John Davis, Debate Solutions LLC
Debaters:
Alex Parkinson (AP), Catalina Santos (CS), Harvard University
Ben Saunders (BS), Terrel Taylor (TT), Mary Washington University
John Davis (JD): The purpose for providing honest debate is to support civic engagement on complex public policy issues. Debate is a strong method of that allows people to see both sides. Debate challenges how well you speak and how well you listen. Today's debaters will be discussing an issue at the heart of what is brewing here in Maine - protecting the environment while honoring the rights of coastal property owners.
Position: Yes, environmental regulations do unreasonably infringe on the rights of coastal property owners.
CS: The existing environmental regulations unreasonably infringe upon coastal property rights. The regulations are very confusing, and the way they're implemented, they are not reaching the environmental success that they seek to accomplish. A complicated web of red tape is created by various permitting agencies: Army Corps of Engineers, DEP, EPA, local, etc. without consultation with property owners (example given of Lafayette Hotel proposal). Property owners should have more say in the Sand Dune Rules. The rules should be more streamlined. They are not easy to understand and are hard to implement. Regulations prevent tourism and construction income and jobs for Maine, hurt business confidence and competition and discriminate against low income persons. Maine residents lose revenue.
The opposing team asked questions and CS had opportunity for rebuttal.
Position: No, environmental regulations do not unreasonably infringe on the rights of coastal property owners.
BS: This debate forces us to ask critical questions about the role our government plays. This issue is part of a larger political discussion: we are in a world of climate change. Pragmatic solutions don't exist. Erosion and sea-level rise are causing our beaches to eventually disappear. Without a concerted position by state and federal government, how will we prepare for climate change? Does the government need to step in and lead on this issue? After the (Patriot's Day) nor’easter came through, government and environmental leaders developed an eye for prevention vs. fixing a problem that has already occurred. Regulations in place serve as a bulwark against unintended changes to property.
Rights? We have a right to a healthy and clean environment. The public interest is insufficient (CS's point of view). That the regulations are a confusing web calls for reform, not elimination. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should not indict the entire system because some of the regulations are confusing. Private interest will take priority over consulting any regulations. Are they strong enough to take care of these beaches? Coastal property owners are focused on their own interests.
They need higher standards and experts other than themselves who would know better how to protect the environment. What about other public interests? 15% of summer beach users are seasonal and from out of town. They don’t see the process of a storm event coming through. They may not know what things are like in the wintertime. It should be a community’s choice: the responsibility should belong in the hands of someone who is neutral and concerned with everyone's rights.
The opposing team asked questions and BS had opportunity for rebuttal.
Position: Yes, environmental regulations do unreasonably infringe on the rights of coastal property owners.
AP: Winston Churchill once said, "Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon." Do you think it right that environmental regulations are overly burdensome? I am not posing that regulations should be totally repealed. I am asking if potential reform can balance. There are alternative solutions.
Individuals who own coastal property and businesses have vested interest in the environment. These are not terrible, malicious people. They have a strong interest in sanctity of the environment.
Business success is the better consultative mechanism. It brings private stakeholders into the system outside of hardline regulatory approach. Now is not the time to overburden. Maine's economy needs business and tourism to generate revenues. There is a place for consultative mechanisms, to foster communication and balance environmental protections and economic development. Private property owners don’t always do what’s in the best interest of everyone, but we can trust them to do things to protect, preserve, and promote tourism. Property owners and business people know where their bread and butter is coming from.
The opposing team asked questions and AP had opportunity for rebuttal.
Position: No, environmental regulations do not unreasonably infringe on the rights of coastal property owners.
TT: Research and science define the true tragedy of today. Instead of collaborating to find mutually gratifying strategies, deals are made under the table with special interest groups. We cannot afford to play this game anymore. Beaches are threatened by unrestrained development; beaches are vanishing in the name of individual property ownership. Meanwhile, climate change is causing rising sea levels. If LD 219 changed setbacks from 250 to 75 feet, natural landscapes that would prevent inland damages could be developed. Natural services are changed by the construction of seawalls. Jetties + storms cause major damage. Pumping sand out to the beach may seem like a simple fix, but why not prevent in first place? Less costly in the long run. Seawalls cause massive erosion, unpredictable devastation at unpredictable locations. While some erosion may be inevitable, they endanger that which they are meant to protect.
Beaches are an important resource: people come, businesses profit. Is the incentive to protect the beaches, or to make a profit? Will short-term efforts be made to abide by protections, or to adhere to the business community? What is the holistic effect on an ecosystem? How can a business or property owner juggle research and do business at the same time? Do we as a community let them flounder on their own? Maine is people. Maine is a community. Let’s not overestimate anyone. Do we let them flounder? Juggle proximate – or do we help them out? Web? Or streamline process – maintaining restrictions.
The opposing team asked questions and CS had opportunity for rebuttal.
Final Remarks
Position: Yes, environmental regulations do unreasonably infringe on the rights of coastal property owners.
AP: Puff Daddy said, “It's all about the Benjamins, baby.” Our persistent call to a balance between government intervention and economic enterprise. Neighboring states deregulating growth are supporting job creation, when Maine is not and in need of jobs. Regulations have deterred jobs and growth. Maine has an 8.9% unemployment rate. Environmental protection has no bearing on climate change, but businesses see a lack of investment by the state. There is a place for revenue and government stimuli. There will be climate change – building will not make the problem worse. Make hay before the sun goes down. Stave off hardships that will come. Evaluate. Do you prefer the status quo? Regulatory schema that we face is oppressive. We need better collaboration with private enterprise.
Position: No, environmental regulations do not unreasonably infringe on the rights of coastal property owners.
BS: This debate is about dealing with the effects of climate change. Hard-pressed, why shouldn’t we do everything we can to stop it? This is a goal worth pursuing –deregulation is not a goal for Maine. Maine could look like Florida or Ocean City, Maryland. This is about ecology vs. jetties, seawalls and beach pumping – erosion and costs of deteriorating beaches – less beach for hotels, less places for enjoyment and tourists, less beaches for our future sons and daughters. Private property owners are not going in the minor direction: LD 387 weakens building restrictions on sand dunes. LD 442 allows cobble trapping fence – prevents littoral drift. LD 219 reduces setbacks from 250' to 75' – no longer a buffer protecting properties and buildings from waves and storm events. The costs of restoration should be moved from the hands of the community into the hands of people who are creating the problems. Businessman Sir Ronald Cohen reminds us that the choices we make are profound when you have to live with them. Preservation of this place today is the only meaningful choice.
Audience Q & A followed the debate.
— by Holli Andrews
No comments:
Post a Comment