Maine Senate Bill LD24

Maine 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Engrossed: 4/22/25
• Enrolled: 4/23/25
• Passed: 4/29/25

Caption

Resolve, Authorizing the Director of the Bureau of Parks and Lands to Convey Public Land Parcels in Lincoln Plantation and Sandy River Plantation

Impact

If enacted, LD24 will modify land management and oversight by enabling exchanges and sales of public lands designated for conservation and recreation, with implications for state statutes regarding land use and conservation purposes. This could potentially facilitate more effective use of public lands and enhance recreational opportunities, but it also opens debates on land conservation priorities and public access to these areas.

Summary

LD24, also known as the Resolve Authorizing the Director of the Bureau of Parks and Lands to Convey Public Land Parcels in Lincoln Plantation and Sandy River Plantation, provides the legislative authority for the Bureau of Parks and Lands to convey and exchange public land parcels. Specifically, the bill allows for the conveyance of 47 leased lots and 14 adjacent vacant lots located in Lincoln Plantation, with a stipulation that a survey must be completed to determine boundaries. The cost of this survey can be included in the purchase price but must not cover recording costs.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding LD24 appears to be generally positive among proponents who view it as a way to responsibly manage and utilize public lands. Supporters may include local authorities and stakeholders interested in land development or improved recreational access. However, any concerns regarding land conservation or reduced public access may arise among environmental advocates and community members who prioritize environmental preservation over land transactions.

Contention

One of the notable points of contention regarding LD24 is the potential for conflict between land development interests and conservation efforts. While the bill promotes land transactions that are often framed as beneficial, critics may argue that such measures could lead to the reduction of public lands reserved for conservation, threatening ecosystems or restricting access to activities like hiking, fishing, and other recreational pursuits.