A group looking for agreement on the future of Sears Island has made progress and should continue its work to develop a mixed-use plan for the state-owned island. Such a plan could be used by the Legislature to evaluate proposals for development or other uses of the 940-acre island. All proposals could then be evaluated by lawmakers based on the likelihood of preserving or bringing value to the region, as measured by conservation benefits, employment opportunities and tax revenue.

The planning committee has made substantial progress since its early meetings when two “affinity groups” were identified – one wanting the island run as a state park and the other wanting a port to be its primary purpose – and seemed impossibly far apart. Since then, they have agreed on what should not be on Sears Island – a liquefied natural gas terminal, for example. They have agreed that the island will remain in DOT ownership and that the department will work with nearby towns and other groups to see that the island is used to meet transportation needs while also enhancing tourism and the local economy.

At the meeting last week, preservation proponents on the planning committee gave up a lot of ground to agree to the possibility of port development on the island. They reasonably want existing port facilities at Mack Point to be utilized to the fullest extent possible and expanded as necessary before there is consideration of building on Sears Island. This makes sense and is a substantial shift from their earlier position to oppose any port development on Sears Island.

Port proponents want recreational facilities on the island on hold until a potential port on Sears Island is permitted. Their concern that established recreational use could make it more difficult to have a port permitted by state and federal agencies is understandable. But this approach would tie up the island for decades, effectively maintaining the status quo with concrete barriers, a chain link fence and lack of facilities deterring many potential visitors.

It would also force Searsport and other nearby towns to forgo potential revenue and taxes from activities on the 940-acre island.

The planning group, which is scheduled to meet again next month, can provide lawmakers with a good framework within which they can consider proposals for varying uses of Sears Island. To move beyond the years of rancor and inaction, however, lawmakers should use that framework to move toward deciding how best to use the island. Proposals for a port, a research facility, trails, an outdoor education center, for example, could be given to lawmakers. They could then pick the uses that would most benefit the region and the state.

This would be much better than continuing the current island limbo.