Questions about Plum Creek's proposal? Post them here.

Hey everyone let's get a dialogue going here.  If you have any questions about what is happening at the hearings or what is in the Plum Creek development proposal let us know and I’ll do my best to answer you here.

Diano Circo
North Woods Policy Advocate and Outreach Coordinator

Comments

[Beth]

Chuck, I disagree - there are a lot of folks who live in Greenville who aren't "millionaires that don't want any new neighbors." Here is an op-ed that was written by a longtime Greenville resident that has been posted on NRCM's site for quite a while.

The Unproven Claims of Plum Creek
Monday November 5th, 2007

by Loren Ritchie
Bangor Daily News op-ed

In response to Meg Haskell’s article on Plum Creek stumping for support in Bangor, "Plum Creek head seeks support at Bangor forum" (BDN, Oct. 24), it might behoove one to note the selective nature of the audience and the emphasis on economics that prevailed throughout. I’m sure that many of us who live in this neck of the woods would like to have the clout to selectively choose our audience as well.

I mention economics because that seemed to be the theme, as it has been since the inception of Plum Creek Timber Co.’s concept plan for the Moosehead region. If one defines "economics" as a quest for greater profits, then the tone of the Bangor meeting would certainly accommodate just about all of the participants, but it is questionable whether or not the concept plan would achieve that end as it applies to the Moosehead region. Despite claims made by Plum Creek and its supporters that this proposal will lift us all from poverty and despair, there remains any number of unanswered questions, many of which have been thrashed around for almost three years and are still open to skepticism.

If one thinks that the Plum Creek proposal will fill the halls of good old Greenville High when the area will be loaded with temporary workers traveling daily from out of town, coupled with the uncertainty that surrounds the issue of school consolidation, then have at it. Along those lines, the proposal also calls for 2,300 housing units that would mostly be filled by people whose child-bearing years are well behind them and subsequently they would fit the seasonal resident category. This category, by the way, comes with taxes being paid in much of the unorganized territory and absolutely none in the town of Greenville as Plum Creek has chosen not to locate any of its proposed lots in this community.

As to the 100 acres being made available in Sapling Township by Plum Creek, ostensibly for a sawmill, at a time when this industry is shutting down all over the country and Canada as well, the feasibility of such a project escapes me. This is not a proposal unique to the concept plan incidentally, as this has been on the drawing board for some time, to no avail.

This is primarily a tourist area, has been, and will be for years to come. The best that we can hope for is more shops, more people, more construction within the town of Greenville itself, and quit looking for the silver bullet that remains elusive even after decades of effort.

As to the proposed Lily Bay resort, it should be taken off the drawing board altogether, for two reasons. First, the impact on the animal habitat and their travel corridors would be substantial and would just add to the loss of more deer yards as a result of the cutting practices already employed by Plum Creek. Secondly, our much heralded infrastructure could very well become a disaster with the demand on roads, refuse, fire, police, mental stability, etc.

The current plan offers 400,000 acres in easement, conditional on Land Use Regulation Commission approval. If that is not forthcoming then the offer becomes null and void. What all of this means of course, is that we are being held hostage by the conditions of the easement while simultaneously offering our tax money to support it. Only in America.

It is also questionable if the demand for development within the concept plan is even there. Given the current status of our economy and the overwhelming LURC approval of Matt Polstein’s Millinocket proposal, coupled with the one for similar development in the Brownville area, Plum Creek’s proposal could very well be pre-empted in terms of demand.

The proposed nordic resort and development adjacent to Big Squaw Mountain makes exceptional sense, especially if it could every be coupled with a revitalized alpine ski area at the mountain itself, but that possibility is a long shot at best. Selective shoreline and back lot development is also very feasible if specific site locations were made available, and additionally, if some part of the development could be relocated to the town of Greenville itself.

As a graduate of Greenville High School, a fervent supporter of the community, having given thousands of hours in community service, and as one whose life was saved once, if not twice by our exceptional hospital and staff, I’m just one of many who want nothing more than a better life for the people of Greenville, but I jut can’t find it in me to support the Plum Creek proposal as presented. When the discussion started almost three years ago, people were saying to me, "you can’t live in the past, change is good and we have to move on." I took these and similar comments somewhat to heart, and tried to look at and accommodate all sides of the discussion and until a couple months ago being rational was an acceptable virtue.

After much self reflection, however, it struck me that at my age I can live in the past, change isn’t necessarily good and I don’t want to move on. It’s selfish, it’s personal and it lets me feel good about the time I have left in this beautiful place. If even part of it is there for my grandchildren, then it was time well spent.

Loren Ritchie resides in Greenville.

[chuck hamlett]

is stopping plum creek gonna bring back the character that's been gone for so many years? it's just a bunch of millionaires that don't want any new neighbors.

