AUGUSTA – A bill to protect “big box” development narrowly passed the House on Wednesday after debate that weighed property rights vs. individual rights.

LD 796 prohibits citizen referendum votes to repeal previously approved building permits, land use authorizations or other development action.

The bill now will return to the Senate for final approval. A House move to kill the bill failed by a vote of 68-62 and the bill eventually was passed without a roll call vote.

Without the protective bill, the referendum process could be used against “big box” developments such as Wal-Mart and The Home Depot stores, supporters said. Any action that would retroactively rescind building permits after municipal approval would complicate and penalize development, said Rep. Paul Tessier, D-Fairfield. The bill would protect development against people who have a “not in my back yard” attitude, he said.

The referendum process would be used by opponents who are “a day late and dollar short” after a development gains approval, said Rep. Patricia Blanchette, D-Bangor, who encouraged House members to trust their own planning boards and municipal planners.

“This is a property rights issue,” said Rep. Paul Waterhouse, R-Bridgton. Allowing referendum votes after approval would “hurt big box developers as well as small private developers,” he said. Rep. Peter Chase, R-Levant, feared “anarchy by citizen’s petition” without the protection of the bill.

Opponents said the bill was an attack on the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and the foundations of democracy, all in the name of development.

Rep. Stavros Mendros, R-Lewiston, is a huge fan of Wal-Mart as a “cheap and convenient” place to buy shirts, one of which he wore Wednesday. But LD 796 would give developers such as Wal-Mart “more power than the municipalities. This changes all the rules. They would achieve a higher standard than our cities and towns,” he said. Residents could file referendum petitions against their government, but not development, he said.

“This hammers the Constitution so much it disturbs me to talk about it,” said Rep. John F. McDonough, D-Portland. “This is the worst assault on our way of government that I have seen. We can’t keep chipping away at the Constitution.”

LD 796 “would put out the red carpet for developers. The little people keep losing and losing and the developers, bankers and insurance companies seem to win and win,” said Rep Joanne Twomey, D-Biddeford.

The bill would “stifle protest and the initiative process and put the big box projects and real estate development on a pedestal. It grants them a higher class of citizenship,” said Rep. Paul R. Hatch, D-Skowhegan. In the hearing before the Business and Economic Development Committee, the bill was supported by developers “in $500 suits and Gucci shoes,” Hatch said.

Rep. Joseph Brannigan, D-Portland, is a developer of low-income housing, but he was quick to add that he owns no $500 suits or Gucci shoes. He said he feared nonprofit development as well as “big box” development could be injured without the protection of the bill.