Huge Moosehead Lake developement moving along (Augusta, Bucksport: amusement park, broker, lawyers)

[NJ Bear]

Went back and looked at some of the proposal docs. Yes it is true, th enumber of "regular" residential units is capped at 995. However there is a lot of fine print there... this does not include housing for proeprty management and employees, employees of the resort facilities (oh yes, don't forget about those...) etc; it does not include affordable housing units (I haven't been able to find anything that DOES indicate how many units are proposed... that at first glance appears to be a very dangerous loophole; it does not inlcude 800 units worth of resort accomodations at the two resorts. It does not reflect the areas proposed for business, commerical, and industrial use.

I guess in summary, it could be a lot worse; speaking in sheer land area numbers, most of the lakeshre andsurrounding lands would remain undeveloped, and the idea that most of the land surrounding the lakeshore would be preserved is certainly appealing. At the same time though, I recollect my experiences in the Greenville area and then picture the impact of a few thousand more summer or year round residents, and a couple of strip malls, and never mind all of the tourists... ye gads, when I think about my time around Moosehead and then picture it becoming all "touristy" and kitschy with all the hokey stuff that goes along with it... personally my reasons for stopping in Greenville fo rmore than gas would just not be there anymore. Eh, maybe I'm just old school and think Plum Creek would be best just sticking to the timber industry...

I've seen so many lakes in NY and PA developed with similar plans adn while the sheer numbers of land are devloped vs conserved may LOOK good, the truth is that the look and feel and recreational qualities of the area are irreparably changed.

[MRVphotog]

Originally Posted by dmyankee

Now, if we could get the idiot who owns the ski area to sell to someone who gives a ****...

Iwonder if he is hoping the Plum Creek thing goes thru so he can sell Big Squaw(Moose Mtn for the politically correct) as it's a no brainer that having a viable ski resort there will help attract buyers. Not everyone likes to snowmobile in the winter. LOL

In the short term it is a crying shame that he won't fix the lift to the summit or at least sell it to someone who will. What a great ski hill it is.

This project is huge in addition to the house lots you have the two resorts and marina. It's been a major battle, litterly is some cases, for both sides ever since it was proposed about 5 years ago.

Moosedhead is amazing. We went up one time for the National Fly-In in the fall. Had a blast.

Plum Creek is a big company traded on the NYSE and is the largest landowner in the US. The project has been greatly reduced in size from it's initial proposal.

I have a friend who has an organic farm just south of Greenville. He has a personal theory that Plum Creek is hoping that after they get this thing built Maine will elect a pro-gambling Governor they can get a casino built. That WOULD be a tough sell. The fight over the big proposed Casino in Sanford was statewide and was voted down by state referendum about 5/6 years ago. Can't remember how close the vote was.

[Pete676]

wow

[Northern Maine Land Man]

NJbear asks:
"NMLM- Could you clairfy more?"

Happy to oblige. The econazis would have you believe we are losing our forests. They lie. In 1940 we had 6 1/4 million acres of pasture and cultivated ground in Maine. Today we have just over a million. In my lifetime Maine has gained an average of over 77,000 acres a year of forest. Yes, gained. The penthouse environmentalists who read the Boston Globe don't want you to know that. Back during the spruce budworm infestation in the 1980s the Globe published photos of a big clear cut. The photos were taken in Siberia, not Maine.

I remember big hotels on Moosehead Lake, steam ships on many lakes and vast farms where food and hay was grown in the North Maine Woods for loggers and their animals. Summer people arrived in Greenville by train and boarded steamers to voyage up the lake to the hotels. We have lost a lot in Northern Maine since the good old days. We have lost farms, logging companies, paper mills, schools, over 600 Mom & Pop general stores and much of our economy. This is not accidental. There is a name for this ongoing process. It is rural cleansing and it is just as vicious as ethnic cleansing in such places as Bosnia.

I take it from the handle that NJbear might be a Mainer living in NJ. Many Mainers leave to find work. Maybe he/she is from NJ and wanting to move to Maine. Either way, this info is easy to find if anyone just wants to look. The numbers on forest acreage are from the Maine Department of Agriculture and the Maine Forest Service.

Maine law defines anybody owning less than 100,000 acres as a small landowner. Over that amount and you are a large landowner. Plum Creek bought the old Scott Paper lands which makes them a large landowner. Over the last century, Scott has sold and leased thousands of camp lots in Northern Maine. Maine government through LURC is making it much harder to continue our traditions in Maine. If a company wants to sell more than one piece of land in a five year period it is now called a "subdivision". That conjures up images of places like NJ with cookie cutter lots and paved streets with houses crowded in elbow to elbow. In fact, Maine now defines a subdivision as two camps maybe eight miles apart in a township in less than five years. It's smoke and mirrors from Augusta to baffle the penthouse environmentalists who read the Boston Globe. Don't believe a word of it.

