“The impact of unfunded or underfunded state and federal mandates on local property taxpayers is huge.”

That’s an understatement, to be sure.

Last month, the Maine Municipal Association asked its member towns to get specific about their frustrations concerning mandates, write them down and forward them to the association.

MMA has compiled some of those responses and is now tracking down the origins of some mandates the towns consider to be onerous, starting with environmental, land use, solid waste, road maintenance and building construction/demolition areas.

This is truly a worthwhile exercise for towns. They ought to do it every year. And, since annual town meetings will begin next month, perhaps a portion of each meeting ought to be devoted to an open discussion on mandates.

Let’s face it, a mandate imposed on road construction in downtown Portland is not the same standard that should be imposed on a side street in tiny Weld. While it’s a matter of resources, it’s also a matter of common sense. Traffic in Portland is constant. Traffic in Weld, occasional. Construction standards must have enough nuance for these extremes, but they often don’t and the tiny towns have a right to complain about the burden.

This MMA suggested review is a good idea because it gives towns the opportunity to really examine operations and it gives MMA the information it needs to push government for realistic and regular review of existing mandates and standards.

Government is a living entity and it creates laws, standards and mandates that should evolve along with it. We can’t simply impose mandates with no intention of ever returning to examine their worth. But we do. And, under term limits which sacrifices historic knowledge of past legislative actions, it’s likely to get worse, not better.


Criminal act
It takes just one bad accident, one foolish incident, to cast a shadow on anyone or anything.

So it is now with snowmobilers.

On Saturday, a Maine man was training his dogsled team on a trail in New Hampshire and was hit from behind by a snowmobiler. His law partners have posted a reward, the New Hampshire authorities are busy interviewing potential witnesses and the New Hampshire Snowmobile Association has offered to help.

This collision was so severe that both of the victim’s boots were knocked from his feet and both legs were broken. That force should surely have damaged the offending snowmobile and rattled the driver, so much so that someone will have to notice. That person must now report the incident to police.

Responsible snowmobilers don’t like the reputation other riders have earned for the sport, riders who speed and who don’t observe trail courtesy. What happened in New Hampshire over the weekend is much worse.

Snowmobilers are a relatively small community in the general population and clubs across the region must make it clear to members that no one benefits from shielding the person responsible for this hit-and-run.


[email protected]