Bangor Daily News. April 30, 2024.
Editorial: New Maine gun laws can help fill troubling gaps to prevent future violence
Two important bills will soon be fully enacted to strengthen the state’s gun safety laws. Most notably, at the behest of Gov. Janet Mills, a requirement for background checks has been extended to all advertised gun sales in the state. The governor’s bill, which was passed by lawmakers and then signed into law by the governor last week, also includes new investments in mental health services and seeks to improve the state’s yellow flag law.
A new 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases will also become law without the governor’s signature.
On Monday, Mills vetoed a bill that would have banned bump stocks and required the destruction of weapons forfeited to police. This bill, which started as a straightforward requirement that law enforcement agencies destroy guns that are forfeited to them, unfortunately was amended to include a bump stock ban, which was worthy of consideration, but based on the governor’s veto message, clearly needed more work. That work should continue in the next legislative session.
The bills that will become law mark the most significant strengthening of state firearm laws in decades. We believe that these changes will fill troubling gaps in Maine’s existing gun laws, while continuing to respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.
The action on guns came about six months after a horrific mass shooting rocked Lewiston, and the entire state. Eighteen people were killed and 13 injured by a member of the U.S. Army Reserve who had offered numerous troubling warning signs about his deteriorating mental health and violent intent.
Maine, despite a high rate of gun ownership, has long had a low crime rate and was considered a relatively safe state. The events of Oct. 25, 2023, shook that confidence.
The mass murder by Robert Card II was a stark reminder that Maine’s — and the nation’s — mental health care system and firearms laws are insufficient.
After an event like the Lewiston shooting, there is naturally a call for quick action to prevent a similar tragedy. There is also pushback that new laws aren’t needed, that, perhaps if current laws had been properly enforced, tragedies like the one on Oct. 25 could have been avoided. This is a natural, and healthy debate.
However, this debate can sometimes be stymied by a familiar criticism of any new gun safety measures; That they wouldn’t have prevented the most recent firearms tragedy or wouldn’t prevent all tragedies. It is possible that there aren’t sufficient laws to prevent every gun murder and suicide. However, it is incumbent upon lawmakers and others to take a close look at the state’s laws to look for gaps, gaps that were exploited in the past and gaps that could contribute to future tragedies.
Just looking backwards does not provide the whole picture of gun violence. In addition, sadly, there are so many gun deaths in the U.S. each year that some patterns have become pretty clear.
For example, waiting periods and broad background checks have been shown to reduce gun violence, especially suicides, which account for nearly 90 percent of gun deaths in Maine.
A 2017 study found a 17 percent drop in homicide deaths and a 7 percent to 11 percent drop in deaths by suicide when gun purchase waiting periods were in place. Studies have suggested waiting periods can lower intimate partner gun homicide rates. Likewise, background checks can reduce homicide and suicide rates by allowing time before a gun purchase is complete.
Strengthening gun laws, with the aim of preventing future violence, is always a balancing act with also protecting Second Amendment rights. So, it is appropriate and timely for Gov. Mills to call for assessment of the impacts of the new waiting period law and to monitor legal challenges to similar laws in other states.
After a tragedy as significant as last fall’s shooting in Lewiston, there is no one right answer. But, lawmakers and the governor have taken reasonable steps to reduce gun violence in the future.
___
Portland Press Herald. April 28, 2024.
Editorial: Maine Legislature should be able to finish unfinished business
With dozens of bills and more than $10 million in funding still available, there’s no reason there should be question marks over whether or not good legislation can have a future.
“There are a lot of important bills that deserve to be funded and will make a difference in the lives of Mainers.”
Christine Kirby, the communications director for Senate President Troy Jackson, summed it up well in this simple statement last week.
The 131st Legislature finished its session ( at 5:30 a.m., with the sun up ) without funding a host of bills that were approved by the House and supported by the Senate – and have the potential to bring about positive change around the state. About $11.4 million was left unappropriated.
By the middle of the week last week, it was unclear whether or not the appropriations committee would return, in a special session (which has to be supported by a majority in each party) or an extension of the session, to fund those bills.
