When sprawl became an issue in Maine four or five years ago, this region might have been excused for seeing the problem as something for Southern Maine to worry about — the result of too many yuppies wanting large houses on large lots surrounded by faux wilderness. In the years since, however, sprawl has become more accurately recognized as a scourge to farmers and downtowns statewide. Now, Maine has learned that there are specific, practical ways that the state can slow sprawl, or at least stop subsidizing it.

Regulations that force new schools to the outskirts of town, farm-preservation laws that carry penalties to make them unworkable and weak comprehensive plans are just a few examples of government-sponsored sprawl. A significant shortcoming that lawmakers soon will consider a part of a package called Smart Growth has left the state service-center communities probably underappreciated and certainly underfunded.

Currently, the state divides a portion of its revenues among towns to stabilize the burden on the property tax and generally help pay the expenses of municipalities. The revenue-sharing rate is 5.1 percent of receipts from state taxes, which is then distributed according to population and local tax burden. The formula, however, doesn’t fully take into account that some communities provide far more services — nonprofit housing, social-service agencies and organizations, hospitals, state offices, etc. — which generally are exempt from property taxes, but nevertheless require municipal infrastructure.

Simply trying to squeeze service fees from these groups doesn’t work very well, sometimes because they have so little money to squeeze and sometimes because they have very persuasive lobbyists. In any event, the services they provide make them too valued a neighbor to drive away with fees.

A legislative proposal would increase the revenue-sharing rate to 6 percent, with an added emphasis on service communities. That amount is too small — a few million dollars statewide — to make a significant difference, but it would begin to help communities continue to provide services without driving property taxpayers into the nearest suburb. Lawmakers should find plenty to support in this idea as they prepare for the next legislative session.