(See if this edit fixes the width.)
This bill would essentially make road associations available to
those on roads that have too few land owners to qualify under
23 MRSA section 3101, and would allow payment to be
enforced even if there is no road association. While I think
it is well-intentioned, i.e. to provide maintenance for roads
not covered by 3101, I have serious concerns about the
way it is worded.
Of particular concern is the requirement that if there is no
road association, "each owner of a benefited property
shall share, in proportion to the benefit received
by that owner's benefited property."
While this sounds all well and good, the bill gives
no indication of how each person's share will be
determined, or by whom.
It appears that if one low-income person had lived happily
on a mud road by themselves for years, and then higher
income people move in who want a better road, perhaps
even a paved road, then they can force the long-time
resident to pay fees beyond his means to share in building
more road than he wants or needs. There appears to be
no requirement even to give everyone a vote on what will
be done. Besides, the long-time resident likely knew how
to keep his wear and tear on the road to a minimum so as
not to destroy the road, where the newcomers may place
a much heavier burden on the road simply because of the
way they drive, the frequency of their trips, or the type of
vehicle they use. Yet under this bill they could potentially
assign the lion's share of the cost to the person who owns
the most land, or who lives the farthest in and therefore
uses more of the road, even if his use has the least actual
impact on the road.
You can read the full text of the bill here: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/
bills_129th/billtexts/HP115701.asp