‘130 
benefits are very real; but considering the regional economy as a whole, 
parochial benefits are not net benefits since the benefits associated 
with one location will be about the same as those associated with an 
alternative site (barring large unemployment differentials). Thus, 
parochial benefits represent a transfer payment from one place in the 
economy to another, with no net benefit associated with the choice 
of site (even though there is a net benefit to the community chosen). 
Hence, parochial benefits can be overwhelmingly important to politi- 
eal bodies representing the local community. As a result, a local 
community can rationally view a project in a very different manner 
from the regional economy as a whole. The region and the local 
community feel positive and negative direct effects—the community 
alone feels the parochial effects. These added benefits will persuade 
the community to act in its perceived self-interest and approve the 
powerplant siting, with no considerations of the negative direct 
effect to the region as a whole. Such things have happened on the 
Maine coast where much of the loss of shoreline property came “‘with 
the encouragement of State and local agencies and officials eager for 
new taxable property and the jobs that developments generate.’ 
John McKee, the Bowdoin land use expert, has said ‘it is surprising 
how many people will sacrifice their coast. They say, if it’ll bring in 
the tax dollar, let’s do it.” ” 
Sometimes other forms of very localized political pressures hinder 
effective planning for coastal land use and management. A case in 
point is that of the tmy town of Harpswell on the Maine coast. In 1969, 
a planning board was created to assist the selectmen in considering 
some of the questions related to the future growth of the town. By 
the 1970 town meeting, the board had developed the preliminary 
plans for a 3-year project and had obtained the needed appropriations 
from the local voters. A chronology of subsequent events has been 
described in a recent edition of the Maine Times. 48 
With a complete map of the town and a detailed soil map, the planning board 
plunged into the nitty-gritty of formulating its first land-use ordinance. The 
threat of unregulated subdivision seemed urgent. Out-of-town developers had 
purchased a 400-acre plot on Great Island, and some 3,000 additional acres would 
soon be up for grabs. Less than one-tenth of the town’s 24-square-mile area had 
already been developed, and there were no local restrictions to inhibit irresponsible 
exploiters of the land. 
The board also sensed some danger from within. Local developers had divided 
their land into undersized lots for trailers and small houses. Operating on shoestring 
budgets they built inadequate roads—impassable to school buses and fuel trucks 
in the spring—and petitioned the town to take over road maintenance and/or 
improvement. 
Slowly working their way through three rough drafts, the board and its con- 
sultant, John Atwood, created an ordinance aimed at developers whose land-use 
practices (insufficient soil surveys, inadequate sewage and water systems, narrow 
roads) would not be in the best interests of the town of Harpswell. Nine detailed 
sections dealt with the necessity for both a preliminary and final subdivision 
plan to be submitted to the board; design standards for streets, sidewalks, lots, 
schools, ete.; performance guarantee; character of the development; variations 
and exceptions. 
_ The release of this proposed plan triggered a great deal of political 
infighting. Some Harpswell citizens, previously opposed to any form 
46 Thid., reference 14A. 
47 Thid., reference 14A. t 
48 Gloria Hutchinson, “‘Harpswell: What Went Wrong?’”’ Maine Times, vol. 3, No. 2, Oct. 9, 1970. 
