Dear Editor:

Recently I was surprised to read an email from the Maine Arts Commission, about a program called Assets for Artists emphasizing self-direction and individuality.

Soon I discovered the uncharacteristic message was due to the link in the email connecting to a website in Massachusetts.

There is a disconnect between the Assets for Artists program and the recently enacted housing act HP 1489. Artists and other home workers need working space in the home but instead, HP 1489 provides a density bonus for investors by reducing space and health standards for inhabitants.

Depending on whether the law is interpreted strictly (exact words) or liberally (extending to ideas), the Maine Arts Commission straddled the edge of the new speech restrictions by promoting self-direction. Taken further any housing designed for artists in residence violates speech restrictions against references to “character of location.”

Fortunately, HP 1489’s speech restrictions apply only to the government and not to the private sector and any challenges to the law invoke the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is possible to develop ideas for diverse intentional communities provided municipal planning boards will allow diverse ideas about the character of a location if the exact prohibited words are avoided.

“Intentional communities” became necessary when the commissioners decided not to include short-term rentals in the study, effectively making the short-term rentals default zoning for all of Maine requiring any other purpose to carve out its an intentional community.

Maine needs intentional communities for people who work at home, which includes artists. Working space in the home is a fundamental asset for artists and the remote worker’s movement. State municipal zoning ordinances promote such overcrowding that those communities are in danger of exclusion in Maine. Already state and non-profits prohibit individuals and free enterprises from submitting ideas.

Susan M. Andersen

Boothbay Harbor