Dover-Foxcroft Cannot Regulate Its Way to Prosperity

A town that needs businesses, jobs, residents and investment should be asking entrepreneurs, “How can we help?” — not continually giving them reasons to go somewhere else.

Dover-Foxcroft has a choice to make.

It can become a community known throughout Maine as a place where entrepreneurs, property owners and employers are welcomed and encouraged to invest.

Or it can develop a reputation as a town where doing business is unnecessarily difficult, where regulation becomes confrontation, and where prospective investors conclude that opening somewhere else is simply easier.

For a rural Maine community, that distinction isn’t academic.

It can determine whether the town grows or slowly empties out.

Dover-Foxcroft’s leaders should understand something fundamental about local government:

Businesses do not need Dover-Foxcroft nearly as much as Dover-Foxcroft needs businesses.

An entrepreneur can invest in Dexter, Newport, Bangor, Brewer, Greenville or somewhere else entirely.

Dover-Foxcroft cannot move.

Empty storefronts should be treated as a warning

This isn’t a theoretical concern.

Dover-Foxcroft’s own comprehensive planning documents have acknowledged vacant storefronts in its downtown commercial district.

The community has also watched businesses disappear.

In May 2022, the Bangor Daily News reported that several Dover-Foxcroft businesses had recently closed or changed ownership. Charlie’s restaurant closed. Fox Brook Variety’s longtime owners sold after 30 years. The reporting correctly noted that COVID-era disruption, inflation, staffing shortages, retirement and other economic forces were contributing factors.

Those qualifications matter.

It would be unfair to blame every vacant building or failed business on town government.

But it would be equally foolish for municipal leaders to look at empty storefronts and struggling businesses and conclude that government policy doesn’t matter.

It matters enormously.

Every unnecessary obstacle becomes one more reason not to invest.

Every unnecessary delay costs somebody money.

Every confusing permitting process increases risk.

Every adversarial interaction damages a community’s reputation.

And every entrepreneur who decides, “Forget it — I’ll build somewhere else,” represents more than one lost business.

It can mean lost jobs, lost property-tax value, lost customers for neighboring businesses and another reason for a family to spend its money somewhere else.

Dover-Foxcroft’s own rules demonstrate the problem

Consider downtown.

The town’s comprehensive-plan materials describe the Downtown Commercial District as the heart of Dover-Foxcroft’s business and civic activity and say it is intended to encourage expansion of commercial uses.

But those same materials show that nearly all allowed uses require Planning Board site-plan review.

They also identify numerous prohibited downtown uses, including automobile sales and repair, self-storage businesses, outdoor-storage businesses and several other commercial activities.

There are legitimate reasons for zoning and land-use rules. Nobody is arguing that an industrial operation should be allowed anywhere it wants without regard to its neighbors.

But every restriction needs to answer a simple question:

Is the public benefit created by this rule greater than the economic activity the rule prevents?

If government cannot provide a convincing answer, the regulation deserves another look.

The objective should be straightforward:

Make Dover-Foxcroft the easiest reasonable place in Piscataquis County to start, expand and operate a legitimate business.

Another warning sign appeared this week

On September 16, 2026, the Piscataquis Observer reported that Dover-Foxcroft officials are pursuing a temporary 180-day ban on data centers while the community studies potential regulations.

Officials have legitimate issues to consider with large-scale data centers, including electrical infrastructure, environmental impacts and community planning.

Those questions deserve serious analysis.

But the instinct of municipal government should always matter.

When confronted with a new industry, does government begin by asking:

How can we responsibly make this work?

Or:

How can we stop this until government decides what it wants?

Those approaches produce very different reputations.

And reputations travel.

Entrepreneurs talk to one another. Developers talk to one another. Commercial real-estate investors talk to one another.

A community can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting economic development and destroy that goodwill with a handful of unnecessarily adversarial experiences.

There is an economic price for barriers to business

This principle isn’t merely ideological.

Economic research has repeatedly found that barriers to business entry can suppress entrepreneurship and employment.

A National Bureau of Economic Research study examining retail-entry restrictions found that barriers to entry weakened employment growth. Another NBER study examining European firms concluded that costly entry regulations reduced the creation of new firms.

More recent research examining American commercial land-use regulation estimated potentially substantial economic gains from moderately relaxing commercial real-estate restrictions.

Dover-Foxcroft is obviously not France, Europe generally or a major American city.

But the economic principle is relevant:

Making productive economic activity harder generally doesn’t produce more productive economic activity.

A town can enter a downward spiral

The danger for a small rural community is especially serious.

Imagine the sequence.

A business closes.

Five or ten jobs disappear.

A storefront becomes vacant.

Customers have one less reason to come downtown.

The neighboring business loses some of that traffic.

A commercial property’s value stagnates.

Another entrepreneur looks at the empty building but decides the regulatory burden, renovation expense or uncertainty isn’t worth the risk.

The building remains vacant.

Eventually another business closes.

Young workers find fewer employment opportunities.

Some leave.

Families spend more of their money in larger commercial centers.

The local tax base becomes increasingly strained.

Government still has roads, police, fire protection, infrastructure and municipal services to finance, except now those costs are divided among fewer productive properties and taxpayers.

Taxes and fees become harder to carry.

Investment becomes less attractive.

And the cycle repeats.

That is how economic decline becomes self-reinforcing.

Other communities provide warnings — and lessons

This phenomenon isn’t unique to Maine.

Baltimore and Philadelphia became prominent subjects of urban-policy research because abandoned properties and vacant land became visible manifestations of decades of economic disinvestment. Researchers examining those cities emphasized that local policies concerning vacant-property acquisition, redevelopment and disposition were an important part of reversing deterioration.

