Over the past four years, Plum Creek has doggedly pursued a massive development around Moosehead Lake. In late September, Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission cast a preliminary vote in support of a revised plan, and Plum Creek has accepted the proposed changes. Although a final vote is still months away, now is a good time to review five lessons learned from the Plum Creek saga and consider their implications for the future.
Lesson One: Maine’s experience with Plum Creek has taught us that the new owners of Maine’s North Woods operate completely differently from the timber barons of the past. For most of the past 100 years, Maine’s vast forests were owned by companies such as Great Northern, International Paper and Boise Cascade, which opposed selling land for real estate, preferring an unbroken forest for timber operations. This history helps explain why Maine still has the largest intact forests in the entire eastern United States.
But Maine’s traditional timber companies are now mostly gone, replaced by a new breed of investment firms and real estate investment trusts, such as Plum Creek, Timbervest, GMO and Brascan. These new firms actively seek opportunities to convert forests into seasonal homes, resorts, golf courses, marinas — or whatever yields the highest profit for distant and generally unknown investors.
Lesson Two: Plum Creek opposed changes in its plan every step of the way, using heavy-handed tactics rarely seen in Maine. Although Plum Creek bought land zoned for forestry, the company made it quite clear that a failure by LURC to approve a rezoning would invite a worse fate: Plum Creek would exploit every loophole in LURC regulations to create “trophy homes” and dispersed development that would make us regret not having approved its plan.
On the side, Plum Creek negotiated a private $35 million land conservation deal. The company maneuvered to make the conservation sale contingent on LURC approval of its development permit. This put enormous pressure on LURC to approve Plum Creek’s development plan.
Lesson Three: Improvements were made in Plum Creek’s plan because people spoke up. People who cherish the Moosehead Lake region demanded changes, with an eloquence and determination that could not be ignored. Plum Creek was forced back to the drawing board three times.
Because people spoke out, significant improvements were achieved. The number of shorefront lots was cut in half; development on remote ponds and some high-priority wildlife areas was dropped; special places like Prong Pond, the western shore of Brassua Lake and the northwest shore of Moosehead Lake were spared; many loopholes in Plum Creek’s proposed conservation easement were removed; and the amount of donated conservation was increased.
But what never changed were the overall scale of the project (975 house lots and 1,050 resort units) and Plum Creek’s demand for a resort at Lily Bay. Although letters to LURC in opposition to Lily Bay development outnumbered letters in support by 1,517 to 7, the commission acceded to Plum Creek’s threat, delivered in September as the final words of their lead attorney: “Without Lily Bay, there is no plan.”
Lesson Four: The process resulted in an improved plan, but not a good plan. Plum Creek’s initial proposal was so outrageously unacceptable that it created a warped view of what a desired outcome should look like. Plum Creek’s April 2005 plan had a pitiful amount of proposed conservation and a shocking scheme for house lots across the entire landscape, leaving some people now thinking: “Well, at least they didn’t get away with that.” That is the wrong standard.
A better plan would be scaled back, with development concentrated near existing communities and no resort development at Lily Bay. A better plan would require Plum Creek to prove to Maine people that it can be trusted not to wreck the Moosehead Lake region, perhaps through a phased approach involving development at Moose Bay, just outside Greenville, first — as a demonstration that Plum Creek actually cares about creating house lots that might attract families with children to the area.
Lesson Five: A final lesson might be found in the recent bankruptcy of the Yellowstone Club in Montana, a private ski area for millionaires created from a Plum Creek land sale. This is a warning about the potential implications of placing the fate of the Moosehead Lake region in the hands of a company that may not be around in 10 years, having moved on after extracting as much value out of Maine as possible.
From these lessons we need to understand that we live in a time when the fate of Maine’s North Woods is as uncertain as ever, and Maine is not yet in a position to ensure that what makes the North Woods so unique — including public access, wildlife habitat, vast unbroken landscapes and remote character — will be preserved for future generations. If we fail to grasp the new context, we will be forced to relearn these lessons, when Plum Creek returns for development on its remaining 500,000 acres, or when the next new landowner decides to extract maximum real estate value from its Maine lands.
Brownie Carson is executive director of the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
On 11/22/08 at 7:39 AM,
Mainecommenter wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
To Brownie, the glass always seems half empty...400,000 acres of permanently conserved land seems like a small price to pay for 975 lots. NRCM, RESTORE, Earth First! and Audubon refused to compromise and help create a win-win situation for the environment and local economy. Thank goodness for the mainstream conservation organizations that saw opportunity...not a fundraising or west coast-style environmental wars.
On 11/22/08 at 9:46 AM,
LarrySG wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
And just how much of the Plum Creek land does Mr. Carson own? Oh, yeah none! These groups that want all of the land so their wealthy friends can have a "wilderness" experience also need to realize that there are others comfortable with a small amount of development and the jobs that come with that. Too bad Mr. Carson.
On 11/22/08 at 1:23 PM,
glenna wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
And how many taxes does Mr. Carson and his friends contribute to the state of Maine, in particular to the cost of maintaining the roads and necessary resources for northern Maine, such as salaries of the Wardens' services and the counties services - not to mention the economy of the northern region. It's all fine and good to want to maintain a wilderness area when the entire state can afford such a luxury but it can't - as evident by the current state shortfall that's resulting is school budgets being cut and other essential services statewide (not to mention the even greater shortdall predicted for next year). Maine can not afford to continue to be a statewide wilderness. It needs to join (at least) the 20th century. And northern Maine needs progress even more!
