Amendment would refine waterfront tax

Supporters of a proposal that will be on next month’s statewide ballot hope that the result of the referendum will be different from the outcome of a similar vote five years ago.

Those who hope to ease the tax burden on working waterfront properties already may have reason to be optimistic about the Nov. 8 election.

Though the Maine Municipal Association successfully opposed a similar proposal in 2000, this year it is supporting a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the Legislature to alleviate the tax burden on waterfront land used for commercial fishing activities. Maine has provisions that permit farmland, forestland and similar types of property to be taxed according to their current use rather than their best and highest possible use, but the state constitution now forbids any such provision for working waterfront properties.

Geoff Herman, MMA’s director of state and federal relations, said last week that the 2000 proposal, which lost by fewer than 4,000 votes, concerned municipalities because it was too vague. Some worried that the wording, which cited “land used for commercial fishing activities,” could apply to a landlocked residential property where lobster traps were stacked in the yard or to a boatyard far from shore where charter fishing vessels were stored in the winter, he said.

“It was that looseness that gave some municipalities some concern,” Herman said.

MMA is not wildly enthusiastic about the current proposal because it would cause a shift within each town’s tax burden, he said. But MMA recognizes that rising taxes for oceanfront property are threatening the cultural identity of many coastal towns. This realization and the addition of the word “waterfront” to limit what kind of land would be eligible, Herman said, have made the proposed amendment acceptable to municipalities.

Proponents of the measure say a constitutional amendment is needed to prevent Maine’s fishing industry from vanishing.

Maine’s coastline is 3,500 miles long, according to the state’s official Web site. But according to state Rep. Leila Percy and other Question 7 supporters, only 25 miles of Maine’s coastline, or less than 1 percent, is occupied by working waterfront properties.

“You have people coming in … who are willing to pay two to three times the assessed value of the land because they want to be on the water,” Percy said. “That kind of threat [to the fishing industry] is more prevalent in Maine right now [than it was in 2000].”

David Cousens, a South Thomaston fisherman and president of the Maine Lobsterman’s Association, said Tuesday that Question 7 is not just about preserving tradition. It’s about preserving economic opportunities and jobs in Maine.

Cousens said that across 800 feet of working waterfront shoreline in the local village of Spruce Head, $30 million to $40 million in goods pass every year, from lobster and bait to fuel and equipment. This kind of economic activity will disappear, however, if middle-class wharf owners continue to be taxed at the same exorbitant rate as millionaires from out of state, he said.

“The state has got to wake up and look into the economics of fishing,” Cousens said. “You can’t compete with the top 2 percent of rich people who want waterfront property.”

Rob Snyder, vice president of the Island Institute, said a group called the Working Waterfront Coalition on Tuesday unveiled the results of a study the institute conducted on working waterfront land in Maine.

The study shows that 65 percent of such land is vulnerable to elimination because it is not publicly owned or specifically zoned for its current use, Snyder said. Approval of Question 7 would make it easier for these properties to keep functioning as working waterfront, he said.

Amendment supporter Sen. Dennis Damon said Monday that if the referendum passes, the Legislature would determine how such properties are taxed and which waterfront uses would be considered “commercial fishing activities.”

To what extent waterfront boatyards would benefit from the new tax rates depends on whether they service the commercial fishing industry, according to Damon. Boat builders or businesses that cater to the fishing industry are more likely to benefit from the resulting legislation than yacht makers, he said. Any business that is not on waterfront land, he added, would see no changes to its property taxes.

Most of the Question 7 supporters interviewed for this story said they knew of no organized effort to oppose the measure. Al Diamon, a political columnist for nine Maine weekly newspapers, was the only person anyone had heard of who has taken a public stance against the proposal.

Diamon said Tuesday that he opposes Question 7 for several reasons. It would result in an unfair shift of each town’s tax burden. The public would not benefit as it does from the preservation of open space, which also has protected tax status. And, he said, it would be the only industry-specific tax relief program in the state.

“It puts a heavier burden on people who don’t own waterfront property,” Diamon said. “It’s time to focus on fundamental tax reform. [Question 7] is the wrong way to go.”

Still, Diamon seemed resigned to the fact that, without organized opposition, the amendment likely will pass. He said he has not heard of any other group or advocate who shares his opposition to the measure.

“It’s going to be a real lopsided vote,” he said.

Question 7

The wording of Question 7 in the statewide election Nov. 8 is as follows:

“Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to permit the Legislature to authorize waterfront land used for commercial fishing activities to be assessed based on the land’s current use in a manner similar to treatment now available for farms, open space and forestland?”