Maine is poorer without a bond package

The failure of a long effort to reach agreement on a bond package for the November ballot is discouraging, but it didn’t have to be that way.

The nearly four months following adjournment was certainly the longest, but also the most frustrating and baffling negotiation of my eight years of legislative service.

It was obvious at the end of the session, back in April, that the Appropriations Committee would not achieve its traditional consensus on bonds. Ultimately, a majority report backed by House and Senate Democrats recommended a $79.8 million package, with another $40 million for a three-year authorization for the Land for Maine’s Future program. LMF received five years of funding in 1999, which has now expired.

The minority report backed by committee Republicans offered $30 million for the same four bond issues. A Senate Republican amendment to the bond package offered $40 million. That’s where the two parties were when we adjourned.

All of these proposals were modest . The last five bond packages averaged $136.4 million in current dollars. And since 1995, voters have approved 34 bond issues. Over that period, the smallest bond package, in current dollars, was $55 million and the largest $176 million.

In June, Gov. Baldacci announced a new initiative for a bond package totaling $55 million, concentrating on transportation, environmental protection, and land conservation. He said he would meet Republicans halfway.

But no negotiation can succeed when one side keeps moving the goal posts, and that’s what happened. Last week, I wrote to the Governor to accept, reluctantly, his latest offer of $40 million – exactly matching the Republicans’ original position. It was a minimal package that falls short of Maine’s need for jobs and infrastructure, but I was willing to go along to make sure something got done.

Gov. Baldacci met all the Republicans’ terms, and yet the answer was still no. This result is unacceptable for the people of Maine.

Consider what we’ll be losing. The Land for Maine’s Future Program, the most successful land conservation effort since the creation of Baxter State Park, will come to a halt. It has been cited for excellence by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, and was supported by more than two-thirds of the voters.

Inevitably, sometime in the next few months the public will face losing access to a treasured piece of land – access to a river, a forest, or urban green space – and the state won’t be able to offer a bid to forestall development. Private owners will lock the public out of land it’s been using for hundreds of years, and we won’t be able to do a thing about it.

The Department of Transportation will find the money for the emergency replacement of the Waldo-Hancock bridge, but it will have to cut funding from vital highway and bridge projects all over the state, in every county. And because substantial federal funds are involved, this will cost us far more than the $10 million for the Waldo-Hancock bridge. In fact, because the Republicans refused to consider $40 million in bonding, we’ll lose more than $80 million in federal and private matching funds.

On the environment, many Maine communities must improve their sewage treatment plants to meet federal requirements. Besides, it’s the right thing to do for our health and safety. Communities like Bangor, Auburn, Kennebunk, Lincoln, Skowhegan and Portland won’t get any federal or state help now. Hazardous waste sites continue to be a major environmental problem. Acton, Corinna, Cumberland, Easport, Pownal and South Paris won’t get any help, either. Clean drinking water is a basic necessities. Washburn, Ellsworth, Lisbon and Port Clyde needed state help, and they won’t get it. Several municipal industrial parks can’t expand and provide jobs until they improve water supplies and sewage disposal. The list is a whole lot longer, but I’m sure you get the idea.

So what, in the end, was the reason there was no agreement? I really can’t tell you. Even Republicans admitted this was not about taking on more debt, since the State Treasurer says we’ll retire $66.8 million in bonds this year. Our state debt will go down regardless, but we won’t have the 4,000 good jobs the Association of General Contractors says the bond package would create.

Republicans suggest that looming budget problems for 2005 meant we shouldn’t have a bond package, even though we’re talking about responsible borrowing, not spending. Yet they contradicted themselves by suggesting we take money from current surplus to pay for bond projects. As soon as we get a few cents in the piggy bank, they want to break it open. By no standard is that good financial management.

The bond package we were talking about was small, affordable and productive, and we met the Republicans not halfway but by going all the way across the street. Why the answer was still no I can’t say, but all Mainers will be poorer as a result.

House Speaker Pat Colwell is serving his fourth and final term, under legislative term limits, and represents Gardiner and Randolph.