Land deals stand in stark contrast

The May 21 Bangor Daily News featured a story about the conservation of 342,000 acres in a deal put together by Downeast Lakes Land Trust, which raised $34.8 million to purchase the land and conservation easements. Nine years ago some Grand Lake Stream residents, concerned about “the long-term future of the working forests and the growing threat of development,” decided to take action, and subsequently raised the funds to create one of the largest conservation blocks the state has ever seen. These folks deserve our thanks. They saw a need for conservation and met that need.

Contrast this with Plum Creek Timber Co.’s proposal for massive development in the Moosehead region. Proponents argue that the donation of 90,000 acres of industrial forest conservation land in exchange for allowing Plum Creek to develop 975 subdivision lots and an additional 1,050 resort units, many of which will be seasonal home lots, is a worthwhile deal. Taxpayers are also being given the privilege of helping to purchase an easement on 266,000 acres of industrial forest for $10 million, raised through tax dollars and private donations, and purchasing in fee simple 75,000 acres of conservation land, for $25 million raised in a similar manner. We are “warned” that without approval of this plan, this land will be developed to the maximum capacity over the coming years.

After two days of staff presentations of recommended changes to the Plum Creek concept plan, the Land Use Regulation Commission seemed willing to grant the rezoning application if the company was willing to make the recommended changes. Various commissioners made it clear that the only reason they were considering supporting Plum Creek’s plan was the large amount of conservation land that would be made available. Staff and consultants made it clear that the conservation land transactions must be consummated before issuing any development approvals, recommended significant changes in permitted uses on the conservation land, and strongly suggested that the conservation easements be held by the Bureau of Parks and Lands, a state agency.

The juxtaposition of these two projects that concern almost identical amounts of conservation land, for an almost identical cost, is stark. Downeast Lakes worked for many years to create a conservation project that served the needs of the region’s residents, including recognition of their economic needs. As the Downeast Lakes Land Trust Web site notes, the project is “designed to sustain a natural resource based, rural community economy … to take advantage of this incredible conservation opportunity, one that will offer support to the local economy, linked by tradition to the natural resource base for sustenance.”

The Plum Creek project, however, is not regionally initiated or controlled by the residents of the Moosehead region. Nor does it provide, much less sustain, real economic development. As the director of the Maine State Housing Authority stated during the Plum Creek hearings, most of the workers to be employed by the resorts, the only long-term economic engines created by the project, won’t be able to purchase homes because their wages will be too low. And, in a very significant comment, one of the consultants at the Plum Creek deliberations stated that much of the work force would be coming from thousands of miles away, and would be employed under work visas. So much for jobs for locals.

Last week’s LURC deliberations showed that conservation land is key to the commission’s approval of the rezoning petition. So why are they turning to a model that sacrifices the environment on the altar of development, rather than to the model used so successfully in a neighboring region?

The Downeast folks raised $34.8 million to conserve 342,000 acres in their region. Yet LURC appears to be on the verge of allowing the development of two huge resorts, 975 subdivision lots and 1,050 resort lots in order to facilitate the purchase of easement and fee conservation land totaling 342,000 acres for a cost of $35 million. Same cost, same acreage, but Downeast gets pure conservation land and no development, and Moosehead gets industrial conservation and excessive development.

Why does anyone think this makes sense? If LURC rejected this proposal, we’d lose the 90,000-acre balance easement, but we’d also be rid of the out-of-scale proposed development, and LURC could get down to the job of creating an appropriate zoning scheme for the region.

Yet LURC appears to be poised to fall for the fallacious argument that the only way to conserve land is by acquiescing to the demands of developers who are using specious promises of conservation as a carrot. But there is another path, and the Downeast Lakes Land Trust has shown us that path.

Lynne Williams is a lawyer in Bar Harbor. She represents the Forest Ecology Network and RESTORE: The North Woods.