Community Strategies to Protect Maine’s Quality of Place

Environmental Funders Network Program, May 15, 2007

Introduction

According to the recently published report, Charting Maine’s Future, Maine has an opportunity to achieve a “new prosperity — if it takes bold action and focuses its limited resources on a few critical investments.” One of those critical investments, the report suggests, must be to foster more collaborative and regional planning in order to retain Maine’s special “quality of place”—its small towns, picturesque scenery, and wonderful recreational opportunities.

This forum allowed Maine’s environmental philanthropists to hear directly from community leaders who are implementing innovative, community-based regional planning strategies in Maine. After brief presentations by the plenary speaker and four panelists, moderator Sandy Buck encouraged the audience (foundation staff, trustees, and Maine Community Foundation donor advisors) to ask follow-up questions in order to explore ways in which philanthropy might help advance these or similar regional planning efforts throughout the state.

Plenary Speaker & Panelist Presentations

Even before the report was published, Maine citizens, towns and non-governmental organizations recognized the need to address planned growth and change at the local and regional levels. Below is a summary of the remarks by the plenary speaker and four guest panelists about their organizations’ goals, challenges, and successful strategies.

Evan Richert, plenary speaker, USM professor, and land use consultant, provided context to the program by explaining that, above all, Maine’s landscape is the keystone to its quality of place, or “brand.” However, in order to move the vision forward, Maine citizens and decision-makers must genuinely come to believe that quality of place and economic well-being are positively correlated and have state policy leaders at the highest levels understand this connection. Many of Maine’s new and existing economic drivers (e.g., outdoor recreation, tourism, higher education, IDEXX, and other corporations) depend on Maine’s quality of place. Some understand the positive correlation between environment and economy and some do not. Talking about the importance of landscape, however, is not rhetoric. While urban land is organized for the exchange of goods and knowledge and rural land is organized for production, suburban land is organized for neither exchange nor production. The sprawl of suburban lands threatens Maine’s true “brand”—its environment and small towns.

Tanya Swain, executive director of the Western Mountains Alliance, spoke about her experience with the Woods and Waters Group (WWG), one of four action teams of the Maine Mountain Heritage Network. The WWG is a coalition of conservation groups trying to support multiple sustainable land uses in the region. WWG’s major challenge is getting large-tract landowners involved in the planning process. WWG’s most effective strategy has been using participatory GIS mapping. Mapping projects in Franklin and Somerset Counties have given WWG an opportunity to solicit information from the community about their individual and collective goals and values, an important initial step in the planning process. Mapping tools help stimulate conversation while allowing the participants to see the landscape at the various use levels (e.g. roads, recreation, species habitat, farming, etc.).

Jane Lafleur, executive director of Friends of Midcoast Maine, discussed her organization and its efforts to ensure quality of place. Friends of Midcoast Maine (FMM) works to promote sustainable development for 21 towns along the Route 1 corridor and 23 towns on the peninsulas and inland from Route 1. FMM’s challenges range from the seemingly simple task of locating meeting space to the more complex tasks of identifying issues that motivate towns to work together. Another struggle is securing enough funding to satisfy individual towns when planning multiple town projects. Jane emphasized that, at times, the collaborative planning process yields very little decision-making ability because no entity has the authority to make regional decisions. FMM’s successful strategies include identifying major issues that motivate towns to plan collectively; educating local decision-makers about good planning tools and techniques; providing direct planning assistance to towns; facilitating meetings; working closely with land trusts whose properties often cross boundaries; advocating for smart growth in the region; and offering an endorsement for developments that meet FMM’s smart growth criteria.

Peter Robohm, chair of the Gateway 1 Steering Committee, discussed his organization’s efforts along the Route 1 corridor. The Gateway 1 project is a collaborative planning effort of 21 towns along Route 1. This project is unique because its geographic region is defined by proximity to a road; an extraordinarily large number of towns participate; and land use and transportation planning happen simultaneously. Gateway 1’s most notable challenge has been the conflict arising from opposing goals of the Maine Department of Transportation (DOT) and local communities. While the DOT has complete authority over roadway decisions, their transportation goals for increased mobility and safety are sometimes at odds with the towns’ goals of retaining the visual character and quality of the midcoast landscape. While a formal plan has not yet been finalized, Peter highlighted the many benefits that have resulted from the collaborative Gateway 1 process. Relationships between the DOT and towns have improved; trust among all participants has increased; commitment to the collaborative process has strengthened; and the State has offered more leadership and funding in support of the project. Peter attributes these positive outcomes to adopting the “big tent” approach from the outset and creating an atmosphere at meetings in which all participants can openly discuss their concerns.