[ribbets]

I've got to support some type of development along the Moosehead Trail . The easiest way to Greenville from the Interstate is, Newport up Route's 6,7,and 15. I can just imagine the land values along these State Roads going out of site. And how many new business's will be purchaing the land.
Can't wait to see a couple of the Big Box Stores in Abbot Village or Sangerville,or maybe a Super Mall in Shirley. Joking aside it sounds like a lot of job growth in an area that has a very high unemployment rate. One side of the arguement can be found at www.plumcreekplanmaine.com

[NJ Bear]

Thanks NMLM,

Although my question more specifically was to clarify the Plum Creek plan details (which I subsequently ook another look at as posted above). I basically know the historic summary in your last post (although some of the stats and specifics I didn't have a specific number for). My concern is not that Maine IS losing it's forests... it's that the time is now to build a framework that prevents it, before the flood tide is at the door. I am not concerned with a new hotel (of reasonable proportion) opening or a few new camps here and there. My concern is that "one here, two there" if it goes on long enough turns places like Moosehead into another Lake Winnepesaukee; turns places like Jonesport into Camden North; turns places like the Golden Road into bona fide trousit attracttions for the masses instead of only visited by the relative few who want to go that extra mile or who realize downtown Freeport is not the real Maine.

More specifically my concerns with the Plum Creek plan are that the proposed development is not closely tied to the existing towns, and that two resorts and a marina is getting close to the point at which Moosehead Lake would no longer interest me for recreational purposes as I can find numerous lakes just like that much closer to home- and frankly, I have no interest in recreating at those either. I also dsitrust the seeming loophole about not including affordable housing units- doesn't anyone know, then, how many affordable housing units Plum Creek proposes or if there is even a cap on it? OR will they get this plan approved and then throw up another 2000 affordable housing units just because they can?

In a broader sense, my concerns are forest fragmentation (both in terms of adverse impacts for humans and ecology), decreased land access for both Mainers and outdoorspeople from away, and changing the character of the state. Yes, it is true there once were many more hotels and such on the lakes; that was also before tourist-driven sprawl enveloped the entire Maine Maine coast from Kittery to Ellsworth however. It seems reasonable to me that since a wide swtch of teh state has been surrendered wholesale to sprawl and a torusit-driven economy, maintaining that remaining portion of the state which is least developed and least torusited is a perfectly reasonable balance. What makes Maine unique in the northeast, dare I say east of Colorado even, is the amount of open space and freedom of accessibility and the fact that if one chooses, they can actually succeed in getting away from people. You can't do that in VT, can't in NH, or anywhere else in the east (if you know where to go you can do it in the adirondacks, but even then it can be a challenge and you know that your solitude is a fairly isolated phenomenon. Likewise, land accessibility in Maine, by eastern standards, is great. Perhaps most amazing is that the state has remained so WITHOUT massive scale government intervention or land ownership (vis-a-vis Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, USFS, etc). My concern is not a few camps or houses or hotels here and there, it is sprawl, further encroachment of tourists/traffic/development into the woods (with the corresponding traffic, noise, habitat disturbance, and loss of space and land access that would accompany it). I don't want to see the north woods "sell out" to torusits and second home owners like the coast has; I like Maine for Maine, not what most of the tourists would like Maine to be. And yes, I do like the fact that ecological balance still exists in northern and western Maine, which cannot be said for most places in the east. I am also aware of teh sensitivity of that remaining ecological balance... a few more camps here and there will not change it, but a few more camps everwhere and a few more roads and a little more traffic and a few more toursits in the woods... sooner or later a tipping point will be reached, and certain species will not tolerate it. I'm not the eco-freak who claims that if you build a couple camps on Moosehead the ecological balance of th entire region will change... but if you build enough new houses or camps in enough new places, the small impact of each adds up to a greater whole. Is it really too much to ask for someone to ensure that the last great place of large-scale open space and ecological balance in the eastern US be maintained as such? I'm not calling for a national park like some, of all of the options I would only choose that one if the alternative were major development and land fragmentation.


In summary I guess I see some irony in the fact that so many people from northern and western Maine decry the sprawl and tourism and yuppiedoim and the related changes in southern coastal Maine, yet call for more of the same further north and west as some sort of salvation. I understand the economic concerns, but question whether development is really a solution. Or whether solving one problem is the right thing to do when it causes others. Again, this is not concern about a handful of camps or a couple of new houses or a new hotel... it's about, if you tell Plum Creek yes, what do you tell Trump and Hovnanian and Ed and Joe and Bob, and Walmart, Fairfield Inn, and Motel 6, and so on down the line. I'm not sure Maine is prepared to deal with that if and when it comes, but I see Plum Creek as potentially the first salvo, and as a litmus test whereby everyone else who's ever thought about trying to develop th eMaine woods will watch and wait and see what happens before presenting their own proposals or scarfing up the next big tract of timberland.

