ewv

Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Rule Becoming Law in Maine

13 posts in this topic

Maine's abnorally high taxes and controls imposed by the viro progressive left in over 30 years of Democrat control have driven investment and industry out of the state. The economy is "mysteriously" in decline while taxes and controls continue to become worse. Here is an example of how they respond.

"Speaking of progressive policies, Orren," said Taggart, "you might ask yourself whether at a time of transportation shortages, when so many railroads are going bankrupt and large areas are left without rail service, whether it is in the public interest to tolerate wasteful duplication of services and the destructive, dog-eat-dog competition of newcomers in territories where established companies have historical priority."
'Anti-Wal-Mart bill' gains momentum

By Victoria Wallack

AUGUSTA (May 9): A bill that would deny big-box developers the right to build if studies they would have to pay for show their stores would hurt the local economy won support Monday of a majority of the State and Local Government Committee.

Dubbed the anti-Wal-Mart bill, the proposal hit a chord with Democrats and Republicans, who say their downtown businesses have been hurt by mega-retailers.

“I’ve heard from Main Street in Bath, from Topsham and Brunswick — people not even in my district,” said Sen. Paula Benoit, R-Sagadahoc County, who serves on the State and Local Government Committee and is a small business owner. “They’re begging me to take action.”

The bill, written on behalf of the national Institute for Local Self Reliance, would require developers of stores greater than 75,000 square feet to pay $40,000 up front for an independent study on the economic and environmental effects of their project on the local area.

That study would be done by an independent reviewer vetted by the state’s Planning Office, who would examine a big-box store’s effect on property taxes, municipal budgets, local retail jobs and wages.

The study would then be used by the local Planning Board or council to determine if the project had an “undue adverse impact” on the local economy, and that could serve as grounds for denying a building permit.

As the bill is currently written, all municipalities would have to require the study as part of their local review. There would be no option but to follow the new state mandate.

“What we’re talking about is plain vanilla,” said Peggy McGehee, an attorney with Perkins, Thompson of Portland, who drafted the bill for the Institute for Local Self Reliance. “It’s what you have been doing for 30 or 40 years.”

She said the state already regulates land-use standards, and the bill just adds another requirement that has to be met. “If a municipality had 20 review criteria, now it has 21. If a developer can’t meet all of the 21 standards, it cannot get a permit,” she said.

The bill is opposed by Realtors, builders and business groups, including the Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Maine State Chamber and Maine Merchants Association, but they held little sway at Monday’s committee meeting where the vote was taken.

When lobbyist Pattie Aho, speaking on behalf of the opponents, said her clients’ preference was “to make this an optional ordinance if it has to go through,” she was chastised by the Senate chairwoman of the State and Local Government Committee.

“The truth is you’d rather not have it at all,” said Sen. Elizabeth Schneider, D-Penobscot County. “I don’t understand the complete pushback from your organizations. This is not anti-business … I think it is pro-business [because it helps people understand what effect big retailers will have on their community]."

Schneider said she got a hand-written letter from a former mayor in Bangor, who supports the bill because of “the longtime stores that have closed in our region” when big boxes moved into the city.

Rep. Chris Barstow, D-Gorham, House chairman of the State and Local Government Committee, and the main sponsor of the bill, agreed, saying the proposal supports business and community. "The more information we provide the better, and that’s what this bill does,” Barstow said.

Rep. James Schatz, D-Blue Hill, said, “I’m never very ready to apply governance to municipalities that’s not of their own making,” but in this case he was willing to make an exception.

Fears that the bill was “one size fits all” for the entire state would be allayed, he said, since each community would see a different impact from development and would make decisions based on its own circumstances.

Schatz moved the bill with several amendments, including a requirement that the State Planning Office create a list of people qualified to do the independent studies, and a request from the real estate community that the timeframe given for the study be reduced from six months to three.

His amended version got six votes, including Schneider, Benoit, Barstow, Rep. Lawrence Sirois, D-Turner, and Rep. Andrea Boland, D-Sanford, who said she didn’t think amendments were really needed.

“I was perfectly content with the original bill,” Boland said.

Three others voted in favor of the concept, but wanted to propose further amendments; and three voted against.

Rep. Stephen Beaudette, D-Biddeford, who led those wanting to further amend the bill, but still see it passed, said he wanted to hear more from the Maine Association of Planners.

One area of concern for Beaudette is whether there should be exemptions for cities and towns that already require an economic impact study as part of their planning review.

At a public hearing held last month, House Speaker Glenn Cummings testified in favor of the bill. It also has the backing of coastal legislators Sen. Dana Dow, R-Lincoln, Rep. Jonathan McKane, R-Newcastle, Sen. Dennis Damon, D-Hancock, and Rep. Ted Koffman, D-Bar Harbor.

The committee will meet again to consider further amendments before sending the bill to the full Legislature.

