There are great things happening in the Biddeford-Saco area these days. Earlier this year, Portland Pie and the Yard at the Mill joined our other Main Street eateries and shops.
And now we have a wonderful pedestrian bridge spanning the Saco River ”“ further linking the people and businesses of Biddeford and Saco.
However, just down the way from the pedestrian bridge is a project laying in wait: The RiverWalk Park. This is one of more than 30 projects statewide that is in jeopardy. These projects are in jeopardy because Gov. LePage is refusing to release grant funds, the Land for Maine’s Future, or LMF, bond monies, already approved by Maine voters.
Why?
Gov. LePage has said that he will release these voter-approved bonds only if lawmakers agree to his plan to increase timber harvesting on state-owned lands. To be clear, timber harvesting and LMF projects are unrelated and, ordinarily would have nothing to do with each other. Unfortunately, linking two totally unrelated matters in an attempt to leverage his political power has become a usual practice of Gov. LePage: another bond-hostage situation.
This is disheartening.
The RiverWalk Park project has been in the works since 2011 in partnership with the city of Biddeford Recreation Department, Biddeford RiverWalk Coalition, Heart of Biddeford, and the Biddeford Open Space Committee. In addition to all of the community support, Land for Maine’s Future has (through a scoring process) selected this project as a funding priority and granted $35,000. The RiverWalk Coalition has already raised $75,000 toward funding this project.
Biddeford’s RiverWalk Park is like all the other projects in 15 of Maine’s 16 counties: no one is asking for a handout. In most cases, money has been raised privately, towns and cities have contributed money, and now, projects are awaiting final funding dollars already counted on. Additionally, Maine voters statewide had a voice in this process when more than 60 percent voted in support of funding Land for Maine’s Future projects ”“ like RiverWalk Park.
As my colleague, Republican State Senator Roger Katz said, “When the people of Maine have spoken at the ballot box, no one person ”“ even a governor ”“ should be able to veto that decision. Politics is rough enough out here these days, but we should not add to the meanness by holding innocent bystanders hostage.”
The Land for Maine’s Future guarantees the preservation of land for public use such as hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes ”“ and has garnered the support from snowmobile clubs, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, conservation groups, fishing-farming groups and local community groups. For nearly three decades, the Land for Maine’s Future program has been held in high-esteem by Republicans and Democrats alike ”“ and never, has any governor played politics with such a universally loved program.
No doubt, as a two-term governor, Gov. LePage maintains popularity. But it should be noted that more people voted in support of Land for Maine’s Future (419,000 votes) bonds than voted for him (295,000 votes). Gov. LePage needs to follow through on promises made ”“ and the will of Maine’s voters. That is his job.
What’s next?
Ultimately, the fate of Biddeford’s RiverWalk Park and 29 other projects across Maine remain at the whim of Gov. LePage’s hostage-taking strategy. But meanwhile, a group of bipartisan lawmakers introduced a bill, LD 1378, last week that would curtail the governor’s ability to withhold voter-approved bonds. LD 1378 would also require the state treasurer to borrow all of the outstanding LMF bonds, the $6.47 million approved in 2010 and $5 million in 2012.
To keep abreast of this situation, feel free to contact me at ddutrem1@gmail.com or 229-6587 or you can go to http://www.landformainesfuture.org/.
— Senator David Dutremble represents Senate District 32 which includes Alfred, Biddeford, Dayton, Kennebunkport and Lyman.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less