On March 10, Searsport residents will vote on a moratorium that could have negative effects far beyond the industrial port district located at Mack Point.
Supporters of the moratorium claim that it will only last two months, but a review of the document shows otherwise. Section 5-D creates the opportunity for numerous extensions, public hearings and votes at future town meetings. Contrary to the claim that such a process will be objective, 33 percent of the ordinance review committee members would be hand-picked from a group whose stated goal is to stop a proposed $50 million investment in the port, rather than simply looking to have some questions answered.
This moratorium is about much more than one project, however; it is about future control of the port. Many of the same individuals and groups now fighting development on Mack Point were instrumental in negotiating the much-heralded Sears Island Agreement which promoted industrial development on Mack Point instead of Sears Island.
When it meant keeping industry off the island, no one voiced any concerns about increased truck traffic, volatile cargoes, cutting trees or impacts to the view shed that new development at Mack Point could potentially bring. Now that a proposed project is poised to use much of the remaining available land at Mack Point, it would appear that port opponents have a new strategy: keep industry off Sears Island by saying there is ample space remaining on Mack Point, then oppose new development on Mack Point to ensure that space always remains “available” there, rather than developing Sears Island.
As just one of many individuals who depend upon the port for their livelihood, I am acutely concerned about our region’s future should this moratorium pass.
Consider the struggling Millinocket area, where private investors have spent tens of millions of dollars to revitalize the forest-products industry, largely by diversifying into the manufacture of high-quality wood pellets. These pellets are in great demand in Europe, and the most cost-effective way to move them is by rail to a port facility, where they are normally stored in tall silos built specifically for that purpose, before being loaded into ships.
Searsport is the closest rail-connected port to Millinocket. The other rail-connected option for shipping this product is the Canadian port of St. John, N.B. Should the Searsport moratorium pass, it would send a clear signal to these investors about which community may be more likely to support new development and growth in maritime commerce, and which one may not.
In 2005, Maine enacted “working waterfront” legislation, seeking to protect Maine’s fishing industry from the pressure and friction spurred by residential real estate development. Sadly, no such program exists to preserve Maine’s “industrial” waterfront, which occupies far less than the 20 miles of fisheries related waterfront cited in this legislation.
Maine’s industrial waterfront comprises less than 0.25 percent of the state’s 5,300 mile coastline, yet port opponents claim that growth of industrial development on such a small percentage of our coast will irreparably harm the environment and the tourism industry.
However, as ship traffic into the port of Searsport has steadily increased, so has tourism into the midcoast region. Acadia National Park visitors spent $186 million in 2010, and many of those visitors came via Route 1 in Searsport, and they will continue to do so despite additional growth at Mack Point.
Similarly, the increasing number of ships calling in Searsport has had no adverse effect on the growth of the yachting industry, or the sustainability of the lobster industry. In 1996, the Maine Lobstermen’s Association understood that ship traffic was increasing, and it supported the creation of a recommended route for deep draft vessels on Penobscot Bay, a model for vessel-routing now in place from Maine to New York.
Last year set the record for Maine lobster landings, a large percentage coming from the valuable and productive Penobscot Bay fishery.
Port opponents persist in making unsubstantiated claims that industrial development is detrimental to tourism, fishing, recreational boating and the real estate industry, but the recent history of Penobscot Bay and the port of Searsport demonstrates otherwise. Residents can support tourism and maintain the town’s historic role as a center of maritime commerce by voting no on the anti-port moratorium.
Captain David Gelinas is a harbor pilot on Penobscot Bay and is president of the Searsport/Bucksport Chapter of the Propeller Club of the United States. The club is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the goal of educating legislators and the public as to the importance and necessity of waterborne commerce.
The moratorium proposed by TBNT is for two months.
The group has no issues with rail service to Millinocket or exporting pellets or any other export products.
How would they load Pellets on the ship? My guess is with large tall grain silo’s. Just like they keep corn in. If they are against 1 large oil tank. I would bet TBNT would be against a half dozen grain silos. It appears they are against industry and all those involved. Sometimes I wish highways were only for truckers, but that wouldn’t always be practical. Those listed below in the other comment have a interest in the Port, so what? Do the TBNT people have a vested interest in tourism? They admittedly do. No one calls them out on it. Call out people of industry but not tourism. Oh wait but if, for whatever a crazy reason a cruise ship would come. I bet TBNT would be against that. That’s called industrial tourism, so they would have to be against that right? Who knows? All I know is that Maine needs good, long term paying jobs, a good strong tax base and needs to let in this company. I’ve been to many industrialized areas around the US, Searsport is not going to turn into Bayonne, NJ. Bayonne, NJ and the surround area’s are storing oil for much of the greater NY/NJ daily operations and much of our supply of heating oil. Is LPG dangerous, sure! Can it destroy a house? Yes. How many homes in New England burn down every year due to Chimney fires or woodstoves issues? Doesn’t that make firewood dangerous? Should we ban that too. Don’t let any firewood trucks drive through Searsport because they may deliver a product that might cause a fire somewhere? Vote NO on the moratorium.
I live in Searsport and have no problem with silos, tour ships or truckers.
Instead of raving, can’t we sort this out reasonably without all the yelling that seems to come from people who seem to be for this project.
Since when is it against the law to ask questions. BTW, I buy firewood and pellets from local people. I have no vested interest in tourism but respect the investment my neighbors have made in it along with the people who work at Mack Point and GAC.
You cannot just accept this project without asking questions.
You clearly haven’t been to Bayonne. Nor do you seem to have much use for logic, as sustainable pellets exports have nothing to do with needless imports of LPG. Exports are the way to job growth in Maine, not propane.
