Sears Island Partition Plan Thrown Back
State Legislature's Transportation Committee puts freeze on island partition plan
|
THE SMOKING GUNS Emails from officials of Maine Sierra Club and Maine Coast Heritage Trust suggest both NGOs were prepared to renege on their promise not to interfere with state efforts to attract and license a container port and railyard covering the western third of Sears Island. Imagine these two groups' surprise when the Maine Legislature's Transportation Committee proved as faithless to them as they themselves had been toward Maine wild Nature!
From Ken Cline, Sierra Club's Conservation Chairman for Maine:
>From: kenneth cline
================================================= From MCHT ----Original Message----- From: Scott Dickerson [mailto:scottd@coastalmountains.org]
Subject: current position. Port and Preservation-- We should expect to get some negativity from those who have not been part of this long, negotiated SIPI process and do not have a full understanding of our strategy. This is how I strategically analyze the current position of the Preservation and Port Affinity Group. IF: We obtain a Consensus Agreement at this time to recommend that 700-800 acres of the island will be placed under a conservation easement and that 141-241 acres of the island may continue to be evaluated by transportation interests as a future port facility, under the terms of what we are negotiating for in the Consensus Agreement; THEN: The majority of the island will be permanently protected for public access, educational uses, and conservation; AND We will have positioned our affinity group as by far the most rational and fair vision for the future of Sears Island, giving us considerable political leverage for not only securing the majority of the island for conservation now, but also to ultimately press for conservation of the entire island; AND Increasing utilization of the island for public access and education will build an increasing constituency for full protection of the island; AND The port interests will still have to demonstrate 1) need for a facility that cannot be served elsewhere, 2) compliance with environmental laws, and 3) financial capacity to construct and operate the port; AND Many conservation and environmental interests will continue to have the opportunity to intervene in the regulatory process to contest the port, an intervention that has prevailed for almost 40 years. IF: We stand pat on our original Preservation and Port Affinity Group vision statement; THEN: The SIPI process arrives at stalemate except on some token agreement items; AND The Preservation and Port Affinity Group will lose some of its political leverage as the rational and fair position, making future efforts with the legislature and governor less probable for success; AND All 941 acres of the island instead of only 141-241 acres remains open for port proposals, as well as any other industrial, commercial, or residential development proposals. In essence, I think we gain a great deal from entering into an effectively negotiated Consensus Agreement, and have actually diminished the risk that the island will be developed.
Scott ___________________________ Scott Dickerson, Executive Director
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Scott Dickerson [mailto:scottd@coastalmountains.org]
Subject: Re: security issues Lorin,
If a proposal for a port comes forth soon after the Legislature and Governor act on the Consensus Agreement, I expect that it will take more than two years to proceed through its data gathering, planning process, negotiation with the State for use of the island land, financing arrangements, and permit process. The issue of port security will be addressed during the permit process, though the proposer of the port will be considering it during it data gathering and planning process. The placement of the conservation easement and associated public access will predate the receipt of a permit for a port. Given that, I expect that any port proposal will need to present a plan for coexistence with the conservation easement and public access, including across the causeway. If the port proposer choses to attempt to stop public access, I expect that there will be a very strong response by the public (which will have increased its activity on the island by then) to oppose the violation of the intent of the conservation easement and Consensus Agreement. Again, I am offering my best estimates about probabilities. My estimate is that once the 700-800 acres of the island are conserved and truly open to the public, the issue of port security is likely to either be neutral in terms of affect on public use of the conservation area of the island, or will create another issue that will mobilize the public to oppose the granting of a permit for the port. If my analysis of the probabilities is correct, then I think we have no reason to deal with the issue of port security impact at this stage of the process. Scott Scott Dickerson, Executive Director
|