I was disappointed in the article “Who owns the coast?” (BDN, Aug. 9-10). The same story has appeared every few years, during boom real estate times over the last 25 years.

Surely it is a problem if people who have lived on the coast for years cannot continue to do so, but wouldn’t it be more interesting to try to understand a complex situation, which has some strong positives in it, rather than only seeing the negatives.

1. When the values of coastal property increases, the relative burden of town taxes increases for coastal property owners, and a reciprocal decrease occurs for people in the town who do not live on the water, unless, of course, the town decides to use its increased tax base to spend more money. When towns are revalued, the people whose taxes go down do not stand up in town meeting and complain.

2. While the farmer or fisherman (or sawmill owner) who has always lived there may not be able to afford to continue to use the land as he or she has for years, when the land is sold, he or she may become a very wealthy person. I doubt that these people would appreciate being told that in order for them to continue to live their “traditional lives” the government has removed the ability for them to sell their land for amounts that would have seemed impossible years ago.

3. All the people building the expensive houses that the article laments are bringing capital into the area. This is adding to capital base in the area. The building of these homes employs large numbers of workers with a broad range of skills and pay levels. These are not the low wage service jobs of the tourism industry, but work that can be built into a satisfying career with a middle class income. Since it can be entered at various skill levels, it is exactly the kind of industry that fits well into the work force that exists in Maine.

4. Most of the homeowners are “summer people” or people in their late 40s or 50s who are combining a second home with a place to retire to. In both cases they are picking up a hunk of the tax burden without putting kids in the schools.

5. These newcomers are bringing new skills, knowledge and capital to the area, which often results in new long-term job opportunities for people already here.

When I moved to Blue Hill in 1976 the biggest concern addressed in the comprehensive plan was population loss in the area; especially young people moving away because there were no job or career opportunities. While things are not perfect now, there are many more opportunities along the coast than there were then. If no one was moving to the coast and building these houses the unemployment rate and general prosperity in this area would be like it is “in the other Maine”.

The Legislature gave towns the power to abate taxes on types of property the town wished to preserve. Doing this, of course, raises everyone else’s taxes, but I think in many communities there exists a willingness to carry an additional tax burden in order for an undervalued kind of land use to continue.

This influx of much wealthier people to the Maine coast does bring problems, but it doesn’t only bring problems, and I would hope the BDN could lead a discussion of change and creative responses to it, rather than tired laments about “they are taking the land with their money.” Indeed there are probably many towns in Maine that would like to have this kind of “problem.”

Robert W. Knight is an architect who practices in Blue Hill.