[Diano Circo]

Joe,

Plum Creek initially bought a little over 900,000 acres in Maine from SAPPI (South African Pulp and Paper Inc.) in 1998. Before SAPPI the land was owned by Scott Paper and before that a company named St. Regis. If you’re interested in the history of some of the more recent land transactions in Maine take a look at this timeline from our website http://www.nrcm.org/land_sales.asp. The reason Plum Creek was able to buy the land for less $200 an acre was because it was, and still is, zoned for commercial timber harvesting and primitive recreation. What Plum Creek is attempting to do now is rezone the area to allow residential and commercial development including resorts.

If the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) decides to reject Plum Creek’s proposal, the company has a few options. In my opinion the most likely option would be to come back with a more refined and scaled down rezoning proposal (Concept Plan). The Commission’s rules allow any landowner to petition to change the zoning of their land and there is no limit to how many times they can ask for a rezoning. Analysis done by the Open Space Institute (OSI) along with Industrial Economics have shown that it is in Plum Creek’s best financial interest to do some kind of concept plan because it would give them long term predictability on their investment. Concept Plans lock in a rezoning for a thirty-year period.

There have been a lot of threats leveled by Plum Creek and its supporters that if they don’t get what they are asking for in this proposal there will be a rash of unplanned development on Plum Creek’s property. The dirty secret is that there is really only one small loophole in the LURC rules that would allow any development without oversight from the Commission. It was designed for small landowners who in an emergency (i.e., medical bills or to send a child to college), could carve off one lot every five years without formal review. No one has ever attempted to exploit this loophole in the way that has been threatened. It is very likely that if a large landowner tried to do this, LURC and the State Legislature would close the loophole. But even ignoring this, it would take years for Plum Creek to divide its property this way and would cost them an enormous amount of time and money. Based on the OSI analysis, Plum Creek actually would only be able to develop about 618 house lots in 30 years without a concept plan, much less than the 975 they are proposing now. It would also be risky doing development this way, there would be no guarantee for the company that the loophole wouldn’t be closed at any given time.

I’m simply reading the tea leaves in trying to predict when we might see a decision by the Commission. The intervener sessions will end in the middle of January. Once that is over the parties will need to submit what are called Finding of Fact; really just summaries of what they think came out of the sessions. The Commission will need to review these and then regroup to deliberate on what they are going to do. It is impossible to know how long the deliberations will take. My guess would be it will likely take until March, that is unless Plum Creek decides to make amendments to their proposal. It is hard to guess what would happen if Plum Creek makes changes. Depending on the significance of the changes we may need to have additional public hearings which would push this process back even further.

- Diano

[Joseph]

Hello,

I have a few basic questions.

How was Plum Creek able to amass such a large number of acres for such a small amount of money? Who did they purchase the land from?

If LURC rejects PC's new proposition then can PC still develop some of its property on a smaller level? Or does the rejection completely disallow development?

How long after the last meeting does LURC have to make a final decision?

Thank you!
Joe from Boston

[Jay]

I find it absolutely incredible that there is virtually no newspaper coverage of the intervenor hearings. Two weeks and all we get are old stories about tight security.

I must say, ever since finding out that Rick Holley, CEO of Plum Creek sits on the board of Blethn Corporation which owns the Press-Hearld, etc., I am highly suspicious.

Can't we get other media like the NY Times to report. This has implications for all the Maine Woods. What about the Portland Phoenix? Where is the media coverage? Where is the media coverage of the fact that Holley is on the board of a company that seems to have declared a news blackout?

[Constance]

Dear Diano,

No, your answer doesn't feel like it is spin, but I'm not sure you (I mean, NRCM) really "get it." I am a member of both groups and so I get the letters from The Conservancy (and I also read their opinion stories in the newspaper). To say the Conservancy has not taken a position is very naive. Don't kid yourself. The Conservancy just doesn't have the courage to put it in a statement. All their materials promote the development because they promote the conservation "deal." They are tied together as one. NRCM has more guts but not enough to be honest with your members, the public or the media to call the Conservancy on this. I hope you won't look back if the development goes through and wish you had spoken up about this.

You do not need to respond. I have taken enough of your busy time. Thank you.

[Diano Circo, North Woods Policy Advocate, NRCM]

Constance,

You'll have to let me know if this feels like "spin". My perspective on this is colored by having working closely with The Nature Conservancy on many issues. I think first you have to understand each organization's mission. TNC's mission is to protect certain ecologically significant areas. They buy and protect critically important lands. It's an important job they do.

NRCM is an advocacy organization that has been working to protect the North Woods since 1959. As you may know, Maine's North Woods is the largest undeveloped forest east of the Mississippi. As part of our mission we closely follow the Land Use Regulation Commission and have expertise in land use planning and development issues; A sometimes separate but equally important job.

There has been a lot of confusion in the public about this, and I don't necessarily think NRCM and TNC disagree on the development part of the proposal because TNC has not taken a position on the development part of the Plum Creek proposal. They have simply been involved with the negotiation of a $35 million conservation deal. Where the issue gets sticky is that at moment Plum Creek has linked the conservation to the development proposal. They have said that unless they get the development they won't do the conservation.