Maybe Plum Creek's plan isn't so bad... it does set aside a lot of land around the Moosehead area. But it's also big enough and sprawling enough that I have some issues/comcerns with it. Most of all my concern is that the state of Maine and it's people realize the uniqueness and importance of what they've got before the trickle of sprawl adds up or gains momentum. There are already plenty of heavily developed, touristed lakes in Maine. IS another really needed? Will it really fix any economic issues on any significant scale as some hope/claim? What would the impact be on Maine's remaining paper and timber industries? At what point is some additional devlopment acceptable vs. at what point does Maine lose itelf in an attempt to solve it's probelms by becoming like wverywhere else? At what point does development begin to adversely affect outdoorsman, land accessibility, wildlife, or the quality of outdoor recreation/ecotourism in a region? Is there a point at which sprawl and development would -turn away- current toursim/recreational use of a region?

Oh, and I guess I'll take it as a compliment that I've been interpreted as potentially a Mainer in exile. Actually born and raised in NJ (with a farm in back of my parents house and farmers in the family... you know, the "other" NJ nobody hears or knows about). But I'd venture a guess that very few people from NJ have seen as much of Maine as I have or seen and experienced it in the ways I've seen and experienced it. And while I totally agree that there is ignorance among many of the environmentalists, I also question whether at times Mainers are literally "not seeing the forest for the trees", taking for granted what they've got or taking for granted that it will always be theirs; with the decline in the paper and timber industries and more and more land being parcelled out, and more and more money people finding out more and more about more places further and further into the woods, some of the threats facing Maine right now are a different beast than that which has been seen in the past. Is Maine going to maintain itself for the duration, is it prepared to? Or will out of staters with out of state money slowly chip away at Maine until it is remade in their own image, or the image that they've been told Maine should be? Are sacrifices being made at Moosehead that will benefit the rest of the north woods region- or is this just the first domino to fall? And are the touted economic benefits really going to manifest themselves? Will the tax base vs. cost of services balance shift positively or negatively? I don't have the answers, I just hope Maine's people and governemnt are thinking long and hard about both sides of the equation. Environmentalists may lie, but so too do developers, politicians, and those with something (real or perceived) to gain. Truth lies somewhere in the middle and is usually not talked about much.

[Northern Maine Land Man]

NJ Bear worries:
" doesn't anyone know, then, how many affordable housing units Plum Creek proposes or if there is even a cap on it?"

Good grief. This not heavy development. This is a huge LOSS of development potential. One camp or home per township per year is not huge development. Scott paper could have developed anything they wanted and did lease or sell the occasional lot for over a century. That was not a crisis. Now LURC wants to prevent such a tradition from continuing. You people are in a lathered up panic over one camp per year per township. Did the propaganda you swallowed taste good?

"Are sacrifices being made at Moosehead that will benefit the rest of the north woods region-"

There is very little economic opportunity when a region in Maine loses the opportunity to build a camp in 36 townships forever. The sacrifice is ours. We are the ones losing our opportunities. The sacrifices are the lost opportunities we could lose forever. Plum Creek wants the opportunity to sell one percent of what they own and people from away are all lathered up about it.

"At what point is some additional devlopment acceptable vs. at what point does Maine lose itelf in an attempt to solve it's probelms by becoming like wverywhere else?"

The real question is whether the very last camp has already been built. You see, these people don't ever want any of us to be able to build a camp in the future. Let me hit one point again because it is so relatively unknown. The land you people like so much has been privately owned for around three centuries. You people like it because we have taken such good care of it for all that time. The old Scott paper company sold or leased camp lots for over a century whenever anybody wanted one. Plum Creek only wants the opportunity to continue this Maine tradition on one percent of their land. You people show your true colors as you seek to crush our traditions and way of life. Plum Creek has given the econazis control of 99% of their land and it isn't enough for them. They want it all.

I'll just end with a few quotes by these people:

"We reject the idea of private property."
Peter Berle, President of the National Audobon Society

"People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them, and this (ban of DDT) is as good a way as any."
Charles Wurster, Environmental Defense Fund

Cannibalism is a "radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation."
Endangered Species Blueprint, National Wilderness Institute

"Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition."
Peter Singer, the "Father of Animal Rights"

Global Sustainability requires: "the deliberate quest of poverty . . . reduced resource consumption . . . and set levels of mortality control."
Professor Maurice King

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."
John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

There you have it folks. Rural cleansing is just a step on their road to total control. Remember, 99% of a company's land is not enough. Their long term goal is for us all to be dead and Maine to be depopulated.

