|
|
|
10/1/08
|
5 comments
Plum Creek process defended
Opponents: ‘Moral issues’ ignored
State officials met Tuesday with members of the group that helped stage a small but vocal protest against the Land Use Regulation Commission’s tentative endorsement of Plum Creek’s Moosehead Lake development plan. While the dialogue was civil, it did not appear to quell the frustrations that prompted Monday’s protests and that likely will dog Plum Creek’s controversial application for the foreseeable future. “I’m not sure how high our expectations can be when we are talking to regulators about moral issues,” said Ethan Miller, one of two members of the Native Forest Network who met with LURC and Department of Conservation officials. More people have participated in the public review of Plum Creek’s proposal for 975 house lots and two resorts near Moosehead than any other project in LURC history, according to state officials. Thousands of people have shared often emotion-filled thoughts on whether Plum Creek’s plan is the Moosehead region’s pathway to economic revival, environmental ruin or something in between. So it’s not surprising that Plum Creek’s opponents have criticized the commission for not changing the most contentious aspects of the plan, especially a proposal for more than 400 housing units near Lily Bay. On Monday, four women with the organization Maine Earth First! bound themselves together in LURC’s Augusta office and accused the commission of ignoring the will of more than 1,500 people who wrote in opposing development at Lily Bay. About a half-dozen others joined in the protest, which ended with the four being arrested and the promise of a follow-up meeting with LURC staff on Tuesday. LURC director Catherine Carroll and state conservation commissioner Patrick McGowan said Tuesday that all of those concerns were heard by the commission. But LURC’s citizen commissioners are bound by statutes and guidelines, they said. “Our job and our obligation is to follow the rules and regulations that the Legislature gave us,” Carroll told Miller and Native Forest Network member Emily Posner during the meeting. “We are a regulatory agency, we are not pollsters … so [the commissioners] cannot make decisions based on numbers” of comments. But Posner and Miller countered that their organization and other groups presented ample evidence that the development was inconsistent with LURC guidelines, particularly in the area of “demonstrated need” for such development. Posner also suggested that residents’ comments should be given more weight by LURC. “We believe the commission could have said no to this project and still followed the process,” Miller said. McGowan called Plum Creek’s case the most transparent review in LURC history and pointed out that the Seattle-based company made significant changes in response to feedback from the public or groups. Plum Creek will be back before LURC today when the commission formally votes on a series of changes the company would have to make for the plan to receive regulatory approval. LURC will meet at 9:30 a.m. at the Spectacular Event Center in Bangor. A final vote on Plum Creek’s application is expected early next year. Native Forest Network and other groups already are vowing to fight a decision in support of the current plan, likely through court appeals.
Comments
Just send the environmental nuts back out of state. Earth First demonstrators are environmental terrorists who have caused DEATH on the west coast with some of their antics, like putting spikes in trees just before they were to be cut. When the chainsaw cuts into the spike extremely serious injury and death can occur. These idiots should be spiked to a jail cell. It's good to see the environmental whackoes - unhappy. They have caused so much pain and the loss of jobs to so many in Maine over the past 30 years!
It's also good to see that LURC is striving for balance while safe guarding the environment and the right of property owners to increase value on their property. "particularly in the area of “demonstrated need” for such development."
It's private property. If then want to build on it so be it. follow epa and construction ordinances and put alot of people back to work that need it.
R You have to wonder just where these protesters live and work that they have a position on "demonstrated need." Whose need I wonder? Certainly not those who struggle to just find the money to heat their homes or feed their children each winter. I'm thankful for the developers' patience through all this Maniac insanity. How will Plum Creek's plan help the people struggling to find the money to feed their families and heat their homes? Since Plum Creek has taken over forestry operations, they've reduced the amount of people being employed working in the woods they bought. They've wrecked some of the best deer yards and streams in Maine, where people in the past have been able to get fish and deer to feed their families. They've torn up roads and left the local communities picking up the repair bill. Plum Creek's own studies say over 70% of the jobs this plan could create wouldn't be filled by local people. Their own studies have shown that their high-end housing will increase the average home price and taxes in the area. And their own reports lay out a plan of tripling the amount of waste generated in the area, and shipping it out to West Old Town, Norridgewock, and Plymouth, how will that help people living in the communities where the waste is dumped?
As for it being the private property of Plum Creek, the largest landowner in the country, that land was bought at a bargain rate of under $200 an acre. If it wasn't for Public subsidies, tree growth tax cuts, and the fact that the land was zoned for forestry, Plum Creek wouldn't have gotten the land so cheap in the first place. Plum Creek bought the land with the agreement that it'd continue to be used for forestry, they went into the whole deal originally saying there were no plans to liquidate and develop, and that they planned to continue in forestry. Now they've turned around and want to liquidate it and make big bucks - what of all the Public subsidies they got through the tree growth tax cuts, are they repaying that?
Everyone's talking about private landowner rights, how about landowner responsibilities? If you own land next door to me, you don't have the right to take actions that will leave my well water unsafe to drink, or to tear up the road leading to my home. Yet big landowning corporations based thousands of miles away get away with all sorts of disrespectful and illegal actions, they are not good neighbors, and still some people come to their defense, claiming they have the right to do anything they want if they have the money to get the piece of paper that says they own the land.
I'm thankful that Maine has a healthy tradition of people thinking for themselves and questioning these scams brought in from corporations looking to make a quick buck at the expense of the land and the health of our families. I respect people who are willing to take a risk and stand up to bullies that are harming their communities. |
|