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maine's abnorally high taxes and controls imposed by the viro progressive left in over 30 years of Democrat control have driven investment and industry out of the state. The economy is "mysteriously" in decline while taxes and controls continue to become worse.

I wonder if even one person has asked: How can the smaller businesses be "driven" away unless their customers prefer the Wal-Marts of the world? Denying the construction of the larger stores is violating the rights of every individual to make such a choice (in addition to the primary right of anyone to build the store in the first place.) As with all such regulations they will have exponentially increasing negative results (as a function of time) - because of such factors as individuals or companies being deprived of less expensive building materials from e.g. a Lowes vs. mom & pop's hardware store, which will have further effects on downstream profitability or even whether it's profitable to build at all, ultimately affecting the ability to create new businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if even one person has asked: How can the smaller businesses be "driven" away unless their customers prefer the Wal-Marts of the world? Denying the construction of the larger stores is violating the rights of every individual to make such a choice (in addition to the primary right of anyone to build the store in the first place.) As with all such regulations they will have exponentially increasing negative results (as a function of time) - because of such factors as individuals or companies being deprived of less expensive building materials from e.g. a Lowes vs. mom & pop's hardware store, which will have further effects on downstream profitability or even whether it's profitable to build at all, ultimately affecting the ability to create new businesses.

Ironically, these small-town faux-liberals are the most hidebound conservatives of all. They want nothing to change, nothing to alter their view of the 'ideal' small community. And the choices of others, and those others' rights to choose differently, is of course of no concern whatsoever to them. After all, they know what's best. How interesting that 'what's best' always turns out to be opposed to any highly successful commercial enterprise offering the 'rabble' a choice.

This is just another way in which the intrisic value set express their ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right after I read this thread, I came across [Maryland] to make contractors pay 'living wage'.

Then at the end of the article, they note that "[a]mong the other measures signed Tuesday was a bill in which Maryland apologized for slavery." Let's do a little math here. Slavery was abolished in the U.S. in 1865. That was 142 years ago. The oldest well documented person was 122 years old. If alive today, she would have missed slavery by a generation. So who exactly is left to apologize for the slaves they owned? Oh that's right. White people are responsible for anything done by any other white person ever.

I need to go find some good news. Yeesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right after I read this thread, I came across [Maryland] to make contractors pay 'living wage'.

Then at the end of the article, they note that "[a]mong the other measures signed Tuesday was a bill in which Maryland apologized for slavery." Let's do a little math here. Slavery was abolished in the U.S. in 1865. That was 142 years ago. The oldest well documented person was 122 years old. If alive today, she would have missed slavery by a generation. So who exactly is left to apologize for the slaves they owned? Oh that's right. White people are responsible for anything done by any other white person ever.

I need to go find some good news. Yeesh.

I wonder why no one asked the Queen of England, on her recent visit, to apologize since it was the British who brought slavery here.

Virginia recently apologized too. Why has not the White Man apologized for feudalism?

I little bit of reason and alarm was expressed by Don Kornreich.

the resolution does a great deal more than express an apology for slavery. What concerns me is what else the resolution does. A co-sponsor of the resolution asserts that, based on the state's apology, we now need to take steps "to get rid of the lingering effects of it [slavery] on the people."

First, what are the lingering effects of slavery? We need look no further than the language of the resolution itself:

"WHEREAS, Slavery fostered a climate of oppression not only for slaves and their descendants but also for people of color who moved to Maryland subsequent to slavery's abolition; and

"WHEREAS, Slavery and discrimination are utterly contrary to the principles that this Nation and this State profess ... "

The resolution extends, by virtue of the "climate of oppression," its coverage not only to the descendants of slaves, but to "people of color who moved to Maryland subsequent to slavery's abolition." The resolution addresses not only slavery but includes "discrimination" as well. As a result, the resolution by this language divides Marylanders into two groups: descendants of slaves and people of color who by legislative definition have experienced a climate of oppression and discrimination, and people not of color, who, presumably, have experienced neither.

-------------

the resolution has a hollow ring to it when it professes:

"Resolved, That the State of Maryland commits itself to the formation of a more perfect union among its citizens regardless of color, creed, or race; and

"Resolved, That the State of Maryland recommits itself to the principle that all people are equal and equally endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

To the contrary, the resolution will only lead to further a distinction, differentiation and difference among and between the people of Maryland along color lines. This dichotomy will result even though many "people of color" immigrated to Maryland long after slavery was abolished and in no way were part of the slave trade that prompted the resolution in the first place.

Second, just how inclusive will be the class of "people of color who moved to Maryland subsequent to slavery's abolition"? For example, historical records fully document the role of Africans who willingly sold or bartered other Africans to slave traders. Will "people of color" include the progeny of Africans who "trafficked in human flesh"? Will "moved" to Maryland include illegal immigrants?

