Constitutional amendment on waterfront taxes wins big

Five years after defeating a similar referendum question, Maine voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly favored a proposal to give piers a chance.

Question 7, which asked voters whether the state constitution should be amended so working waterfront properties can be made more affordable to keep, seemed likely to be approved, according to unofficial election results tallied by the Bangor Daily News.

With 75 percent of voting precincts reporting, 73 percent of Tuesday’s voters had shown support for the proposal.

“We’re claiming victory at this point,” Patrice McCarron, executive director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, said around 11 p.m. “I have to say I’m a little bit surprised” by the wide margin of support.

Proponents of the measure argued that working waterfront properties in Maine are disappearing because skyrocketing property taxes are forcing wharf owners to sell to developers, who then convert them to high-end residential properties for wealthy people. Out of Maine’s 3,500 miles of coastline, there are only 25 miles left that is considered working waterfront property, they said.

By amending the constitution so working waterfront properties can receive the same sort of “current use” tax protections as farms or forestland, Maine’s commercial fishing industry no longer will have to compete with well-heeled developers to maintain its waterfront access, supporters of the proposal argued.

Five years ago, voters rejected a similar measure by less than 1 percent of the total vote. The 2000 proposal was not heavily promoted, amendment supporters have said, and it was opposed by the Maine Municipal Association.

This time, though some suggested the proposal would result in an unfair tax shift, no group came out in opposition to the idea. In fact, it was supported by the MMA.

McCarron said organized promotional efforts by Save Working Waterfront Jobs, a coalition of more than 100 organizations that supported the measure, helped make the difference this time around.

Geoff Herman, MMA’s director of state and federal relations, said before Tuesday’s vote that the wording of the 2000 proposal, which referred to “land used for commercial fishing activities,” was thought to be too vague. Some worried the wording 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.

MMA changed its position, according to Herman, because the question on Tuesday’s ballot referred more specifically to “waterfront land” and because mounting property taxes over the past five years were threatening to change forever the cultural identity of many coastal towns.

Out of a small group of Bangor residents who voted around noon Tuesday at the William S. Cohen School and then spoke about it afterward, none was opposed to Question 7 or specifically motivated to vote by the issue. Some cited the gay rights referendum or the jobs bond as the issue that drew them to the polls, but others said they voted simply out of civic duty.

A couple of voters said they weren’t sure they understood the arguments for and against Question 7, but others said they strongly supported the proposal.

One of them, C.J. Polyot of Birch Street, said he voted yes on the question because a constitutional amendment is necessary if Maine’s fishing industry is going to survive.

“I think property taxes are killing the local fishermen,” he said.

QUESTION 7

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?