A law passed in 2007 designed to make it tougher for big-box stores to come into town and take business away from local retailers will be up for discussion again in 2008, with an amendment proposed to allow communities to opt out of the new rule.

Called the Informed Growth Act, the law requires anyone proposing a retail development of 75,000 square feet or more to pay for an independent study on the impact that store will have on property taxes, municipal budgets, local retail jobs and wages, and whether it has an "undue adverse impact" on the local economy.

That study would then be one of the factors local officials use to determine whether they should grant a big-box project the needed permits.

Sen. David Hastings, R-Oxford, is sponsoring a bill to allow cities and towns to opt out of the study requirement if the move is approved by voters at a local referendum.

"It looks like the Informed Growth Act is becoming the no-growth act," Hastings said, explaining his reasons for sponsoring the amendment. "The burdens and uncertainties of the act, I'm being told, are stopping developers from putting in projects even where they're welcome."

Hastings attempted to attach a similar amendment when the bill was being debated in the Senate in June, and it almost passed. The concern was the opt-out provision didn't specifically require a community-wide vote.

"My sense is if this is what the language had said then, the Senate might have gone along with it," said Hastings, who would like to see the law repealed eventually.

"I think it's a bad law. The very underpinnings of the law make it apply to only big boxes or big developments. What if we made everybody in town have to go through this process?" he asked. "It goes to the very heart of competition in this country."

Those who opposed the law, including three Senate Democrats from districts with large retail bases, say it sends out an anti-business message.

Passions run just as strong in support of the new law and are fueled by concerns that Wal-Mart and other big-box retailers will come into communities and take business away from local merchants.

Supporters of the law include a bi-partisan contingent of coastal legislators, some of whom have been involved in fights to keep super Wal-Marts out of their communities.

"The repercussions of mega-retail on a small town can be quite a surprise to the residents if they are not informed and prepared. An impact study will help these residents decide if, when, where and how to allow such a development to take place," said Rep. Jonathan McKane, R-Newcastle, who was part of the battle to keep Wal-Mart out of Damariscotta.

Still McKane said he could support the amendment if it assured the question of whether to opt out would be decided by a ballot vote. 

The bill to create the Informed Growth Act was co-sponsored by the chairmen of the State and Local Government Committee, Rep. Chris Barstow, D-Gorham, and Sen. Elizabeth Schneider, D-Penobscot, and their committee will be tasked with reviewing Hasting's amendment.

There had been discussion that House Speaker Glenn Cummings would block the amendment from coming to a vote before the full Legislature based on joint rules that say legislators can't bring back the same proposal, if it had been decided in the previous session.

Cummings, who is a strong supporter of the Informed Growth Act, said he would not use the rule to block a vote on the amendment.

"I would be inclined against the use of that rule under these conditions," he said, because other bills, which he supports, were allowed in that arguably are reconsiderations of issues decided last session.

Cummings added he does not believe the Informed Growth Act needs to be amended.

"This is what was put into place with bipartisan support. It's extremely premature to pre-empt it," he said.