Is Plum Creek a qualified guardian?

Our nation’s modern economic framework encourages corporations to initiate public-private partnerships with their consumers. Citizens expect powerful economic entities to voluntarily improve various facets of their community. The theoretically generated partnership equally benefits all citizens and corporations involved.

Accurately evaluating any public-private partnership, however, requires the investigator to thoroughly consider how the respective initiative influences the target population, their surrounding environment, and the local economic framework.

Plum Creek Timber Co. recognizes society’s expectations and frequently establishes partnerships with communities. On a page of their public Web site, www.plumcreek.com/community, the corporation contends, “The mission of the Plum Creek Foundation is to provide philanthropic contributions to support and improve the general welfare and quality of life in the communities where Plum Creek operates.”

Additionally, in an April 4 press release, the manager of Plum Creek’s Northeast Region stated, “This new plan is the product of input from hundreds of members of the community who cherish the Moosehead region.” Plum Creek’s focus on community should not fade during the evaluation of their proposed development projects.

The company’s incessant underlining of its communal decision-making processes invokes a key question: Does Plum Creek Timber Co. qualify as a guardian of the Moosehead Lake community? While the corporation’s executives emphasize the philanthropic nature of their relationships with communities and the environment, the files they provide to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission suggest an alternative motive – profit. Plum Creek’s 2005 10-K filing reads, “We focus on realizing the maximum value potential of our extensive property ownership.”

Realizing the “maximum value potential” of their land requires Plum Creek to uphold good relationships with communities. The outrage expressed by the Moosehead Lake community following the release of Plum Creek’s 2005 proposal forced the corporation to adjust its development scheme.

Plum Creek’s executives understand that spiteful interactions with communities could cause Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission to reject the company’s controversial proposal. Furthermore, the corporation directly addresses the problematic financial risk associated with owning environmentally significant lands in their 2005 10-K filing. The document affirms, “Plum Creek seeks to exchange lands which have high environmental and other public values for lands that are more suitable for commercial timber management.”

The key contradictions that emerge when comparing Plum Creek’s public and SEC files require further investigation. Plum Creek will continue to demonstrate commitment to the communities of the Moosehead Lake region, so long as that commitment remains profitable. Therefore, citizens should have access to detailed information regarding how specific actions taken by Plum Creek could transform the local economic framework and employment opportunities.

LURC ought to accurately evaluate past outcomes of tourism-based development projects in order to formulate honest predictions regarding who will benefit from the corporation’s proposal. Citizens of the region should be wary of Plum Creek’s pledge to create secure and decent wage employment opportunities.

My goal was not to eliminate the possibility that Plum Creek Timber Co. could bring great opportunity and increased wealth to Maine people. However, if legally binding directives fail to solidify the desires of affected citizens, Plum Creek’s quest to “realize the maximum value potential” of its land will supersede the corporation’s self-proclaimed role as a guardian of the Moosehead Lake community.

Nicholas M. Ware is from Passadumkeag. He is a sophomore at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., majoring in human biology and minoring in environmental studies.