The remaining funding that could be allocated to revive bills that might otherwise die on the table will, if not allocated, be carried over to the next session. Spending “the very last penny,” in the words of Sen. Peggy Rotundo, Senate chair of the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee, is not advised or commonly done.
Even so, the more efficient and effective course of action would seem to us to be to resume work on good work that has already been carried out. The list of missed opportunities here is potentially very long. Among the very worthwhile measures that still need funding are a bill that would require insurers to cover nonprescription birth control; a bill that would expand property tax relief for low-income older adults; and a bill introduced by Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross that would establish a civil rights unit in the attorney general’s office make new resources available to schools to teach African American and Wabanaki studies.
Could these and others be funded on or after so-called veto day? Nobody seems to know for sure.
It’s a strange state of affairs when the best available guidance on the question of whether the return to vote on gubernatorial vetoes may be used for other business dates to 1977, when then-Attorney General Joseph E. Brennan highlighted some options available to the Legislature.
That’s the thing: Options are available. We hope that our legislators will take full advantage of them, set some new precedent – and realize the full potential of their work in the process.
___
Boston Globe. May 1, 2024.
Editorial: Healey’s ADU proposal: small homes, big impact
A change to the state’s zoning rules could yield thousands of new homes — if legislators can see past the complaints of some local officials.
From Lexington to Brookline, Salem to Arlington, the past year has seen several important victories in the fight to allowmore housing in Massachusetts, where the paucity of new development and resulting housing shortage has both driven out young residents and driven up housing costs to among the highest in the nation.
Looking ahead, no single action on the horizon has the potential to be more consequential than Governor Maura Healey’s proposed $4.1 billion Affordable Homes Act, which would issue bonds to pay for an array of programs, including repairing public housing, providing expanded rental assistance, and spurring new construction for both affordable and market-rate housing.
By most accounts, the funding package seems to be moving through the Legislature with little opposition. But the act also includes more than two dozen non-spending policy provisions intended to speed housing construction. Not all of these provisions seem assured of passage, housing advocates and state officials say.
Perhaps most prominent among these endangered initiatives is one that would allow homeowners to build small “accessory” dwelling units, known as ADUs, on properties zoned for single-family homes — without obtaining variances. The proposal would effectively set statewide standards for those units, prohibiting towns from imposing strictures like parking minimums or requirements that occupants be related to the property owner. Towns, however, would still have authority to set “reasonable restrictions” over things like setbacks from property lines or restricting short-term rentals.
The ADU proposal is widely viewed as one of the most efficient ways to add units to the state’s depleted housing stock. ADUs are by their nature small — Healey’s proposal would limit them to a maximum of 900 square feet — and therefore faster and less expensive to build than full-sized homes. That means they should also be more affordable to renters.
And because of the state’s abundance of areas zoned for single-family homes, just about every town will have eligible properties. According to an estimate by the Globe, some 950,000 homes in Massachusetts could accommodate an ADU in the yard. That said, the Healey administration predicts that only one in 100 of those homeowners will seek to build ADUs.
Yet even that small percentage would put a significant dent in the state’s daunting housing shortage. Overall, the governor is hoping the Affordable Housing Act will spur the creation of 40,000 new homes statewide in the next five years. Of that, her administration projects ADUs could provide as many as 8,000 units — fully 20 percent of her goal.
Predictably, opposition to the ADU proposal is brewing among municipalities that fear losing any control over zoning. At a legislative hearing in early April, Jerry Frechette, vice chair of the planning board in Lowell, testified that the provision would “encourage the conversion of some of the most affordable single-family homes into investor-owned two-family homes,” raising the specter of longtime residents being driven out by outside vulture investors.
Similarly, Virginia Crocker Timmins, vice chair of the select board in Chelmsford, testified that the provision “usurps the rights of each municipality to set criteria for this type of usage” and asserted that Chelmsford already allows ADUs under rules that “are not overly restrictive.” She also warned that as many as 4,500 properties in her town of about 35,000 residents might be eligible for ADU construction, straining schools, roads, and infrastructure.
