Art - I am puzzled as to why you offered to send me a copy of Hermansen and Richards' book in one of your posts, while in your next post saying it doesn't apply to road associations? Yes, I am familiar with the history of private road maintenance laws. 23 MRS section 3021 originally applied to "private ways" - what are now known as public easements, but which were originally laid out by the public to primarily benefit a private individual who needed access to his property. The law spoke of the "owners of the private way," which did not apply once it was declared that such private ways actually belong to the public. It was in 1997 that a group of people mostly in Lake Associations got together and asked the Legislature to change the wording so it could be applied to those benefited by a road, and the statute evolved from there into what it is now.
You said, "So you do admit that there is a personal advantage to your advocating equal pay assessments." I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion - perhaps because I am near the end of the road in each of my situations. But what you seemed to miss is that it seems unfair to the properties beyond us, which in each case make only intermittent use of the roads. In fact, on the one that has a road association, there are three properties beyond mine that are undeveloped properties. The owners of those parcels rarely visit their properties. I would be surprised if they have visited them as often as once per year. One of those owners is already protesting being charged our standard dues of $300 per year.
You said, "Your road does not appear to be a public road, since it would need to have a municipal interest somewhere on the road for public use. I believe you are wrong. And wonder why." Well, you are partly correct - there is something terribly wrong. Our road IS a public road, of sorts. The Maine Supreme Court declared that when it was discontinued in 1945, a loop hole in the law gave the County authority (beyond its specific powers) to allow the Town to retain a public easement over the road. According to the Court, that gives the public an "unfettered right of access" over the road, but the town has no maintenance responsibility. No, there is no "municipal interest" anywhere on the road, unless you count the fact that keeping a public easement allowed the town to avoid paying compensation to the abutting landowners in 1945 when they discontinued the road. There is no need for public use, unless you consider that since it still appears on GPS as a through road, it's a shortcut across town. (If the road is dry and you have high clearance 4wd.) Yet we have been prohibited by court order from giving any indication to anyone that maybe they shouldn't use the road as a public road at any time of day or season of the year. So when someone chews their way through with 4wd at 2:00 in the morning at the height of mud season and leaves ruts the length of the road, it's up to us to repair the damage. As founder of Maine ROADWays, (Residents and Owners on Abandoned and Discontinued Ways,) I have spent the last 42 years studying Maine's laws and court cases regarding such roads, and I now am in contact with people all across the state who have similar circumstances. By your standard, the municipality should be paying more dues than anyone because they have use of the entire road (including the nearly impassable section in the middle.) Yet the municipality pays nothing. I think we can agree that there's something wrong with that.
So you are wrong in thinking that it's not a public road, and I wonder what you mean by wondering why. Why what? Why I am wrong? Why you believe I am wrong? Why it's a public road if there is no public interest? (Try asking the Maine Supreme Court!) What I find even more puzzling is how the Maine Supreme Court declared that it's unconstitutional to lay out a public easement where there is no actual public need for a road, yet we have a law which allows a town to "abandon" a road and keep a public easement over it if they can prove the public has had no need for that road for at least thirty years! But I could write a whole book about that.
I'm intrigued that you seem to accept the equal assessments under section 3121 as being legal, but do not accept them as being legal under section 3101. I see section 3121 as being grossly unfair in situations where there are perhaps two residences sharing a road with heavy trucking interests. (In our case for years it was our one residence and multiple small wood lot owners who logged their properties at intervals. I know of another actual case involving a rock quarry and a lumber mill.) The residents have no recourse if the businesses do not pay, because the law only allows court action by one resident against another resident.
I see that you also admit that there is a personal advantage to your advocating assessments based on length of road used. Your association's dues are nearly twice what ours are, and you are not very far in, so it does seem a bit unfair that you have to pay so much. I believe Andrew's association has a fee schedule that allows a discounted rate to the first property on each side of their road. Maybe that would be appropriate in your case. Another option we have suggested on our road was that because the first person on each side had frontage on the town road, they could move their driveway around the corner, block their entry to the private road, and sign a paper agreeing that they would no longer use the road, and then we would not charge them dues. They've been paying ever since, without complaint.
Meanwhile, I'm afraid you and I will have to agree to disagree. I think we've consumed enough space on this page, and it isn't up to either you or me to dictate to other road associations which method of assessments is best for them. Neither method is going to be entirely fair to everyone. If you want to continue this discussion, perhaps we could do it via email, although I'm not sure it's worth continuing to argue over it. I have at least listened to your concerns, and agree that your own assessment seems unfair, so I hope you can have a better day.