After the LURC Reform Commission released its report, my liberal friends and family all said, “Great job but for the opt-out”; and conservative friends and family said, “What a sell-out but for the opt-out.” Since I had never heard of or thought about an opt-out before mid-October, it deserves an explanation as to why “opt-out” found its way into our unanimous report.

Imagine, for a moment, the year is 1776, and King George III is sipping his East Indian tea at the breakfast table as he reads the lead article in the Buckingham Sun Journal about a Declaration of Independence coming out of the American colonies. He is smug as he reads the first paragraph of the Declaration, all about the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s Law, about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and then “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that government long established should not be changed for light and transient causes . . . ”

And then he spits out his tea as he reads, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpation . . . [the list goes on and on] . . . it is their right . . . ” And the opt-out we all learned in history class follows.

As a reform commission, we strived to preserve the core principle of the LURC tradition: the statewide jurisdiction and board; statewide regulatory oversight of wind, forest practices, large projects, and water-related issues; the much-hated 2010 comprehensive land use plan, or CLUP. We felt this all could be made to work.

Yet, from a vast array of LURC citizens, landowners, the little guys, the nearby service center and potential investor, I have heard stories of endless broken LURC promises during 40 years of heavy-handed regulation from away.

I have heard of indifference toward private property rights and local operations from a faceless board and staff in Augusta — hearings and appeals hours away from where a project was to occur; plans coming out of places almost impossible to find; contempt for local folks, county government and old Mainers who simply wanted to add a wood shed, and, above all, a deaf, indifferent ear.

Some bum raps to be sure; some, surely true.

One recourse would be to take the litany of abuses and rationalize them away one by one; another would be to throw away LURC in its entirety. We came up with an opt-out.

First, we broadened the mission statement to acknowledge the critical importance of property rights and local interests alongside conservation.

Second, we stated that LURC should build its future plans with strong local government, landowners and citizen input, region by region.

And, finally, we said: But if the new board and staff continue to focus their planning on just statewide interests, dismissive of a region’s ideas and aspirations, a county could do its own planning, zoning, permitting and appealing, just as Maine towns do, under Maine’s Growth Management Act.

We believe our recommendations help LURC work better; make it more balanced, more inclusive of citizens and landowners and local government perspectives — all without losing our commitment to statewide interests and conservation.

Under the reform commission’s proposals, the cost to a county for pulling out would be expensive, difficult, and is both delayed for many years and highly prescribed. Yet, for so many, many citizens and landowners and local county officials who have been promised so much and recognized so little during those 40 years, we think it is reasonable, as a last resort, to be able to transfer their land use planning oversight from LURC to the state’s Growth Management Act.

I close with another historic analogy.

Recently, I was joined by a leader of one of Maine’s most avid, anti-private property organizations on a TV panel. On camera, this spokesperson, speaking about the unorganized territories under LURC jurisdiction, said, “This 10 million acres of forest belongs to all of us,” seemingly totally dismissive of private property, and then off air, “The issue really isn’t conservation but ideology.”

Was this not the same guidance given to the King’s Surveyor of the Maine Pines when tasked to blaze the mark of the Broad Arrow on the White Pine on Maine’s private land as signifying ownership by the Crown back in the 18th century? Maine’s subsequent White Pine Revolt only ended with King George and the American Revolution. Yet, I still see remnants of the battle between Maine people who live close to nature and those who covet their land.

The reform commission suggests this may be the time to set aside King George, the White Pine Revolt and polar ideologies and settle out on common ground.

William Beardsley, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Conservation, chaired the LURC Reform Commission.