Editor:
Question No. 8 on the June 10 Kennebunkport Ballot asks the citizens of Kennebunkport  to vote on whether the land use ordinance permitting contract zoning should be amended to provide for greater public participation in contract zoning, and a copy of the proposed amendment is available for inspection at the town offices.
I urge the citizens of Kennebunkport to vote against this amendment and instead vote “yes” on Question No. 9 which proposes instead to repeal contract zoning as a land use ordinance.
Question No. 9 was placed on the ballot as a result of a town-wide citizen’s initiative.
What is disturbing about the proposed amendment of the current article permitting contract zoning is that it. 
1. Provides no clear guidelines for determining what is beneficial to the town as a whole; 
2. Violates the town’s growth planning ordinance by refusing to explicitly require of the growth planning committee a review and recommendation on the consistency of any proposed contract with the Comprehensive Plan before a contract is presented at any town meeting; and
3. Is motivated by the assumption that there are no good reasons for repealing contract zoning rather than amending it.
With regard to No. 1, the sole purpose of contract zoning is to rezone an existing zone in order to grant a permit not otherwise possible in order to obtain a benefit which is “beneficial to the town as a whole.” But how beneficial should the “gift” offered to the town by the applicant need to be in order to justify selling a permit for future development? “Beneficial” comes in degrees, and depends of what one’s goals for the town may be. Surely we would not want a developer, for example, to offer the town a cash inducement or “gift” of a million dollars to provide for a modest reduction in the mil rate for all the taxpayers. But as long as we have no clear guidelines about what are clear municipal needs as opposed to modest benefits for the town, what is to stop the selectmen from issuing all sorts of questionable permits simply based on what they think is in the best financial interests of the town, when in fact that policy can easily lead to an undermining of land use ordinances simply because some people can pay the town whatever the town demands for a contract zone?
Of course, the citizens will ultimately have the vote on whether any particular contract zone will be acceptable, but often a biased and aggressive board of selectmen will be effective in persuading the town to vote in favor of contract zones that do not really further the best, long-term interests, of the town as a whole rather than the interests of the developers or town merchants.
Until the town of Kennebunkport has worked out a clear policy or set of guidelines that distinguish unfilled municipal needs from questionable benefits advanced by an aggressive and biased board of selectmen, this sort of an amendment  invites legal suits and will be a field day for lawyers.
With regard to No. 2, the proposed amendment is in violation of the town’s growth planning committee ordinance. This ordinance requires that “Any proposed action affecting the comprehensive plan, including any amendments to the land use ordinance….shall be submitted to the growth planning committee prior to presentation to any town meeting, for the committee’s review and recommendation.” (GPC Ordinance, 2.H). 
But nowhere in this amendment is it required that the growth planning committee provide a review and recommendation to the selectmen and the planning committee before they present  to the public a warrant  for a contract zone to a public hearing. 
If the procedure goes forward as indicated in this proposal, it will be in violation of that ordinance and is grounds for legal suit against the town for not following its own ordinance. As a matter of fact, this very proposed amendment is an amendment to the land use ordinance, and it has already been proposed as a warrant to the public by the Selectmen although the growth planning committee has not been given the task of reviewing and recommending on the merits of this very proposal.
The review and recommendation of the growth planning committee  on any amendment to the land use ordinance should be available at the very first meeting of the selectmen and the planning board and should be read aloud before the public part of the meeting. Until something like that is part of the amendment, the town cannot proceed on any contract zone without being in violation of the town’s GPC ordinance.
Finally with regard to No. 3, many people are opposed to amending the article permitting contract zoning because they see contract zoning in general as objectionable because it is a matter of selling permits to the highest bidder in the name of the public good when in fact ordinary taxpayers have no access to such permits because they do not have the financial resources with which to legally bribe the town for a permit or induce the town to sell a permit not otherwise permitted under the land use ordinances. 
No land use ordinance should allow for discrimination in favor of the wealthy in issuing permits.  Also there is good reason to think contract zoning in general is inconsistent with the town’s Comprehensive Plan because it requires that Land Use Ordinances should provide for the orderly development of the town. In fact, however, contract zoning undermines orderly development by undermining the integrity of land use ordinances simply because contract zoning discriminates in the permitting process against ordinary non-affluent citizens.
This effect creates the impression that the wealthy can buy their way around the land use rules whereas the rest of us must follow the rules. I cannot think of a better way of undermining the integrity of a land use ordinance  and strip it of a crucial capacity to provide for orderly development.
Vote “No” on Question No. 8, and “Yes” on Question No. 9.
Trebor Redemla
Kennebunkport