Housing advocates are worried that the arguments raised by Chelmsford and Lowell will be persuasive to legislators for whom local control over schools, public services, and development is a cherished tradition. But lawmakers should see beyond the narrow concerns of individual towns on the housing issue, where every town’s restrictive zoning rules serve only to worsen the entire state’s shortage.
Moreover, the arguments against the ADU provision are not persuasive. True, many towns have allowed the construction of ADUs, but their parking requirements and prohibitions on certain kinds of tenants have almost certainly prevented homeowners from seeking permits. According to a 2018 study by the Pioneer Institute, the average Massachusetts town that allows ADUs permits fewer than 3 units per year.
By contrast, California saw ADU permits rise steadily after it passed a similar law in 2016. Since then, 80,000 ADUs have been permitted in the state. If that sounds like the flood of units that Chelmsford and Lowell officials are worrying about, think again.
Far fewer than 80,000 were actually built. And given that California has more than 5 times as many residents as Massachusetts, it seems plausible that the Commonwealth would be lucky to get the 8,000 ADUs it is projecting. The idea that Chelmsford might get more than 3,000 alone is unreasonable.
This is a critical moment — one of many to come — in the campaign to ameliorate Massachusetts’ housing shortage. Despite the honorable decisions by some towns, including Arlington and Brookline, to enact expansive zoning plans near MBTA stations, opposition to such rezoning has stiffened in a growing number of communities — most recently Rockport.
And other important provisions of Healey’s Affordable Homes Act might face strong opposition in the Legislature — including one that would allow municipalities to impose transfer taxes on real estate sales worth more than $1 million. The revenue would be dedicated to affordable housing projects in those towns.
It is essential, then, for lawmakers to recognize that the housing crisis is one shared by everyone in this state. Every town’s resistance to reasonable housing development will only worsen every other town’s shortage. The governor’s ADU proposal is one such reasonable plan. Don’t let it fail.
___
Rutland Herald. April 27, 2024.
Editorial: Go faster
The farthest reaches of Vermont still have issues with internet speeds. Despite leaps and bounds in technology, getting connected — to the “last mile” or the “main drag” — it comes down to infrastructure and cost.
In addition, there are concerns about affordability. U.S. Sen. Peter Welch, a Democrat, is so concerned about the cost to consumers, he has introduced legislation to make internet access available to low-income and vulnerable citizens here in Vermont and elsewhere.
Within the state, we have made great strides to make internet accessible to all. The Vermont Community Broadband board has been leveraging every penny and every program to invest in these critical investments. The VCBB is under the auspices of the Department of Public Service, and it oversees the Communications Union Districts, of which Vermont has 10. (CUDs generally serve rural areas of the state not served by traditional telecoms. Along with the telecoms, CUDs work to bring broadband internet via fiber optic lines to all parts of the state.)
Pushes have been made toward digital equity, including approval from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. That approval is the first step in unlocking federal monies that can help underserved communities get online.
From a VCBB survey, over half of state survey respondents reported that their broadband costs are too high. They also found that nearly 30% of the Vermont population does not use a personal or tablet computer, and that 73% of survey respondents expressed an interest in digital skills development, according to AARP Vermont.
Greg Marchildon, head of AARP in Vermont, wrote in a recent commentary, “High-speed internet is not a luxury. It is a necessity for older Vermonters. Better connectivity allows them to navigate online government services, participate in virtual medical services, find and maintain employment, meet daily needs, and connect socially. In short, it will improve the quality of life and help adults aged 50 and older safely age in place.”
Such progressive thinking for our times. And yet: Millions of Americans still don’t have access to high-speed internet.
In a commentary published recently, Christopher Ali, a professor of telecommunications at Penn State University, pointed to just how far we still have to go.
“One of the really frustrating things is, despite millions — tens of millions — of dollars spent on broadband mapping, we are still unsure of who is underconnected throughout the country.
“Right now, the (Federal Communications Commission) reports that 7.2 million people lack access, but the commission numbers have been historically suspect. As a result, there are no doubt many more who are unserved and undercounted. In fact, the FCC repeatedly receives challenges to its broadband map.”
Vermont has challenged its map, insisting it grossly overstates the number of households with internet connects.