On 11/23/08 at 11:38 AM,
NochigahnehAlnabeh wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Plum Creek followed the rules and compromised to get tentative approval from LURC. Brownie likes to change the rules as he goes along to get the results he wants because he thinks the people of Maine annointed him our mouthpiece on the environment. WRONG BROWNIE! I think LURC tried to tell you that, but no answer is ever good enough unless it's your answer right?
On 11/24/08 at 6:15 PM,
CeeBlue wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Mr. Carson, I dealt with you communists when I had woodland in Maine--it would be difficult to be more deceiving than your crew.
Maine people working must be very difficult for you to swallow.
On 11/24/08 at 9:59 PM,
sherbornpeddler wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Clearly a large number of folks agree with the concerns Mr. Carson describes. I commend both sides for continuing the discussion. Plum is pushing for very, very big changes in Maine. Maine has lived a long time with paper companies and if a new precedent is set it would hard to go back or control what happens 5, 10, 20 years later. Does anyone think what is on the table now won't continue to change or evolve further as the opportunity for short term cash? Plum has even more pressure to do what is good for their business, not Maine.
On 11/25/08 at 11:50 AM,
CeeBlue wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
sherbornpeddler 'would' make a clear and rational warning of what the current Plum Creek might be the genesis of and/ however the people of Maine [see above] would like to see the private property rights honored.
If we want to change or maintain a 'neighborhood' - then we should buy the neighborhood-----or [ at least ] approach the owners with reason and respect
; it does not help that an organization with as little credibility as Mr. Carson's crew gets involved --see 'Mainecommenter
````* on a selfish note I am sorry to see Mooshead change -- but we have to do what is right for the people of Maine and not what the eco-Nazi's wail about every time a mosquito dies.
On 11/25/08 at 2:17 PM,
JohninBillings wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Writing from Montana, I know everyone needs more jobs and money, but I agree with Brownie. Land is the one thing they're not making any more of.
Also, Plum Creek is still around because their business has been to suck every straw of value from land before dumping it without regard to the future. That is what's happened here in Montana. Our U.S. Senator is calling for an investigation this week of a Plum Creek deal building new developments in fire-prone areas that Plum Creek took all the timber value from, and then selling to out-of-state investors, with the State of Montana left with the tab for public services and safety.
In a separate story, the richest private club in America, the Yellowstone Club ($2.5 million annual income to apply) was built on leftover Plum Creek lands and just filed for bankruptcy... they've been sued by the Feds for sewage polluting the neighborhood, and they cut up a giant private ski mountain that is now only a scar. So is that what you want in Maine? Going to call me a Communist just because I have some sense? Think of your grandchildren... if you don't keep tight watch on this huge change, either they'll work for minimum wage serving the rich, or be faced with blighted trashed failed developments in what used to be God's country. We're positive people here, yet that's what we're faced with.
On 11/25/08 at 5:43 PM,
CeeBlue wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
JohninBillings:
Your comments [all] well articulated and to the point; my question [and, please, it is that] would be -- did they follow the rules ?
'If' your development laws need review then let your scenario be the genesis of that review.
Here in Maine Mr. Carson and friends have [ on paper ] no more say than the law allows but their agenda is 'no middle ground' followed with hyperbole and cash to make their point. The 'green' movement has become so powerful that [[[any]]] action that a land owner ----I was one----might want to pursue is met with --No! Not here! and not on your property !
And/however -- your point --if advantage was sought and subsequently taken - then by all means have 'the devil' pay.
****In a different lifetime I 'cowboy'd' out of Hamilton -- and I am sorry to hear of the loss of that way of life via development.
On 11/26/08 at 1:30 PM,
JohninBillings wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Thanks for sharing, CeeBlue. The Bitterroot is still gorgeous country, just full of competing interests and people, now.
As for whether either corporate or environmental interests "follow the rules," my experience has been that for a century, corporations controlling natural resources have mined them for profit as far they could within the law ...
and in past years, their input to the Legislature helped to write those laws.
For the past thirty years, environmentalists have also developed large lobbies to hold a bulwark against the abuse of our shared resources by other rich people, like themselves. The difference is that the companies' mission puts profit first; the enviros put preservation first.
Frankly, both options trespass on those of us who want moderate growth, moderate stewardship, and moderate private property rights. Environmentalists are not the only ones messing with our freedoms: if our property rights were really to be protected, then anybody fouling your shared air or water to make their money would have to eat their own pollution-- and pipe their chimneys into the CEO's office. I side with preservation here because there is not an unlimited supply of healthy landscape- it gets smaller and smaller each year, inevitably, as more and more people want their own little corner to enhance or foul up as they wish-- and the beauty and diversity of undeveloped lands will remain irreplacable.
On 11/26/08 at 6:40 PM,
CeeBlue wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Well said 'JohninBillings:
Both options do trespass and [as you have stated] perhaps we do need to decide which is the better of two extremes---and were it to come to that:
I'm with you.
Who would have thought ----- 40 Yrs. ago.
Be well John
On 3/5/09 at 9:09 PM,
happycamper1 wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Maine should take Plum Creek's land by eminent domain and make a biopreserve. The timbercompanies/ realestate barons will ruin what is left of the North Woods if given enough time.
Post a comment about this story
You must be logged in to post a comment.
click here to log in.
