LURC is facing its tipping point

The Land Use Regulation Commission deserves accolades for its recent approach to the massive Plum Creek proposal. LURC held hearings throughout the state, listening to hundreds of individuals in support of, opposed to and neutral to the company’s development plan. Despite all these open hearings, it is unlikely anyone will remember a single word of testimony or who spoke at any of these meetings.

What will echo throughout Maine for years to come will be the impact of this decision. Malcolm Gladwell, in “The Tipping Point,” noted that small changes can have big effects. LURC’s choice as to what Plum Creek will or will not be allowed to do is an example of such a change and will set the precedent for future developments of land in the Unorganized Territory and ripple throughout all of Maine.

LURC is in the process of updating its own comprehensive land use plan, which is the agency’s primary policy and planning document. In this context, the Plum Creek decision may assume even greater import.

The debate over Plum Creek’s proposal has centered on three key issues: economic development; industry or the lack thereof in the developed area especially as it relates to conservation; and the image and reputation of Plum Creek itself – simply put, can Plum Creek be trusted to deliver on its promises?

The development plan suggests that 975 house lots (300 shorefront lots) and two large resorts will be developed. This and other proposed actions are presented as “economic development.” There is absolutely no doubt that the building of these houses and resorts and the necessary infrastructure will generate jobs. Some have noted that at least 658 jobs will be generated in the building of these facilities. But who will have these jobs, and how many high-paying jobs will remain once this phase is complete? Are individuals in the area

likely to be hired, or will others from the rest of the state (and out of state) be employed?

Economic development is defined in a variety of ways, but most definitions include the creation of long-term jobs and increases in wealth and standards of living in the immediate area. After the facilities are built, the roads and infrastructure complete, how many jobs at what wages will remain in the Greenville area? What are the likely selling prices of the 975 house lots, and how many will be set aside for affordable housing? This is important, as it will suggest the nature of home ownership. If the owners are going to reside in the area, where are the new employment opportunities for them? If there are no substantial increases in employment opportunities, then it is likely that the houses will be expensive and that it will be absentee ownership. This will lead to uneven, seasonal effects and not contribute in major, ongoing ways to permanent economic growth in the region. Similarly, people going to the resorts are likely to remain at the resort and not spend a great deal of time or money in the surrounding region.

The proposed plan allows for the development of four sporting camps, three commercial sites (for camping or storage facilities), and the potential for permanent sawmills, water extraction (think Poland Springs), cell phone towers, wind power facilities, mining excavation and gravel pits. The questions that need to be addressed, among many others, include: How do these types of commercial activities interact with conservation and residential development? How do these potential commercial activities compete against or complement already existing area businesses? How are traffic patterns in the local communities affected by these activities along with the resort traffic and the increased residential traffic?

The last issue is the image and reputation of Plum Creek itself. LURC is stretched to the limit with this proposal and its ability to oversee such a massive development is of some ongoing concern. As such, Plum Creek will be left largely unsupervised. Can Plum Creek be trusted to do what it says it will do?

In 2006, Plum Creek received the largest fine in Maine history for violations of the Forest Practices Act. The fine was more than three times the next largest fine levied in Maine history. Plum Creek also developed a 7,500-foot-long power line corridor at its First Roach Pond subdivision near Moosehead Lake without a permit, in violation of Maine law. If LURC does not have the staff to supervise the development as it unfolds, we are left to rely on the goodwill of Plum Creek.

These are important issues for all residents of Maine, but especially for the residents of Greenville and the surrounding areas as they will bear the impact of this development for a very long time. LURC needs to consider the impact of this decision very carefully as it is its “tipping point.” We are all watching.

John F. Mahon is the founding director of the School of Policy and International Affairs at the University of Maine.