More recently, San Luis Obispo, California — once celebrated for its thriving downtown — has confronted business closures and empty storefronts. Business owners interviewed by SFGATE specifically complained about parking policies and city management, although city officials disputed some of the criticism and pointed out that businesses were still opening.

That distinction is important: municipal policy is rarely the sole cause of economic decline.

But government can either compound difficult economic conditions or help overcome them.

Look at Euclid, Ohio, for the opposite approach.

Facing storefront vacancies, local officials worked directly with entrepreneurs, provided business training, identified flexible commercial spaces, offered targeted rent assistance and partnered with property owners to move small businesses into storefronts.

The philosophy was essentially:

We have empty buildings. You want to build a business. How do we bring those two things together?

That is economic development.

Dover-Foxcroft has already proven that cooperation works

Perhaps the strongest evidence doesn’t come from another state.

It comes from Dover-Foxcroft itself.

The former Mayo Mill could have remained exactly what declining communities throughout America know too well: an abandoned industrial monument to better economic times.

Moosehead Manufacturing ceased operations there in 2007 after the facility had once provided substantial employment.

The property ultimately went through tax foreclosure.

But government, economic-development organizations, private developers and environmental programs worked together.

The contaminated former industrial property was cleaned up and redeveloped into approximately 80,000 square feet of mixed residential and commercial space.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency eventually featured Mayo Mill as a redevelopment success story.

That project provides Dover-Foxcroft with its own blueprint.

Government and business working together accomplished something that neither could easily have accomplished alone.

That should be the model.

Town Hall should become Dover-Foxcroft’s economic-development front door

Every municipal employee and elected official who interacts with a prospective business owner should understand the economic significance of that interaction.

The first question should not be:

“What regulation can we enforce?”

It should be:

“What are you trying to accomplish, and how can we help you accomplish it legally?”

That doesn’t mean ignoring fire codes.

It doesn’t mean ignoring building safety.

It doesn’t mean allowing pollution.

It doesn’t mean letting businesses ignore their neighbors.

It means recognizing the difference between regulation and obstruction.

Good government establishes reasonable rules and then helps people comply with them.

Bad government treats the rule itself as the objective.

Dover-Foxcroft needs a Business Bill of Rights

Maine News Now believes Dover-Foxcroft’s leadership should consider a fundamental reset in its relationship with businesses and property owners.

Every legitimate business applicant should receive clear requirements in writing.

Permit requirements should be predictable.

Fees should be published.

Applicants should know exactly which department or board has authority over their application.

Routine permits should have target turnaround times.

Where an application is deficient, officials should explain exactly what must be corrected.

Where reasonable alternatives exist, officials should identify them.

Existing ordinances should undergo a comprehensive review to determine which restrictions still serve legitimate contemporary purposes.

And elected officials should regularly meet with local employers — not when they want something from them, but to ask a very simple question:

What is Dover-Foxcroft doing that makes operating your business unnecessarily difficult?

Then listen to the answer.

This is bigger than business owners

Some people hear “business friendly” and imagine government doing favors for wealthy corporations.

That completely misses the point.

A business-friendly community is resident-friendly.

Businesses employ residents.

Businesses pay property taxes.

Businesses sponsor Little League teams.

Businesses donate to local charities.

Businesses hire contractors.

Businesses buy fuel.

Businesses purchase insurance.

Their employees buy houses.

Their customers eat at restaurants.

Their vendors stay at hotels.

Their owners renovate buildings.

And their existence gives residents reasons to remain in the community.

When a business disappears, the loss spreads far beyond its owner.

When ten businesses disappear, the character of a community begins changing.

Dover-Foxcroft still has enormous potential

This is not an obituary for Dover-Foxcroft.

Quite the opposite.

The town remains the commercial and governmental center of Piscataquis County. It has historic architecture, a traditional downtown, the Piscataquis River, Mayo Mill, Center Theatre, established businesses, regional traffic and access to some of Maine’s greatest outdoor recreational resources.

The town itself was selected as one of only 25 communities nationwide for the federal Recreation Economy for Rural Communities program, which is specifically intended to strengthen rural economies through outdoor recreation, downtown development and local businesses.

Those are genuine opportunities.

But economic-development programs and attractive planning documents accomplish little if the everyday experience of actually opening and operating a business feels adversarial.

A town cannot advertise itself as open for business while entrepreneurs perceive Town Hall as standing in the doorway.

Leadership requires changing course when necessary

This editorial is not an argument that every decision made by Dover-Foxcroft officials has been wrong.

Clearly it hasn’t been.

Mayo Mill proves otherwise.

The town’s ongoing downtown planning efforts demonstrate that officials recognize the importance of economic development.

And Dover-Foxcroft’s participation in the Recreation Economy for Rural Communities initiative is another potentially positive step.

The argument is that those ambitions must become the governing culture rather than isolated projects.

Dover-Foxcroft’s elected leadership should examine every ordinance, every permitting process and every interaction with businesses through one fundamental question:

Does this make responsible investment in Dover-Foxcroft easier or harder?

Because businesses have choices.

Families have choices.

Developers have choices.

Investors have choices.

And increasingly, workers have choices about where they live.

Dover-Foxcroft cannot force any of them to choose Dover-Foxcroft.

It has to give them reasons to.

The town can continue managing decline, debating empty buildings and commissioning plans about revitalization.

Or its leaders can decide that Dover-Foxcroft will become one of the most business-friendly small towns in Maine.

That transformation begins at Town Hall.

And the time to make it is before another entrepreneur decides that doing business somewhere else is simply easier.

Dover-Foxcroft does not need fewer businesses to regulate.

It needs more businesses to welcome.