A sharply divided committee on the future of Sears Island will have failed its mission if it does not come to agreement on the outline of a plan for use of the 940-acre state-owned parcel. Failure is the continuation of the status quo, which means an uninviting chain link fence at the island entrance, continued community division and suspicion. This is not progress and it is not acceptable.

There is still room for compromise, which should include the possibility of limited development coupled with preservation and recreation. This is outlined in a five-point draft consensus proposal that the group discussed at its last meeting.

The proposal includes some agreement that there will not be a liquefied natural gas facility on Sears Island, that the cargo port at neighboring Mack Point will be built to capacity before the island is considered for a port facility, and that some land may be set aside for the possibility of a port. The other two points are that outdoor recreation opportunities will be enhanced and that more work needs to be done, by the state, neighboring towns and interested parties, to refine whatever plan, if any, is developed.

To solidify this compromise position, the Department of Transportation, which owns the island, should commit to analyzing current and future uses of Mack Point to determine how much more capacity is available there before port facilities on Sears Island are needed.

Preservation advocates can help by writing a specific plan for developing and managing recreational activities on the island.

The 42-member Sears Island planning committee faced a difficult task of moving beyond decades of division over the parcel. Splitting into two “affinity groups” furthered that division and left middle ground, such as development of a biotech center or tourism facilities, off the table.

The challenge for the committee, which is formally scheduled to meet only one more time, is to see beyond their ultimate desires – a cargo port for one group and a state park for the other – to realize that not compromising means either option can only be pursued through contentious permitting, legislative and legal arenas.

Without agreement, the status quo remains. This may be acceptable to those who enjoy a quiet walk on the island, but it doesn’t remove the developmental pressures, keeps nearby landowners guessing and it is not a justification for permanently tying up an island that can be a recreational resource and home to well-thought-out development that creates jobs and puts money into local coffers.

What is needed is a plan that preserves part of Sears Island while promoting development on the rest so that the island can truly be a resource to neighboring communities and the state.

Time for this group is running out, but it is not too late.