--------------

Apologizing for slavery is one thing. Classifying people according to color is quite another. And, ultimately, seeking reparations based on the color of one's skin, because of a legislated "climate of oppression" and "discrimination" is not going to lead to "a more perfect union among citizens regardless of color, creed, or race."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We get a lot of this stuff going on in the UK. Our most successful retailer is similarly being vilified as a "small town destroyer" etc and anytime they can get a planning consent, the media portray it as a victory for people, rather than a seizure of their right to choose for themselves.

The fact UK food retailing is very competitive (Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda-Walmart, Morrisons, Aldi, Lidl, Kwik-Save, Budgens or Waitrose to name the top nine and there are more independent regionals and internet suppliers) offering fantastic choices and value, is ignored.

If however, the small stores sought to offer better service, or more specialist choices, they could not only survive, they'd prosper. Employees of chains are often a tad demotivated, but if keeping your customers happy means you eat, well, you are probaly prety much up for the fight.

Where I live in Hampshire, there are four mega-food retailers operating (Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda-Walmart and Morrisons), a discounter (Aldi) and some other medium sized ones all selling alcohol, yet a specialist wine trader (the outstanding Berry Bros & Rudd) far from demanding protection from the supermarkets, utterly batters them in open competition by a wider specialist product range, better service and good knowledge from the staff of the product, along with some great tasting evenings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apologies for the missed apostrophe, that should read CAN'T

"can get a planning consent"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maine's abnorally high taxes and controls imposed by the viro progressive left in over 30 years of Democrat control have driven investment and industry out of the state. The economy is "mysteriously" in decline while taxes and controls continue to become worse. Here is an example of how they respond.

What if we just gave Maine away to Canada? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maine's abnorally high taxes and controls imposed by the viro progressive left in over 30 years of Democrat control have driven investment and industry out of the state. The economy is "mysteriously" in decline while taxes and controls continue to become worse. Here is an example of how they respond.

What if we just gave Maine away to Canada? :(

How about sending all the viros to Canada? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then at the end of the article, they note that "[a]mong the other measures signed Tuesday was a bill in which Maryland apologized for slavery." Let's do a little math here. Slavery was abolished in the U.S. in 1865. That was 142 years ago. The oldest well documented person was 122 years old. If alive today, she would have missed slavery by a generation. So who exactly is left to apologize for the slaves they owned? Oh that's right. White people are responsible for anything done by any other white person ever.

I need to go find some good news. Yeesh.

Somehow this reminds me of the time when the late Pope John Paul 2 absolved the Jews of the Death of Christ. It was the first good night's sleep I had in 2000 years.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then at the end of the article, they note that "[a]mong the other measures signed Tuesday was a bill in which Maryland apologized for slavery." Let's do a little math here. Slavery was abolished in the U.S. in 1865. That was 142 years ago. The oldest well documented person was 122 years old. If alive today, she would have missed slavery by a generation. So who exactly is left to apologize for the slaves they owned? Oh that's right. White people are responsible for anything done by any other white person ever.

I need to go find some good news. Yeesh.

Somehow this reminds me of the time when the late Pope John Paul 2 absolved the Jews of the Death of Christ. It was the first good night's sleep I had in 2000 years.

Bob Kolker

Glad you brought that up. Made me feel good too. Now, how do we get those suicide bombers to like us also?

But don't forget your guilt from Adam eating the apple ~6000 years ago. You'll never sleep that well again.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somehow this reminds me of the time when the late Pope John Paul 2 absolved the Jews of the Death of Christ. It was the first good night's sleep I had in 2000 years.

Bob Kolker

Fascinating concept that JP2 could absolve an entire race of people for the alleged actions of their distant forefathers, so I guess before he absolved the Jews, it was legitimate to persecute them for the greatest crime in history (in the catholic view I would imagine ~ what could be worse than killing God?). And that would include anyone who happened to be born into a faith, regardless of their individual view, or lack of any involvement at all.

So really prior to absolution, JP2 was morally and philosophically in the same place as the Taliban who blame all non-muslims for a littany of complaints against the West, regardless of their individual view or lack of any involvement.

Did he ever absolve the Romans, since, you know, he lived in Rome and all ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fascinating concept that JP2 could absolve an entire race of people for the alleged actions of their distant forefathers, so I guess before he absolved the Jews, it was legitimate to persecute them for the greatest crime in history (in the catholic view I would imagine ~ what could be worse than killing God?). And that would include anyone who happened to be born into a faith, regardless of their individual view, or lack of any involvement at all.

So really prior to absolution, JP2 was morally and philosophically in the same place as the Taliban who blame all non-muslims for a littany of complaints against the West, regardless of their individual view or lack of any involvement.

Did he ever absolve the Romans, since, you know, he lived in Rome and all ?

Once you begin pointing out the absurd implications of irrational beliefs, particularly those of leading religious figures, there's no end to it. Libraries could be filled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites