe the $6 million land bond is an impractical, ineffective and unfair approach. A strong leadership commitment to conservation accompanied by robust and strictly enforced land use ordinances will provide the most effective and affordable means to limit Scarborough’s growth and protect our land and water.
We urge a “no” vote on Question 3 on Nov. 5.