October 21, 2017
Augusta Latest News | Poll Questions | Haunted Maine | Bangor City Council | Orion Krause

Comments for: LURC reform bill already generating political tensions

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • oPPPS!

  •  Currently, all seven LURC members are nominated by the governor and approved by the Legislature.
     
    AIN’T THAT A STACKED DECK!

    • Anonymous

      LURC is a centralized state bureaucracy that is not accountable to the people it controls.

      • Guest

        Maybe the LePage administration will go after it after they get done with Maine Housing.

      • Anonymous

        name a governmental regulatory body that is!  They are all accountable to the governor, obviously, and to some degree the legislature. None of them are accountable to the people, their job is to administer and regulate the policies of the state.

        How many Commissioner’s have you voted for?

        • Anonymous

          County commissioners are elected.

          The arrogant notion of government rule by supposed experts in a bureaucracy telling us how to live is the diametric opposite of the American concept of representative self-government created to protect the rights and freedom of the individual.

  • Anonymous

     Stop the systematic depopulation of rural Maine.

    Dismantle LURC.

    Do it now.

    • Guest

      “systematic depopulation of rural Maine”; are you kidding?  Where’d you pull that one out of, Millinocket Town Council. It’s a conspiracy, I tell ya!  The government out to get us! Just like them aliens over Moosehead Lake.
       
      Think globalization: universal health care in Canada, cheaper labor costs in China, the digital age (Internet) requiring less paper – especially directory paper from the Millinocket mills.  Sociological factors: children, who don’t their parents hardscrabble lives in the woods of Maine, got easier access to federal grants and student loans to go to college.  Why be poor when one can get a better life?

      • Anonymous

        Think one word.
        Hyphenated, like so many of the feelgood liberal”s last names.

        ANTI-DEVELOPMENT.

        • Anonymous

          It’s worse than anti-development.  The well-heeled politically connected preservationist lobbyists are power seekers openly suppressing representative self-government and property rights.  They are the anti-civilization Anti Industrial Revolution trying to impose “darkness” (their own word from their own propaganda) to keep northern and eastern Maine like North Korea in comparison to the freer south. 

          The controversy the reactionaries have manufactured has openly revealed them for what they are as they make every excuse they can to block reform while openly denouncing self-government and smearing their subjects as too stupid to make their own choices.  It’s no accident that the “progressive” anti-reform lobby consists of the same pressure group activists who want to impose dictatorial Federal control through the National Park Service bureaucracy over people in millions of acres of what is supposed to be a state with private property, not a feudal Federal colony.  What a pack of little dictators.

          • Guest

            Wow, what a bunch of gobbleygook.  “Anti-civilization, Anti-Industrial Revolution”  what is that suppose to mean?  The “reactionaries” are out to wipe out all residents in northern and eastern Maine?  In case you haven’t notice, which apparently you haven’t, the Industrial Revolution is over, we’re in the ditigal/information age now.  You speak volumes about the antiquated thought process northern and eastern Maine seem to be clinging for dear life to the “traditional Maine heritage”.  If you haven’t noticed northern and eastern Maine are not exactly making big bucks on their traditional Maine heritage anymore.

          • Anonymous

            “If you haven’t noticed northern and eastern Maine are not exactly making big bucks on their traditional Maine heritage anymore.”

            Due to the anti-development slant that has been enforced by LURC since it’s inception.

            I’d like to see you eat that ditigal/ informational gobbldygook you speak of, or a great big steaming plate of “quality of place” the greenies are always off and running about.

            This state and this country is well on it’s way ruin without basic industries such as the ones LURC has been trying to eradicate.

            BUT…. we will know all about it from the info on our smartphones.

          • Anonymous

            The “gobbleygook” is all yours as you try to evade discussion and criticism of the “progressive” viro demands to keep people down in 2/3 of the state that you want to rule by bureaucratic fiat in order to deny the rights and freedom of the people whose land you want.  Your attempts to forcibly prevent economic development by free people in order to keep us in “darkness” are in fact anti-civilization.  You are a coercive preservationist.  The viro movement is the Anti Industrial Revolution, trying to force us back to pre-industry, pre-settlement, primitive conditions — as Quimby has herself boasted.  This is fundamentally not about “heritage” but the rights of the individual in a free society you want to take over and rule.  The heritage of this country is the rights of the individual protected by representative self-government.  That is what the viro reactionaries against reform of LURC want to destroy.

        • Anonymous

          you got that right,but the deveopment, plum creek wants, is good for nothing.that will bring no jobs, only a bunch of destroyed land, and the few homes built, owned by these liberals such as robert redford, letterman, and the like.then greenville will be stuck with the road maintenance. this happened in southern maine, in late 60’s, and seventies. i used to live domn there. a big area was ruined,and the hunting declined, ended. along with the deer population. and a development that was always broke,and looking for handouts. im talking about Arrowhead estates. waterboro, and limerick maine
          this i can tell you, is true.
          plum creek destroyed land in a few other states. there will never be many jobs here or in that area. i dont want the likes of redford, letterman, rosie odonnell,tom cruise, any of them coming here to tell us how to live. these are rox quimby’s buddies. no point in ruining this area, just to make plum creek richer.common sense.
          some places are just better left alone,as this area.im not anti deveopment, but why lay waste to this area. it will never bring nothing more than a few temp. construction jobs.not worth the ruination of this area.no way.

    • Anonymous

      LURC has been destroying small communities for years.  Most of these small communities are unique to Maine, and not found like anywhere else in the US.  LURC has been imposing unrealistic rules and regulations to communities and individuals alike,endangering the survival of communities.  LURC has no realistic appeals process.  They are unwilling to compromise, and frequently ignore FACTS that do not support their side.  LURC has become a poster child of what is wrong with government.

  • Anonymous

    I understand Schneider’s point.   If a super committee is going to draft legislation, and if that committee’s co-chair is a member of  the Administration, then that super committee needs to work with the legislative committee as a whole, not just it’s legislative analyst. If the Administration wants to offer a bill, then do it the traditional way, not through the back door.

    Thibodeau indicates that there will be plenty of time to “delve” into it.   That’s an unnecessary waste of time and effort when the full committee should be involved in the first place.  This is a short session,  I can’t see a hell of a lot of time to delve into anything, especially if they drag their feet coming up with a bill, which maybe the goal as it is.

    • Anonymous

      The viros have no objection to their own writing of legislation in collusion between the pressure group lobbyists like Audubon and NRCM and legislators representing them like Koffman and Duchesne.  That is how they snuck in the ‘bird habitat’ scam taking over private property they want to control. 

      There is nothing wrong with a duly authorized committee like the LURC reform committee drafting its own recommended legislation and openly submitting it to the legislature. 

      The viros are making up every excuse they can to block reform that threatens their entrenched power over other people progressively accumulated over decades of undue influence over government.

  • Anonymous

    Hopefully the process can now move forward in a respectable atmosphere. And, for all of you spouting rhetoric behind screen names you now have the opportunity to be heard and seen at the public hearing. I’ll be there. Will you? Or, is the process a conspiracy also.

  •   Does the newest regulation  include what the LURC commission follows for violations? When I had a Letter of Violation, the idea of a trail over 5 feet wide and having an Old Land Rover to haul in the wood to build my camp, was not in the newest regulations in 1999, but they would have fined me if they felt that they were right-I proved that they were wrong. However, I did get a permit-both myself and the other camper put together a permit to build a road upto  my part of the area used to drive into my camp. They also said that the silt washed from a spring to the lake (intermittantly) was considered pollution. With extremes like this, I believe we need to better serve the public with more common sense. The above two qualifications for a road vs a trail were taken from the hearings against individuals but not found in the new LURC Regulations in 1999.  

    • Anonymous

      You obviously should not have had to go through all that even though you seemed to have prevailed in the end.  There is no place for a  bureaucracy tying up peoples lives for months or years, let alone thwarting ordinary activities on private property.

You may also like