Maine’s two oldest towns, Kittery and York, have resolved a centuries-old dispute over their borders.

The issue dates back to the 1600s but reemerged a few years ago after a land developer purchased a parcel of land along Route 1 that straddles the boundary between the two towns.

York officials contended the border was a straight line, while Kittery argued that the divide meandered eastward from neighboring Eliot to Brave Boat Harbor on the coast.

The dispute between the two towns remained friendly — with residents of both towns making tongue-in-cheek references to a “border war” — until 2022, when York filed a lawsuit against Kittery in an effort to redraw the border. But the lawsuit was soon dismissed by a York County judge.

Now, over three and a half years later, the two towns have reached an agreement on a new boundary that the Maine Legislature is expected to officially approve in 2026.

The revised boundary was drawn up after a 2024 survey, the cost of which was split by both towns.

The proposed agreement follows roughly the same border both towns had been using, save for an added 4 acres of land designated for tree growth that will officially shift from York to Kittery.

York Town Manager Peter Thompson said officials are thrilled to have finally reached an agreement.

“ People that have been at this a lot longer than I have are very happy that this is kind of the last piece,” he said.

Kittery Town Council Chair Judy Spiller likewise said she is pleased to put the dispute to bed.

“It was our belief that we could sit down and sort this out,” she said. “Finally, the Select Board agreed with us that we should get the land surveyed, and then based on the results of the survey, we would ask the state Legislature to approve the new boundary line.”

The dispute initially arose in 2020 after a survey paid for by the developer indicated the true border was actually 333 feet south of the border both towns had been observing for much of their history.

York officials said a straight-line border had been established in 1652. Kittery disagreed and argued that the process to change the border would be an expensive and complicated one that could affect several families and businesses.

In 2020, Spiller defended the boundary line the towns had been following in a letter to the York Selectboard.

“In any event, the Town of Kittery will vigorously protect and defend her borders against any and all claims now, or in the future,” she wrote.

While any boundary change would not have altered property ownership, some officials feared it could prompt major changes to affected residents’ taxes and where they would send their children to school.

But the final agreement will have limited impact, officials from both towns said.

The 4 acres that are changing hands are wooded wetlands that won’t be developed.

And Thompson said the taxes for the affected property owners will only increase by a dollar or two.

Considering Kittery and York’s friendly histories with each other, Thompson said he’s glad the neighbors have finally put an end to the dispute.

“ The people of Kittery were great to work with,” he said. “Once we got over the initial rough patch there, it’s been fantastic.”

The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com

Patrick Woodcock is president and CEO of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce.

Maine is facing a housing crisis that threatens our economic competitiveness and quality of life. Reducing regulatory barriers that delay housing development is essential to support Maine’s workforce and local economies. It’s becoming harder to retain young Mainers in their home state, as housing costs make it increasingly unaffordable to stay.

Quite simply, Maine’s housing pricing is pushing out an entire generation of Mainers who want to live and work in Maine communities, and straining our elderly on fixed incomes. Maine employers are struggling to find workers not because the talent isn’t out there, but because those workers can’t find a place to live. State projections show virtually no employment growth from 2026 through 2029.

This challenge affects sectors across Maine. Employers are losing potential hires, reducing hours, or delaying growth due to a lack of housing. From nurses in Augusta to hospitality workers along the coast, Mainers are being priced out of the communities they serve.

That’s why four organizations — the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, Maine Affordable Housing Coalition, Maine Real Estate & Development Association, and the Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce — have launched Build Homes, Build Community, a statewide initiative focused on advancing housing solutions that support Maine’s workforce and economy. Our goal is clear: expand housing access to support the workers and businesses that power Maine’s economy.

The numbers speak for themselves:

Seventy-nine percent of households in Maine can’t afford a median-priced home. Home prices have increased by 50% since 2020, while incomes have risen just 33%. Half of all renters are cost-burdened.

Meanwhile, Maine needs more than 80,000 new homes by 2030 to meet current and future demand — and according to recent data, we are building at half the pace we need.

At our coalition’s launch in November, we heard from employers like Will Savage of Acorn Engineering, who relocated expansion to Bangor and Kingfield due to affordability challenges in southern Maine. It’s a stark reminder: when housing becomes a barrier, growth grinds to a halt.

There’s no silver bullet — but there is a roadmap. A recent state-commissioned study outlines how Maine can make real progress: modernize permitting processes, reduce development costs, and partner with communities that are ready to grow. We must also invest in the construction workforce that will build these homes and provide employers with tools to support workforce housing.

This isn’t just about policymakers — everyone in Maine has a role to play. Housing is a rare issue that can unite Democrats, Republicans, and independents around a shared goal. A pro-housing agenda benefits us all.

State leaders must accelerate permitting, reduce red tape, and invest in housing production, particularly for middle-income workers and essential industries.

Municipalities must adopt pro-housing policies, modernize outdated zoning, and commit to responsible growth. Welcoming new housing should be a point of civic pride, not controversy.

Residents and business owners can engage locally: attend planning board meetings, support planned development, and speak up when projects that will catalyze our economy are on the line.

