A recent local commentary in The Times Record featured the headline, “Olsen took wrong side on ‘takings’ bill.”

It referred to my vote for LD 1810, a bill that protects the rights of property owners while carefully considering environmental concerns and the public interest.

The writers, including Everett “Brownie” Carson, are entitled to their opinion, but as the legislator singled out for attack, I need to set the record straight.

They start right off with a charge that the regulatory takings bill “would harm Maine’s environment, jeopardize Maine communities and cost millions of dollars to Maine taxpayers.”

Clearly, if results like that were likely or even probable, I would have voted otherwise. But as is too often is the case in political debates, facts are twisted or ignored.

The regulatory takings issue goes to the heart of private property rights. Specifically, it clarifies the recourse available to a property owner who experiences a property value loss of at least 50 percent due to a land use regulation. That 50 percent loss is the threshold that must be reached before a landowner can seek a remedy.

Mr. Carson never mentioned the 50 percent threshold in his commentary, perhaps because it would have undercut his argument.

America’s founders clearly understood that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but also of freedom itself. Thus, through the Constitution, they protected property rights — the rights of people to freely acquire, use and dispose of property.

The Constitution safeguards property rights mainly through the Fifth Amendment’s Takings or Just Compensation Clause: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

There are two basic ways government can take property: (1) outright, by condemning the property and taking the title; and (2) through regulations that eliminate or limit its uses, leaving the title with the owner — so-called regulatory takings.

In the first case, involving eminent domain, land is usually taken for a public use, such as a road, and the property owner is paid for the land. In the second case, the owner is often not compensated at all for his losses, and when he is the compensation is inadequate.

LD 1810 raises the question of whether we consider the individual and his basic constitutional rights when drafting new environmental policy. The best answer lies in striking a balance between the two, and this is precisely what LD 1810 does. This bill asks us to consider those who will be negatively affected by new regulations.

The majority report referenced in Brownie Carson’s column would not have achieved the goal of providing protection for landowners. While it promotes the mediation program and creates a special subcommittee for legislative review of regulations, Rep. Les Fossel’s minority report does both of those things, and adds a legal cause of action.

This is critical, because when the landowner holds no cards, there is no real incentive to help him or her.

I see the cause of action as a last resort — a device that tells the state that they must mediate in good faith and tells the Legislature that it must carefully consider the landowner’s position when a regulation is up for consideration.

If both mediation and legislative review fail to remedy the situation, a landowner lawsuit may result in a very narrow variance, to apply to that litigant’s parcel only.

LD 1810 does not call for entire regulations to be struck down. And importantly, this bill applies only to future laws. All current environmental regulations will remain untouched. The flood of litigation that ensued in Oregon when a takings bill was passed came as a result of that bill’s retroactive nature.

Also, LD 1810 applies only to state laws, not to municipal or county regulations. Nor does it apply to laws regulating nuisances or health and safety.

Some have said that this bill is a handout to big landowners and corporations. The Fossel amendment includes a $400,000 cap on any damages paid out, ensuring that this bill is designed to protect the little guy. There will be no windfalls for big, corporate landowners.

Mr. Carson’s accusation that I would bow to special interest groups is both inflammatory and untrue. I believe that good work comes as a result of reasonable conversation and mutual respect. I do not, and will never accept anyone strong-arming me to vote in any way — ever.

As always, my priority is to be the voice of the people of Phippsburg, Harpswell and parts of West Bath. My allegiance is to them, not to special interests.

Rep. Kim Olsen, R-Phippsburg, represents District 64 in the Maine House of Representatives.

letters@timesrecord.com