Opinion ID: 1974568
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: ii-d

Text: The last of defendant's basic points on appeal is that §§ 2719(6) and (7) are facially invalid as unconstitutionally delegating legislative power to the commission. The argument is that under these statutory provisions the commission has an unfettered discretion to choose to amortize nonconforming signs rather than to acquire them by eminent domain (and payment of just compensation) even though federal funds are available to defray 75% of the cost of eminent domain acquisition. The contention fails. The statute provides an intelligible primary principle to guide, and limit, the administrative action in such context. As we decided in State v. National Advertising Company, supra, at 750-751, inextricably joined as the underlying purposes of the statute are a control of outdoor advertising signs to be achieved at a minimum cost to the State of Maine. That this predominant objective of minimizing State costs is implicit throughout the statute, and may nowhere be explicitly stated, does not preclude resort to it as an intelligible primary principle for the channeling of administrative action, thereby to satisfy whatever may be the constitutional requirements for valid delegations of power to administrative bodies. City of Biddeford v. Biddeford Teachers Ass'n., Me., 304 A.2d 387 (1973). Thus, were there a situation where federal funds would be available to assist this State in acquiring nonconforming signs by eminent domain (and payment of just compensation), and the immediate removal of the signs were not required, under §§ 2719(6) and (7) the commission would have authority to amortize the signs only if the particular circumstances of the availability of federal funds to assist in the payment of just compensation were such (if possible at all) that amortization could be utilized without subjecting the State to the 10% penalty of the federal share of federal aid highway costs. Unless this were so, the commission would be acting contrary to the primary principle of keeping the costs to the State at a minimum. See n.5, supra. In short, far from being unfettered, the discretion available to the commission under §§ 2719(6) and (7), if it has any latitude at all, is confined within very stringent limits. The entry is: Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed. McKUSICK, C. J., and GLASSMAN, J., did not sit.