Sangerville’s proposed rights-based ordinance gets second hearing

By Mike Lange
Staff Writer

    EAST SANGERVILLE — The town of Sangerville’s second public hearing on a proposed rights-based ordinance (RBO) on Sept. 4 closely resembled the first one.
    The location was the same, the turnout was close to the 50 who attended the June 21 session and the PowerPoint presentation varied little from the original session.

    The reason for the proposed ordinance is fear that a $2.1 billion limited-access road, commonly called the east-west highway, will have a devastating effect on the rural community.
    Residents will decide whether or not to enact the ordinance at a special meeting at the fire hall on Wednesday, Sept. 18.
    But a few residents expressed concern about the potential effects the law would have on local business while others wondered whether the town could withstand the cost of a court challenge. Supporters of the ordinance said, however, that the RBO only targets the east-west corridor; and the non-profit Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) would prvide assistance if the ordinance was ever challenged in court.
    “There are 155 rights-based ordinances in effect in eight states that have stopped unwanted projects,” said Edie Vose, a member of the Sangerville Community Rights Group. “Our group has been working for eight months to tailor this ordinance for the needs of our town with the legal support of CELDF. Note that this ordinance is only about the threat of a particular highway distribution corridor.”
    The rights-based ordinance, technically named the community bill of rights ordinance, would prohibit “any corporation or governmental agency to engage in land acquisition for, or engage in the construction of, any private or public-private transportation and distribution center.”
    The premise of the RBO is that “private corporations engaged in the construction and operation of those corridors are wrongly recognized by the federal and state government as having more ‘rights’ than the people who live in the community.” As Diane Boretos explained, the ordinance “makes a fundamental change in regulatory procedures. It acknowledges our rights over any corporate infrastructure in our town. Now, corporations have more rights than we do … State and federal laws preempt local laws, including eminent domain.”
    Lynne Williams, an attorney from Bar Harbor who is assisting the town with the RBO language, suggested that the Board of Selectmen make two changes to the ordinance before the Sept. 18 special town meeting.  The description of a private transportation and distribution corridor, which the ordinance would prohibit includes the phrase “utility, communication or transmission lines.” Williams said she was concerned that “this might be construed to include telephone poles and power lines … Therefore, one might argue that subdivision developers, for example, could not hook up new homes with electricity and/or telephone lines under this section.”
    Williams also suggested that a provision that the ordinance become effective immediately after enactment be scrapped. “This is the one category which I think could lead to litigation, if there is anyone whose permit is vested and is (later) informed that the permit is no longer valid,” Williams explained. However, a provision could be substituted making the RBO effective at a future, specific date or even retroactively, she said.
    Jerry Peters, chairman of the Sangerville Planning Board, said that he was not speaking as a board member, but as a member of the Sangerville Community Rights Group. “This (ordinance) is really not strange territory,” Peters said, citing the fact that the town already has shoreland zoning and subdivision ordinances. “I’m in favor of this ordinance. It’s pure democracy and allows citizens to have a say on the major things that happen in our community,” he said.
    Lance Burgess, a former selectman and Planning Board member, said that while he is not in favor of the east-west highway, “Some of you probably drove here tonight on a road built by my family.” Burgess also said he was disturbed by what he perceived as a general criticism of corporations. “There are corporations right here in town who do water extraction and take minerals from the soil. So I’m wondering what effect this ordinance will have on them.”
    Vose said that the target of the ordinance “was clearly defined in the beginning. It does not affect other business people in town – it protects other people, in fact.” She acknowledged that “it’s a hard concept to grasp, and you’re not the only one to question it. But this is totally about the corridor – nothing more.”
    Cathy Starbird asked if a corporation decided to challenge the ordinance, “Would our municipal treasury be at risk? Are you saying that you’ll take care of the attorney’s fees?” she asked.
    Boretos said that any court challenges would be civil, not criminal. “Civil cases do not require discovery, which accounts for a huge amount of lawyer’s fees,” Boretos said. “CELDF has agreed to help us in the event of a challenge, and there are some other attorneys in Maine who do this type of work pro-bono (at no charge).”
    The Sangerville Board of Selectmen was scheduled to meet on Sept. 10 to fine-tune the language of the ordinance as recommended by Williams.