Comments for: LURC reform: too risky, too safe or just right?

Posted March 13, 2012, at 5:13 p.m.

The Bangor Daily News has it wrong again on the issue of LURC reform. In the recent editorial titled “LURC change too risky,” the BDN continues to suggest a county role in planning and permitting that is beyond what is proposed in the current LURC reform effort. LD 1798 is …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages 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):

  • Anonymous

    “It is time for the UT to be managed a bit less for southern Maine and southern New England, and a bit more for residents and landowners in rural Maine.”

    The key words are “managed” and “a bit more”…and you’re absolutely right.

    • Here we go again,we need to bridle overzealous liberal minded employees of LURC who think that silt being carried in a stream (intermittently) is considered as pollution once it is deposited in a pond. 

      • Anonymous

        Completely agree…unless the silt has a ton of fertilizers and pesticides in it, of course.

      • Anonymous

        You’re making that up. Name one instance where that has happened. No agency considers naturally occurring sedimentation as a pollutant. It’s something else entirely if one person’s development activity on their property causes a sedimentaation event that affects someone else’s property downstream, or that negatively impacts a state resource like a lake or a fishery.

        • Well, it happened to me when I discussed my “Letter of Violation” with him.

          • Anonymous

            So apparently the violation was something you had done that caused the sediment to get into the water. Sediment is not always a problem once it settles out, but it can kill fish while it’s in transport. I don’t suppose the sediment in question arrived at its destination having settled out after being dumped out of a truck in a coincidentally convenient location for a beach at your camp, by any chance?

          • You amaze me-either I had done something which I had not done, or secondly, it is intermittant and can not hold any fish. So now what do you conjure up as the next presumption, Maybe, a bear took a bath using oil of olay to keep its skin soft and cuddlely. Don’t ask for more info because of confidentiality. Prove me wrong.

    • Yawningattrolls

      Why should there be less management and oversight for southern Maine? There are areas there that need to be protected and regulated just as anywhere else in the state. This only encourages division and inequality in the state.

      • Anonymous

        That’s not what the author is saying.  And there shouldn’t be less oversight in SoME.  But people down south wouldn’t tolerate interests from other parts of the state (or other parts of New England) managing their back yards to their detriment.

  • Anonymous

    “Think about that — 10 million acres of rural Maine are essentially off limits to economic development.”

    Not true. LURC’s General Management district (the zone referred to by LURC decriers as being off-limits) allows residences and some businesses, and depending on the town it even allows subdivisions. Another example of LURC bashing using false and misleading information following the example of Senate President Kevin Raye.

Similar Articles