Where Do We Go From Here?

After dinner comes a presentation from Gillian Garratt-Reed, the Marine Programs Officer at the Island Institute. She will be presenting the results of the Working Waterfront Coalition member survey and the WWC strategic planning initiatives. Click here to access the presentation slides

Gillian Garatt-Reed - Island Institute

Overview of the Working Waterfront Coalition: Who are they? Coalition of over 140 members who advocate for working waterfront. The WWC started in 2005, when waterfront access issues were identified. Mission of the WWC is to enhance Maine's working waterfront communities.

WWC uses a toolbox approach to preserve working waterfronts. Tools include: Current Use Taxation Program, Bond Programs, Working Waterfront Covenant, and more. Last 20 Miles report showed that only 20 miles of Maine's entire coastline are preserved for working waterfront.

A bond passed in 2005 to start Working Waterfront Coalition, and the group was refunded again in 2007. Both bonds passed by large margins. Current Use Taxation program was passed in 2005.

Working Waterfront Coalition Survey. July, 2008. Asked: Are the problems the same or have they changed? Should WWC keep doing what they're doing or change tactics?

Question 1: What are the greatest threats to working access? Top answers: 1. Economic Development. 2. Rising land values.

Question 2: If only one issue could be addressed, what should it be? Top answers: 1. Real estate pressure and cost. 2. Increased support from towns.

40 responses came back, from nonprofits, individuals, fishermen and even a member of Congress.

2008-2010 Mission Statement:

I. Policy.

A. Increase and maintain legislative awareness of working waterfront issues and programs

B. Maintain the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program

C. Sustain and revise the Current Use Taxation Program

D. Provide increased opportunity for working waterfront preservation

II. Planning and Research

A. Gather economic data on current potential working waterfront use(s)

B. Quantify 'success' for the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program and the Current Use Taxation Program

III. Investment

A. Continue support for partnering organizations' investment efforts

IV. Education

A. Increase educational outreach at the municipal level.

B. Collaborate with other organizations and coalitions.

Q: Have there been discussions about this? Obviously, fishermen need tax breaks, but already poor towns in Washington County will be hurt by these tax breaks.

A good point. The State does not reimburse towns for lost tax revenue from these programs, unlike the Tree Growth program. This is not necessarily a tax loss for the towns, it's a tax shift. Taxes will be raised in other areas. This may not be a satisfactory answer for other townspeople who will have to make up the difference. At this point, though, the program is small enough not to make a big difference in taxes when spread across a whole town. The average taxpayer won't notice a difference, unlike other local tax shifts (a school, for example). In a perfect world, all these sorts of "current use" programs will get funding from elsewhere, but now, the benefits from keeping development away and the waterfront working are worth it.

Q: If you're trying to get more municipal support, it's a disincentive that towns are going to lose dollars. There's a perception, whether real or not.

Q: Making the opposite point, if you keep fishermen fishing, they'll take the money they earn and spend it in the area. So, you're losing money in one area and making it up in another. You'll be encouraging a stronger economy overall if the waterfront continues to be used.

Right. You need to look beyond the obvious to find some benefits. The towns get a better local valuation from these programs.

Q: When voters voted on this, they were thinking "Finally, something for fishermen to use their land!" However, since there are so few fishermen in the program, something needs to be done. It's the penalty which scares people off. In the Tree Growth program you'd have to pay 30% of the property value if something goes wrong. Who would do that?

Jeff Kendall answers that the Davis brothers may do that. Others who want to protect their current use are willing do take this on.

Q: Most people don't know that towns benefit in other ways, let's make sure we get that message out. Also, only 20 miles of working waterfront are left? Did we lose 5 miles from the last meeting?

Gillian: No, it's a common misconception. The 25-mile figure was an estimate before the report was actually finished. We didn't lose 5 miles, we never had them.

Jeff adds a final point that the a similar Farm Program includes an income provision, which other programs shied away from. Also, a large penalty is necessary to prevent people from getting into the program who aren't committed to the idea. A large penalty will help keep developers from paying landowners the penalty and the value for the land.

Q: Maybe one way to look at this would be, instead of having a "30% of market value" provision, include a provision where someone could pay the tax for a year or two without having to withdraw from the program. For instance, if a fishermen broke an arm and couldn't fish, he could stop fishing from the land and pay the regular tax instead of being penalized the full amount he would otherwise. Jeff and others agree that this is a good idea and one that needs to be addressed.

Jim Connors agrees, and says that the door is open to changes. The groundwork is laid with the taxation committee to go back and change things that need to be changed.

Q: Does Island Institute or WWC make any formal outreach to Canada to figure out how they treat this similar problem? Should there be a report about the two systems?

Not in any formal way, but Jim recently talked with some Canadian people about working waterfront. The Canadians indicated the need to publicize working waterfront problems. Canada tries to initiate plans to help working waterfront, he says, but the funding doesn't usually end up coming through. There is, though, a similar Canadian problem with working waterfront protection.

Q: On the west coast, some coastal communities have a real estate tax where if A buys land for $500 and B comes in and buys land for $300, A's tax is always based on what he paid for it. Maine isn't like that. Should Maine's tax system change?

A few years ago there was some support for something like this. Jeff had someone from Florida come to him and give perspective on the Florida system. The message: stay away. People aren't paying taxes. There's no equity because of the freeze in value. Young people don't move in because new homeowners have to pay so much more than their neighbors. They are novel ideas, and well-intended, but they don't work in practice.

There are other self-supporting programs out there, however, including a "revolving fund" program where taxes can be paid in advance, or all at once. This keeps equity and makes people (except potential heirs) happy.

Next: Closing Question & Answer