Vote YES for the moratorium.
Sorry, I have been to Bayonne. Too many times. They do have some really nice Polish bakery’s I will say. The wood pellet idea has very much to do with the LPG tank, 6 or more monster silo’s to load the ships that export the wood pellets.
There is existing covered storage sufficient to handle pellet exports. What has that to do with LPG?
Searsport Registered Voters: Approve The Moratorium
VOTE YES! at Town Meeting March 10, 2012
THE ISSUE: DCP-Midstream, a subsidiary of Conoco-Phillips, seeks swift, unchallenged approval to construct a 138-foot tall, 23 million gallon Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) tank here in Searsport, with little or no regard for the massive impact and long-term consequences this project will have on our economy, safety, environment and way of life.
Voting YES to the moratorium will…..
…..establish a nine-member Moratorium Committee to thoroughly and publicly examine Searsport’s current Comprehensive Development Plan, Shoreland Zoning regulations and Land Use and Site Plan Review Ordinances and determine whether (or not) they adequately
protect the town from all manner of abuse, exploitation, degradation and danger that might accompany the development and construction of such liquid fuel terminals.
If the Committee finds that our current ordinances are vague, incomplete or too weak to protect the health, safety and welfare of Searsport and its residents, it can and will make
recommendations for clarifying, modifying and strengthening our ordinances and
emergency management plans. Searsport voters will then have the opportunity to approve the Committee’s recommendations at a future Town Meeting.
*Recommendations made to the town do not delay any projects. Like other recommendations made throughout the year, changes to our ordinances
cannot be made until the town approves them by a vote. Input into our current safety standards and public education/ preparedness are positive steps to take in any community.
Voting YES to the moratorium will…
give Searsport residents two months to study the DCP-Midstream proposal and the impacts it would have on our community, our economy and our environment.
· allow us to find and discuss flaws and weaknesses in our current ordinances/ EMPs.
· enable us to update existing ordinances to better serve and protect OUR interests.
· keep decision-making authority in the of Searsport Residents!
Voting “no” to the moratorium takes local control of this project out of the hands of Searsport residents and puts it squarely into the hands of DCP-Midstream and its
developer.
Moratoriums are practical, legal and worthwhile, and provide a timely, open forum for studying, discussing and evaluating important, sensitive issues. They do not hijack the democratic process; they are an essential part of the democratic process.
“Moratoriums, by their design, are not stoplights. They are yellow lights. They switch a project from green to yellow.”
Searsport Town Manager James Gillway Bangor Daily News, December 4, 2011
To his credit, Mr. Gelinas doesn’t circulate outright fabrications about the upcoming moratorium question Saturday but he does, perhaps innocently, get it wrong in one important respect. The truly nefarious work belongs to the dirty tricks specialists at Maine Street Solutions, the media spin, lobbyist and community manipulations subsidiary of Verrill, Dana, LLP. This big New England regional law firm is acting on behalf of client DCP Midstream, which itself acts in a limited liability sort of way on behalf of Duke Energy and ConocoPhillips. These
fossil fuel industry giants are currently working to corner the propane market in Maine and no doubt beyond the state’s borders into new territory. Searsport is being asked to support them in their aspirations to crush all rivals by lying down and unquestioningly allowing a dangerous industrial development of unprecedented nature and scale.
Some of us — a lot of us — don’t like those terms. We’re planning to vote YES Saturday on the question of a moratorium.
But DCP Midstream spin mistress Roz Elliott and her colleagues at Maine Street Solutions are interfering in a democratic local exercise by paying out-of-work people $100 a day to pass out leaflets door-to-door that falsely describe how the moratorium would work. These lies go so far as to assert that one individual on the review committee will have sole power to decide the town’s economic fate. Mr. Gelinas himself should know that while TBNT has taken a position not to seek an extension of the two-month period for review of our ordinance protections, no unelected citizen of Searsport,whether against Big Tank or otherwise, has any power beyond persuasion to determine whether the moratorium is extended. Only the selectmen have this power.
However, Mr. Gelinas probably doesn’t need to fret. A majority of the selectmen has been unwilling to ask DCP to pay for an independent economic impact study. Also, unlike the selectmen in Stockton Springs, Islesboro, Lincolnville and North Haven and the Belfast city councilors, the 3-2 majority of industry boosters on the Searsport board has opted not to ask the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct hearings and a full environmental impact study into safety, economic and quality of life concerns, something which is usually standard for a project of this size.
Now that we’ve heard from Mr. Gelinas I figure this must be about the last supposed expert the Big Tank developers can marshal for the most legitimate sounding of their propaganda efforts. Like tugboat skipper John Worth and Maine Maritime Academy engineering professor Peter Sarnacki, who have previously submitted columns in support of Big Tank, Mr. Gelinas, a ship’s pilot and self-confessed “port junkie,” also has personal livelihood interests tied up in further industrialization of Searsport.
– Why the need for a 22-million-gallon tank. Why not smaller and therefore creating no visual impact?
– With propane costing four times as much as natgas per BTU, won’t users find a way to tap into LNG?
-citizens should require that any product moved more than 10 miles move by rail.
DCP did say we’d have cleaner air because less trucking is needed with all of Maine’s gas stored in one tank, in one place. That will mean a loss in Maine Trucking jobs.
And reduce the size of the tank. Must be a tradeoff between tank size and number of ships calling Mack Point. No one has ever protested or written letters of complaint about the current expansion/ activity at Mack Point. This project is out of scale for our town’s port.