Stephen Wight, LURC commissioner and business owner, spoke about the Mahoosuc Land Trust (MLT) model, a collaboration of six organizations, 14 towns, and two states. Because the Bethel area is an important tourism and recreation destination, most of its residents and business owners are acutely aware of the interdependent relationship between its economy and the environment. To promote the broader understanding of this connection among the public and business community, MLT encourages all its participants to be “educators.” MLT’s successful strategies include providing a list of tools that towns and organizations can use to protect special places and utilizing GIS mapping to solicit feedback from communities about the places they value and wish to protect.

Benefits, Challenges, and Strategies for Regional Planning

Benefits:

Increases opportunities for environmental and economic benefits.
Brings stakeholders together, sometimes for the first time.
Increases trust and builds better relationships for the long term.
Saves time and money.
Increases and improves the democratic process.
Broadens participants’ perspectives from individual and local concerns to regional interests.

Challenges:

Convincing stakeholders that protecting Maine’s environment and promoting the economy can be mutually attainable goals
The continuing need for leadership at high levels to support collaborative regional planning
Planning policies are not aligned with the geographies that matter most—neighborhoods and regions
Difficulty getting all stakeholders, especially those likely to be in opposition to the proposed project, involved and invested early in the process
Lack of resources, especially for staffing needs
Getting past the initial distrust between participants
Defusing perceived threats of government “takings” of private land
Avoiding perceptions that the conservationists are imposing the goals on the community
Staying flexible yet committed to goals of collaboration and community involvement
Working proactively rather than in response to immediate threats
Working with participants that have varying levels of authority and decision-making abilities
Getting stakeholders to work toward the greatest common good rather than each striving to use the money for their particular need or objective
Motivating stakeholders to work together despite having no formal structure compelling them to do so
Finding a neutral location to meet
Continuously demonstrating benefits of collaboration to the towns
Motivating governmental organizations to work collaboratively

Recommended Strategies:

Try to bring all stakeholders together at the beginning of the process; adopt the “big tent” approach
Create an open and trusting atmosphere in meetings
Offer stakeholders useful tools such as mapping, GIS, or other technical tools that may have been unavailable to them, so they can meet their specific needs while participating in the collaborative process
Utilize mapping to stimulate important conversations and gain knowledge about valuable resources such as the location of recreational trails and important species habitat
Ask participants to think and talk about features they love and wish to protect and what would happen if those features were gone
Conduct ecological assessments and land surveys
Encourage all participants to be “educators”
Meet individually with potential opponents (e.g. large landowners) and invite them to speak and/or take a leadership role at initial meetings
Work with land trusts, who often have lands that cross jurisdictional boundaries
Be proactive whenever possible

The Role of Philanthropy

Panelists and audience members suggested many ways philanthropy can help support and advance collaborative regional planning efforts in Maine. Those suggestions are summarized below.

Provide operating support; nonprofits need the capacity to effectively address their needs and goals
Provide resources for staffing, especially staff with the expertise to work with zoning boards, towns etc. and the ability to facilitate productive meetings
Provide funding to support the collaborative process, including enough money for all recipients, and any additional costs incurred as a result of approaching the project collaboratively
Allow organizations the flexibility to follow opportunities when they arise
Support creativity outside the pursuit of the specific project
When possible, provide support for more institutional mechanisms to support regional planning goals (i.e., establishment of formal, legally binding relationships)
Fund ecological assessments and land survey work
Assist with funding for the transfer of development rights
Make the best use of dollars by sharing information produced with other grantees who may find it useful (e.g., provide information on the EFN or MPC websites or convene meetings for subgroups of grantees)
Collaborate and pool resources with other funders
Host a forum on how to effectively collaborate with oppositional stakeholders
At every opportunity, encourage state leaders to fully endorse the Charting Maine’s Future report and to support the regional model as the optimal approach to planning and preserving Maine’s quality of place

Environmental Funders Network