For too long, housing decisions have been made project by project, town by town, often with good intentions, but without a full appreciation of how interconnected our communities, families, and our economy really are to our housing production.

The result is what we have today: a statewide crisis that affects every corner of the state, every sector, and every generation. Maine can’t grow if workers can’t live here. Our children won’t stay — and new families won’t come — if we don’t have homes they can afford. And for many older Mainers, staying means remaining in homes that are no longer accessible or manageable — further straining housing availability and underscoring the need for more adaptable housing options across the state.

Let’s build the homes we need. Let’s support the people and industries that define Maine’s future. And let’s do it together.

Build Homes. Build Community. Build Maine’s Future.

Last week’s executive order by President Trump to reclassify cannabis as a less dangerous drug is being heralded by Maine’s marijuana industry as “the most progress in cannabis policy in decades.”

But members aren’t ready to celebrate yet.

At face value, reclassifying the drug from Schedule I to Schedule III could be a boon for Maine’s two cannabis markets by opening up more opportunities for research and allowing business owners to deduct ordinary business expenses, something that is currently prohibited for businesses dealing in or “trafficking” schedule I and II substances.

Many in the industry, though, say the directive lacks teeth. It orders the U.S. Attorney General to work faster on a process that has been in the works since May 2024 but does not officially reclassify cannabis immediately.

It also does not legalize the drug, which remains illegal at that federal level, and some fear any changes could open the door for “big pharma” to take over Maine’s craft cannabis industry.

A STEP IN THE ‘RIGHT DIRECTION’

Matt Hawes near the brite tanks at his Novel Beverage Co. facility in Scarborough in July 2023: Hawes is the head of the Maine Cannabis Industry Association and owner of Novel Beverage Co., which makes THC-based drinks. (Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Staff Photographer)

Matt Hawes, a founding member of the Maine Cannabis Industry Association, said he’s approaching the executive order with a sense of “cautious optimism.”

“It does appear to be another step in the direction of more appropriately placing this in the social and legal framework of our society,” Hawes said. “It has always been impossible to rationalize it as a schedule I drug. It’s still hard to rationalize it as a schedule III.”

Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous, meaning they have high abuse potential with no accepted medical use. Heroin and LSD are also schedule I drugs.

Schedule III drugs, which include ketamine and Tylenol with codeine, have recognized medical uses but moderate to low potential for abuse.

It’s the most progress in cannabis policy in decades, he said, and will allow more research opportunities that have so far largely been stymied by the government’s Schedule I designation. 

Scientists have long described the problem as a catch-22: They can’t conduct research on cannabis until they demonstrate it has a medical use, and they can’t show the plant has a medical use until they conduct research.

In 2018, state statute established a medical cannabis research grant program, which authorized the department to provide grant money from the state’s Medical Use of Cannabis Fund to “support objective scientific research” on the plant’s medicinal uses. 

So far, that fund has gone untapped, but that could change with a new designation, McCarrier said.

“Maine has another opportunity to be a leader in the cannabis industry and we should not waste it,” he said.

The Maine Office of Cannabis Policy, the state’s regulatory agency, said reducing barriers to research and the “significant tax relief” that would come from allowing tax deductions are the only two changes the program is likely to see. 

“Across the past three presidential administrations, the Justice Department has taken a non-enforcement approach against state-regulated medical and adult use cannabis programs, and OCP fully expects there to be no change to that posture,” the agency said last year after the Biden administration announced plans to reclassify the drug.

A LOT TO LOSE

Tax deductions will of course create “improvement in the bottom line” for small businesses, but the change should not be seen as a win for the industry, said Mark Barnett, policy director for the Maine Craft Cannabis Association.

Rather, he said, “it’s removing something that is a truly grotesque abuse of the businesses that operate in this space.” 

Barnett is hopeful that the government will eventually de-schedule the drug, which he said is the “only legal, only realistic interpretation of this agricultural product.” 

But he’s also wary that the Trump administration will try to intervene in a program that has historically been left to the states to manage. 

“It won’t matter if you’re in the medical market, it won’t matter if you’re in the adult-use market, it won’t matter if you’re in the CBD market. We all stand to lose a lot through federal involvement in cannabis policy,” he said. 

That’s also why Hawes, of the Maine Cannabis Industry Association, isn’t more enthusiastic.

“There’s still plenty of unknowns related to this situation, but we know we’re introducing a new regulatory agency in the FDA and it’s unclear what types of regulations they may impose,” he said.

If they continue to defer to the state, the long-running small business model will likely continue.

“If they come in with an iron fist stance that everything has to be done in an FDA licensed facility,” however, “the investments that it would take to achieve those standards are likely unattainable for any business in Maine,” he said.

Hawes added that the news of possible reclassification is just the latest in what has been a “dizzying” few weeks for the cannabis industry, which is also contending with the effective re-criminalization of hemp and dealing with recent recalls of recreational product and plateauing sales. There is also a referendum petition to close the recreational market and ongoing legislative efforts to increase oversight of the medical market.