No on Question 9

Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to allow for reduced property taxes on property that will be maintained for historic preservation or for scenic views of significant vistas?

Question 9 seems like a well-intentioned idea that requires a couple more drafts before it is ready for voters. Rather than support this constitutional change and then try to patch up what appear to be significant faults later, Maine would do well to reject this measure and let the Legislature reconsider it next year.

Attribute this proposal to Cape Elizabeth. It had to stand by while a resident overhauled the lighthouse keeper’s house at the famous Two Lights there. Cape Elizabeth had an opportunity at the time to beef up its historic preservation ordinance, but it stuck with a weak rule requiring only that owners of historic properties notify the town of their intent to demolish the property and then wait 45 days to see whether a deal could be struck.

In the case of Two Lights, it could not, and the renovation — others would say demolition — went ahead. But still not wanting to set burdensome regulation, local legislators persuaded their colleagues to pass to voters an option for municipalities to give tax breaks to people who own historic or scenic places. Putting aside the fact that communities already can do things like buy development rights to preserve what is important to them, the proposal raises several problems.

The most immediate of these is that it allows for a two-tier system of taxation on property. The weight of the property tax already falls too heavily on average homeowners, who own neither spectacular views nor remarkably old properties. They’re just trying to pay for their schools and town services without going broke themselves. Ditto for owners of commercial property. Those costs have to be paid even if a community abounds in lovely vistas, and if the local vista owners are getting a break, the money will be made up by everyone else.

Exactly what are “scenic views of significant vistas”? If there’s a property-tax break at the end of the vista, you might find the view out your backyard significant, and who is to say you’re wrong? Mountains and oceans are plenty scenic, but so is a tree-lined city street, which more closely conforms to the definition of vista, anyway. And so is a gaggle of children happily playing on a playground, or a neatly refurbished downtown. Got tax breaks for all of these?

Of course not, and voters who think that by supporting this measure they are setting themselves up to save money will be disappointed. It’s a shame that the good citizens of Cape Elizabeth wouldn’t do more to save a structure they valued, but that is no reason to hold a statewide election to alter the state constitution.