[NJ Bear]

My question is that the 1-2 per year for the next 30 years does not INCLUDE "affordable housing". So how many "affordable housing units" does that leave Plum Creek free to build? 10? 100? 1000? 4000? DOes anyone know? Does anyone care? What exactly consitutes "an affordable housing unit", and do they get special passes when it comes where/how/how many can be built? I know in some places they will let you build pretty much anywhere as long as it's "affordable housing".

Also with all due respect I resent being associated with "those people". If were, I wouldn't be hoping Maine's timber and paper economy can recover and continue. That, in my mind, is the best way to ensure that Maine continues to be livable for it's people economiically AND preserves the open spaces that make it what it is- an dliekwise preserves the accessibility of that land. I still don't understand the complaints about how the land purchased or held in conservation easemnts for conservation purposes is "Stolen" from the people of Maine (when "the people" never owned it to begin with, the paper co. did, and they were free to use it at the grace of the paper co.; which, with some exceptions they are generally still free to do under conservation ownership or easement), while the carving up of large tracts into small privately owned residential/camp parcels owned most likely by people not even from Maine is seen as maintaining free and open land use and access. It makes no sense to me. Similarly, the claim that because MAiners have overall been great stewards of their state in the past is presented as evidence that landowners from elsewhere in the future will practice similar stewardship. Are you so sure those folks from MA and CT and NJ and elsewhere have as pure of an intention or attitude towards the state and its land and it's existingr esidents as you might like?

I still question the claim that Plum Creek's proposal is as simple as building a few "camps". To me, a group of houses on small lots of a size and nature suitable for widespread year-round inhabitation is not just a "camp". It is a housing development. Let's call it what it is. Likewise while I understand the concerns, the reality is Maine is at great threat of having more camps built in more places in less time than ever before... the fact that a small percentage of Maine's land is owned by conservation groups or held in easemnts does not change the fact that the rest of the state's land is development fodder. Especially so if the timber/paper industries slide further- the appeal of liquidationwill increase and the pressure and opportunities to develop will increase.

[AustinB]

Originally Posted by NJ Bear

My question is that the 1-2 per year for the next 30 years does not INCLUDE "affordable housing". So how many "affordable housing units" does that leave Plum Creek free to build? 10? 100? 1000? 4000? DOes anyone know? Does anyone care? What exactly consitutes "an affordable housing unit", and do they get special passes when it comes where/how/how many can be built? I know in some places they will let you build pretty much anywhere as long as it's "affordable housing".

Also with all due respect I resent being associated with "those people". If were, I wouldn't be hoping Maine's timber and paper economy can recover and continue. That, in my mind, is the best way to ensure that Maine continues to be livable for it's people economiically AND preserves the open spaces that make it what it is- an dliekwise preserves the accessibility of that land. I still don't understand the complaints about how the land purchased or held in conservation easemnts for conservation purposes is "Stolen" from the people of Maine (when "the people" never owned it to begin with, the paper co. did, and they were free to use it at the grace of the paper co.; which, with some exceptions they are generally still free to do under conservation ownership or easement), while the carving up of large tracts into small privately owned residential/camp parcels owned most likely by people not even from Maine is seen as maintaining free and open land use and access. It makes no sense to me. Similarly, the claim that because MAiners have overall been great stewards of their state in the past is presented as evidence that landowners from elsewhere in the future will practice similar stewardship. Are you so sure those folks from MA and CT and NJ and elsewhere have as pure of an intention or attitude towards the state and its land and it's existingr esidents as you might like?

I still question the claim that Plum Creek's proposal is as simple as building a few "camps". To me, a group of houses on small lots of a size and nature suitable for widespread year-round inhabitation is not just a "camp". It is a housing development. Let's call it what it is. Likewise while I understand the concerns, the reality is Maine is at great threat of having more camps built in more places in less time than ever before... the fact that a small percentage of Maine's land is owned by conservation groups or held in easemnts does not change the fact that the rest of the state's land is development fodder. Especially so if the timber/paper industries slide further- the appeal of liquidationwill increase and the pressure and opportunities to develop will increase.

I'm not sure, but I think that you actually believe Plum Creek is going to sell 1000 houses next year and then buid all kinds of support structures.

Let me suggest that it isn't going to happen. There are always alot of propsals put forward, but there actually has to be enough people to buy into the whole thing.
It's a worthwhile proposal, but they won't sell 1000 houses there in my lifetime.

[mainebrokerman]

maine needs jobs and people. we should let the folks in greenville decide, if they want development in thier area, not the environmentalists. besides, plum creek owns the land, they should have a primary say in what's the highest and best use of thier own property.