When we argued in January that Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission was too important to scrap, online commenters made a pair of interesting points.

“I have served on my town’s planning board,” wrote John Enos of Denmark, “so I can understand the complexities of the planning process.”

Enos explained that towns have spent years developing planning ordinances with the state’s help and, at the town level, these ordinances must be voted on.

He questioned whether this system could be duplicated in counties and pointed out that it would take many years to develop an effective planning process.

Another commenter, John Ponte of Hebron, had a different point of view:

“If I want to work on my home in Oxford County, all I have to do is call one person (and) ask for a permit, pay a small fee and I am on my way.

“If I want to work on my camp in the LURC controlled (area), I have to hire a lawyer and make out a permit so complex and so costly it is not worth it at all.”

The LURC Reform Commission, which met again last week in Ashland, should be looking for ways to accommodate both concerns.

Most Mainers can easily sympathize with the desire of people living in the unorganized territories to have a quick, streamlined way to make simple additions and improvements to their properties.

On the other hand, few thinking Mainers want large-scale developments to occur without sufficient thought and planning.

Critics have cited the five years and $25 million it took LURC to handle the Plum Creek development plan for the Moosehead Lakes region.

On the other hand, Plum Creek wanted to place one of the largest developments in Maine history into one of the most pristine recreational areas in the state.

It wanted two resorts, three RV parks, 600 acres of commercial development, a 1,000-acre commercial/industrial park and four new sporting camps. Oh, and it wanted 975 house lots, 575 on remote ponds.

Polls at the time showed Mainers disapproved of the project by a 2-1 margin, and the development was hotly contested by the people living in the affected region.

Yes, it took five years to sort things out, but a workable compromise emerged that better balanced the interests of Maine and the developer.

It’s been said that when you act in haste, you often regret in leisure. An over-sized, poorly planned project would have haunted Maine and local residents for a century or longer.

But no system of governance can last for long without the support of the people it governs.

LURC has apparently lost the goodwill and confidence of many residents in the unorganized territories.

That means LURC must be reformed; it doesn’t mean it should be abandoned.

A coalition of environmental and planning organizations has put forward a detailed plan that does just that.

It would allow LURC to assist 40 towns and plantations to assume local control, if they want. It would increase local representation, calling for five commissioners from different counties.

It would speed the approval process for additions and improvements to existing structures.

The proposal calls for customer-service training for all LURC staff, an ombudsman for landowners, model applications for frequently requested proposals, plus a host of other changes.

We fear the commission reforming LURC may be more intent upon dramatic gestures, such as killing LURC, than something sensible and realistic, like meaningful reform.

Turning LURC’s work over to 13 under-funded county governments or creating a new agency from scratch are simply bad ideas.

Better ideas must prevail.

rrhoades@sunjournal.com

The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and editorial board.