It’s also clear that cost is part of the issue. Here in the U.S., we pay a tremendous amount of money — the most for internet access monthly than almost any other country in the developed world.
“A program called the Affordable Connectivity Program subsidizes broadband for low-income families, and 50 million families across the country are eligible,” Ali notes. Welch was promoting the program, and supporting federal funding, last week on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
According to Ali, one of the most important things that broadband access can provide? Economic development — something Vermont needs badly in order to engage and retain workers and families to the state.
“It can be a game changer when it comes to telehealth, especially for rural, remote and Indigenous communities, which often don’t have enough doctors and nurses. With telehealth, you can suddenly connect with a health care professional,” Ali writes.
“It aids in education. … It contributes to civic engagement, allowing voters to contact local officials online. It impacts public safety, both in terms of our own safety as members of the public but also by allowing first responders to communicate online with their dispatch.”
Ali and Welch concur that broadband helps sometimes with cultural enrichment, and it improves quality of life. (Although we remain proponents of less screen time.)
In 2023, the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment Program allocates $42 billion in federal funds to expand broadband infrastructure. How can communities maximize its impact?
Vermont has an excellent track record of pushing hard to get every citizen (who wants to be) connected. The VCBB should be commended for the steps it has taken.
But many more steps need to be taken on this “last mile.” It will require advocates from Welch and the congressional delegation to our select boards.
Public networks like our CUDs are going to be a game changer, Ali says, “because they empower communities to connect themselves and direct their own digital futures — either with municipally funded networks, or cooperatives, or some sort of public-private partnerships.”
That is something with which we can all connect.
___
Hearst Connecticut Media. April 30, 2024.
Editorial: Can Gov. Lamont see the forest for the trees?
Just what is it with Connecticut governors and issues about their properties?
Former Gov. John Rowland is the poster child for this trend. His career was derailed by a scandal over accepting illegal gifts to renovate his Bantam Lake cabin.
Dannel Malloy had to be cleared of accusations that contractors exchanged preferential treatment in return for doing work on his house when he was mayor of Stamford. It put a pause on his bid to run for governor in 2006. Malloy ultimately won the state’s top office four years later.
During her time in office succeeding Rowland, Jodi Rell drew headlines over milder property matters. She chose not to reside in the governor’s mansion, opting instead to commute from her Brookfield home. After leaving office, she changed her residency to Florida.
So maybe it was just Gov. Ned Lamont’s turn.
Lamont has been an easy target for critics this week in the wake of reports that substantial clearcutting was done in a protected wetland area behind his 2.5-acre Greenwich home.
Most homeowners draw attention from neighbors when they remove a tree or two. Town records indicate that 180 trees were cut down behind the Lamont homestead, along with thousands of bushes and plant life.
That alone would draw fire from Connecticut residents who rallied against Lamont’s environmental goals, notably his effort to fill garages with electric cars. But this gardening work also happened to be illegal, according to the Greenwich Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Agency.
Lamont and a neighbor are accused of ordering the culling to create a better view from their homes. The governor is certainly considering the optics in the aftermath of news stories about what one land use attorney in Greenwich dubbed a “chainsaw massacre.”
The news was also sandwiched between Earth Day on Monday and Arbor Day on Friday. Lamont happened to mark Earth Day by helping plant 35 Japanese cherry blossoms at the University of Connecticut football stadium in East Hartford.
The governor is popular enough that Democrats and Republicans alike are taking it pretty easy on him. It’s better than blowing the issue out of proportion, but it shouldn’t just fuel punchlines either. House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, struck balance in comments that “To see a governor just ignore the laws of Connecticut and do what he wants is not a good look for him. And I think it’s something that he’s going to have to answer to.”
Lamont can move on from this by taking accountability where it is appropriate.
For the rest of us, it’s another reminder of our responsibilities as guardians of our surroundings. We are approaching the peak season of lawn care, which is a much more complicated matter these days as municipalities consider ways to reduce use of harmful fertilizers and gas-powered equipment.
Now we know that if trees fall in a forest behind the governor’s house, it will make some noise. Hopefully, some positive lessons will grow from this soil.
END