We certainly believe that there should be significant conservation in the Moosehead Lake region; we've been working to make it happen for decades and included it in the "Vision for the Moosehead Lake Region" that you can find at http://www.nrcm.org/publication_alternative_vision.asp. However, we think the conservation should be based on its own merit and not tied to allowing Plum Creek to do development. We believe Plum Creek's development proposal is seriously flawed and woudl destroy the remote character of the region and cause undue adverse impacts to habitat for threatened Canada lynx, native brook trout and other wildlife as well.

This is not an easy issue to explain; it's certainly not a black and white issue. I hope my explanation doesn't come across as "spin".

Diano

[Diano Circo, North Woods Policy Advocate, NRCM]

Sonja P,

Good question. There really isn't an easy way to get an exact count so please hold-on as I try to give you an estimate and explain myself at the same time. We know for sure that over the past few years they have hired at least four Maine law firms. We first found this out a couple of years ago when we were trying to find pro-bono help. We called a lot of firms only to find out that they couldn't help because they had already been retained by Plum Creek. In addition to this they have their internal Seattle-based lawyers and another out of Washington D.C. that has been involved periodically.

If you were to go to these intervener sessions what you would see would be two tables of well-dressed people representing Plum Creek. The faces rotate in and out and it can be hard to tell who is an actual certified lawyer and who is a paralegal, public relations person, or just a run-of-the-mill Seattle executive. Based on the faces I know, my conservative guess would be that at any given time Plum Creek has at least four lawyers at their table. Now, there are many more running around the room and consulting from the audience. Often after a certain line of questioning you'll see someone go up front and grab either one of the lawyers or a witness and disappear into a backroom.

To make things even murkier, there are several interveners who have come into this process supporting Plum Creek. One group called the Coalition to Preserve and Grown Northern Maine is what we call an Astroturf group; fake grassroots. They were set up by a law firm here in Augusta, Eaton Peabody, and as we understand it are solely funded by Plum Creek. We had suspected that Plum Creek was the sole funder all along but it was confirmed under cross examination a few days ago. At one point their contact email address actually went directly to the law office. The Coalition also has a law firm working for it in the intervener sessions and is represented every day by a lawyer.

Besides all of this I have my suspicions about other interveners as well. There are at least two maybe three other groups who have intervened on behalf of Plum Creek that I suspect could not afford the amount of legal power they have at the moment on their own. But without solid proof it's hard for me speculate much further.

On the second part of your question; NRCM is lucky to have found a great team of attorneys. They have been doing a fantastic job especially considering our financial limitations compared to the nearly bottomless pockets of Plum Creek. But we also have another advantage: community support. It has been folks like you who have been willing to stand up and speak-out that have truly made us a formidable force in this process. While we have volunteers helping us, Plum Creek has to pay law firms to get people to come to the public hearings.

[Constance]

Here is a question I have been wondering about for a long time, and I hope you can answer me honestly, with no "spin." I am a long-time Nature Conservancy member and just recently joined NRCM, but I am completely confused by why you and the Conservancy are not in agreement. I have asked same of the Conservancy and feel like I am getting "spun" to. Can you please give me a true response? Thank you.

[Sonja P]

How many lawyers DOES Plum Creek have anyway? How can a nonprofit like NRCM compete with a $5 billion company???!

[Diano Circo, North Woods Policy Advocate, NRCM]

Thomas J,

I've been following the Land Use Regulation Commission for about five years now. In my experience they're professional and honestly care about the future of their jurisdiction. About two years ago the Commission rejected a development proposal for Burnt Jacket peninsula on east shore of Moosehead Lake. The development proposed 70 house lots on the remote western shore of the peninsula. I think they sent a strong message in that decision. The decision actually said, "rezoning is not an entitlement." So I think the Commission has shown the ability in the past to take tough stands. But you are right to wonder how the Commission will respond to such an onslaught of legal horsepower. This is really new territory for the Commission. Never has a landowner attempted such a massive development or complex proposal. In some ways we're crossing into uncharted waters. But I believe the Commission is taking its job very seriously. Both the LURC staff and Commissioners have been very engaged in this process and it is clear that they have been doing their homework.

The best thing a "regular" Mainer can do is speak from the heart. As you can see from this blog, the legal arguments are being made by the dozens of lawyers camped out a few blocks from here. I would recommend writing a letter to LURC or speaking at one of the remaining public hearings (Portland, December 15th and Greenville, December 16th) and talking about what makes the Moosehead Lake region special to you and what you think will be lost if Plum Creek has its way.

Diano

[Thomas J]

I have a few questions for you, Diano.

1) How much faith do you have in the commissioners? Can they read through Plum Creek's smoke (I have not been to the hearings, but I am assuming the room is full of hot air every time someone with Plum Creek opens their mouth)

2) What are the points that every day people like me (a Mainer with no expertise except that I love this great state) should make to the commission?

Thank you for your valuable time.