The unproven claims of Plum Creek

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.