Restore won't give up (Portland, Lewiston: homes, buy, casinos)

[Maineac]

Hmm. Missed that one. Funny partnerships. Sounds like what I said previously somewhere about a "full access working Maine Northwoods." A thought, but not great because of the government involvement. Given the players "drafting," it would be interesting to know Conlogue's actual motivations for opposition. I would think the Town of Millinocket (and others) would at least be at the table either fighting or making sure their voice is heard directly. The other option these days seems to be wealthy philanthropists that will dictate permitted (or any, for that matter) use. It's tough, because some of the people that screech the most (like me) about what's her name buying land, have to admit that she should be able to do with it what she likes. No different than anyone else. If there's an argument due to the size of the lands she buys, wheres the cutoff? 5,000 acres? 100 acres? 50 acres? WHAT can you do about this??

[cebdark]

Originally Posted by Maineac

Hmm. Missed that one. Funny partnerships. Sounds like what I said previously somewhere about a "full access working Maine Northwoods." A thought, but not great because of the government involvement. Given the players "drafting," it would be interesting to know Conlogue's actual motivations for opposition. I would think the Town of Millinocket (and others) would at least be at the table either fighting or making sure their voice is heard directly. The other option these days seems to be wealthy philanthropists that will dictate permitted (or any, for that matter) use. It's tough, because some of the people that screech the most (like me) about what's her name buying land, have to admit that she should be able to do with it what she likes. No different than anyone else. If there's an argument due to the size of the lands she buys, wheres the cutoff? 5,000 acres? 100 acres? 50 acres? WHAT can you do about this??

Roxanne Quimby. I have friends with camps in Millinocket who are just waiting for her to throw them off the land that they've leased for generations.

Pretty sad if you ask me.

[Maineac]

Ya. It's real sad. If push came to shove, there'd be no camp left when I walked out the driveway. But at the same time the people that owned all the land on the south shore of Schoodic Lake years ago did about the same thing. They said "your lease is up, buy it or leave - now." And the paper companies have always yanked and played around with leases. Seven Islands wouldn't give Jack McPhee a lease sufficient for him to mortgage his commercial camps - beautiful new building - on Haymock (he died in a plane crash a few years ago). GNP pulled the plug on a lease agreement on Loon Lake many years ago for a sporting camp - and stuck the kid on Round Pond - because some rather prominent Pittsfield people with the only other camp on the lake didn't want their lease "sullied" by a sporting camp a few miles away.

So the question is, it's her right, just like the paper companies (who jacked my lease through the roof before we finally gave up and sold the family camp) so HOW do you overcome all this crap? Land sales are going to happen when the fiber isn't in demand. Reallocation of assets for multinational corporations. So how do you slow down the National Park push?

[RANGER.101ST]

that is a good question?? how do you slow down the national park push? put it out to the people to vote.after all it does need approval of the maine government.let the people of maine decide if they want another park that their tax money will have to maintain.

[dmyankee]

Originally Posted by RANGER.101ST

that is a good question?? how do you slow down the national park push? put it out to the people to vote.after all it does need approval of the maine government.let the people of maine decide if they want another park that their tax money will have to maintain.

Wow!

And if you thought that question one brought a ton of out of state money in...

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by dmyankee

Wow!

And if you thought that question one brought a ton of out of state money in...

Yeah but the people could defeat it if they wanted to...get everyone in Northern Maine voting and the park would be a no go...

[Maineac]

How would it be a no go if the corporations that own the land sold it all to environmental groups, they deed it to the Federal Gov't. and the Feds stepped in to "create" the park? Sorta takes it out of State voting hands, doesn't it? That's the problem. "Voting" to run awry of allowing someone to do what they want with the land. The alternative is to vote to have the State absorb it or take it by eminent domain. If its not in fiber production for pulp and lumber mills, what happens? Multinational corporations don't "need" the land, so they reallocate assets and sell to the highest bidder. See the problem? People want to stand by "landowner rights" - but only to the point where the landowner (in this case Quimby) does what they want them to do with it. Those that would vote against limitations on development through zoning, etc., cannot then claim that they want no self-imposed limitations on development. A serious conundrum that if not addressed somehow, while not turning the landowner rights argument on its head, will not lead to a good result.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Maineac

How would it be a no go if the corporations that own the land sold it all to environmental groups, they deed it to the Federal Gov't. and the Feds stepped in to "create" the park? Sorta takes it out of State voting hands, doesn't it? That's the problem. "Voting" to run awry of allowing someone to do what they want with the land. The alternative is to vote to have the State absorb it or take it by eminent domain. If its not in fiber production for pulp and lumber mills, what happens? Multinational corporations don't "need" the land, so they reallocate assets and sell to the highest bidder. See the problem? People want to stand by "landowner rights" - but only to the point where the landowner (in this case Quimby) does what they want them to do with it. Those that would vote against limitations on development through zoning, etc., cannot then claim that they want no self-imposed limitations on development. A serious conundrum that if not addressed somehow, while not turning the landowner rights argument on its head, will not lead to a good result.

Because of this little detail from the Constitution (Article 1, section 8):

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And"


Whenever the feds buy property in a state, the state must consent to it. Hence, if the voters made it such that the feds have no consent from the state to create a park in Northern Maine, the feds couldn't create it.

[kellysmith]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Yeah but the people could defeat it if they wanted to...get everyone in Northern Maine voting and the park would be a no go...

Unfortunately to quote Charlie Pray from Millinocket who used to be the Senate President, "Trees don't vote!" He was referring to the lop sided demographics where locals are out voted about what's best for their area by those below the Volvo line. Latest example was the Racino/Casino vote for a facility in Washington County. (I could have said latest example was Plum Creek) Local folks voted overwelmingly for it, but the "beautiful people" knew better and voted it down. In my eyes they shouldn't have even had a dog in the fight. If Washington County wanted it, and it was going to be built in Washington County, provide jobs in Washington County, invite crime that folks in Washington County would be dealing with (no I don't believe that scare tactic, but it should be their choice if they want a Racino that might bring crime, even though it wouldn't in real life)...bottom line is like Charlie said...trees don't vote! Not enough voices in the impacted area to overcome the "beautiful people" desires.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by kellysmith

Unfortunately to quote Charlie Pray from Millinocket who used to be the Senate President, "Trees don't vote!" He was referring to the lop sided demographics where locals are out voted about what's best for their area by those below the Volvo line. Latest example was the Racino/Casino vote for a facility in Washington County. (I could have said latest example was Plum Creek) Local folks voted overwhelmingly for it, but the "beautiful people" knew better and voted it down. In my eyes they shouldn't have even had a dog in the fight. If Washington County wanted it, and it was going to be built in Washington County, provide jobs in Washington County, invite crime that folks in Washington County would be dealing with (no I don't believe that scare tactic, but it should be their choice if they want a Racino that might bring crime, even though it wouldn't in real life)...bottom line is like Charlie said ... trees don't vote! Not enough voices in the impacted area to overcome the "beautiful people" desires.

Now hold on there. I consider myself to be a beautiful person, and I live in Maine.

Not all of the beautiful people in Maine winter over down South you know