BELFAST — A Democrat hasn’t represented Belfast in the state House of Representatives in decades, but Stephen Olson is banking on changing that.

Belfast resident Olson, a marine surveyor and captain of the tour boat Balmy Days, has been working since early spring to unseat the two-term Republican incumbent, David Lindahl, a retired state trooper from Northport. House District 105 covers Belfast, Northport and Islesboro.

While Lindahl goes into the race bolstered by the Republican lineage of his distinguished predecessors, Olson believes there is room for a Democratic breakthrough. The political makeup of the district has shifted in recent years from a strong Republican majority to one now equally divided among Democrats, Republicans and independents. Olson looks at Lindahl’s 1,000-vote win against a weak opponent two years ago and sees an opening.

“I believe I have a good chance to win,” Olson observed.

During his two terms in Augusta, Lindahl has served as an audible voice from his key seat on the Transportation Committee. He organized Gov. Angus King’s public forum in Belfast and whirlwind 1995 tour of the county on the Belfast & Moosehead Lake Railroad. He also shares credit for the miles of newly paved Waldo County highways this summer.

As he crosses District 105, the major concern Lindahl detects is the growing burden of property tax.

Olson said he encounters similar sentiments.

While both candidates believe changes are needed in Augusta, they view the solution from different angles. And, while Lindahl and Olson deride state government’s craving for more taxes, they point the finger of blame at the policies of the rival’s political party.

Though Lindahl favors a reduction in government programs as a solution to the state’s budget woes, Olson says the problem is caused by the federal government’s abandonment of the states.

“I think the Republicans have gone off on a fairly radical track,” Olson said. “We’ve seen a huge distribution of wealth upwards to the rich and it’s gotten out of balance. It goes back to the bait-and-switch of revenue sharing. The feds said, `Instead of us spending your money why don’t we just tax you and send the money back?’ Now that that money has dried up, the feds are pushing programs back on the states and the states are doing the same by pushing them on local governments.”

Lindahl suggested that one area that needs looking at is the Department of Education, a bureaucratic behemoth, and school funding in general. Lindahl said the policy of building costly schools, such as the recently completed $24 million Oxford Hills High School, needs to be reassessed.

“Every time we … build a new school, why do we have to design it from scratch? I mean, how many different ways can you design a gymnasium? We’ve had enough schools designed over the last 20 years that you think we could just pick one of those out,” Lindahl said. “There is no need to spend big money on new schools when the schools themselves need money. Kids don’t learn from schools, they learn from teachers.”

Another issue near and dear to Lindahl’s heart is campaign finance reform. Although he opposes the referendum proposal on public financing of campaigns, he offered to restrict spending on his campaign provided Olson agreed to do the same.

Under Lindahl’s proposal, which Olson dismissed as unworkable, he volunteered to allow the challenger to set a fixed spending limit and an incumbent would spend no more than three-quarters of that amount. Both men expect to spend about $2,000 over the course of the campaign.

“It seems only fair that the incumbent should spend less, since incumbents tend to have better name recognition. The incumbent definitely has an advantage in these races. If they’ve done such a good job and have answered to the public they shouldn’t have a problem getting re-elected. They don’t need the added advantage of a big campaign fund,” Lindahl said.

Olson described Lindahl’s plan as “not very practical. Money seeks influence, and money has bought influence. You cannot prevent it without taking away the First Amendment rights of wealthy people and corporations and you just can’t do that,” he said. “There is no way to prevent campaign activity without abridging First Amendment rights. We already have campaign disclosure and that gives the people the tools they need to make a responsible decision. If they don’t make a responsible decision it’s because they didn’t care, and there’s no law you can pass to make people care.”

Olson said he also is taking aim at another troubling constant, retired state employees in the Legislature.

“If I get elected and nothing else changes, I’ll be the only member of the House from Waldo County who is not a retired state employee,” Olson said. “I’m not looking at a state pension. I run a business. I make a living and I know exactly what it takes to do that. From that point of view I’m sort of like a traditional Republican. I’m a middle-class businessman, not a state employee.”