|
17 February 2004
Letter to the Editor:
Subject: LNG proposal for Harpswell – The
price is just too high!
The proposed LNG terminal is not in the
best interest of the Town of Harpswell and I urge voters to vote NO
on March 9. Many people in the town worked on the Town Comprehensive Plan,
which was approved by the voters, and does not include large industry. Why
are the Selectmen pushing this proposal? For increased revenue to the
Town, which very likely will not materialize because of the offsets of
increased cost of safety services like fire fighting, and police and
lowered tax revenues because of devaluation of property? The Town is
probably not doing anything illegal by voting on this issue before a
proper environmental/economic impact study is completed. But I am
disappointed that such an important
issue will be decided in absence of these reports. It is inherently unfair
to the neighboring communities of
Freeport,
Yarmouth,
Portland
and others who will not get to vote on this issue. Certainly the proposed
construction of a natural gas pipeline under Casco Bay and LNG super
tanker shipping in Middle
Bay affects those communities as well.
I am particularly disturbed by a quote in
a September 2003 Brunswick Times Record article from Harpswell
Selectman James Knight. Apparently when Selectman Knight "...received a
message that a California resident and part-time resident of Harpswell was
intending to register to vote in Harpswell to help decide the issue,
responded with 'I will tell everybody that this is a Harpswell issue to be
decided by Harpswell voters. If you don't live here, you have no business
registering to vote here. I don't take it kindly to anybody coming here
from California who intends to come here to shape this community. It
angers me greatly.' "
Well, Mr. Knight, we are non-resident
property owners of a summer cottage on Potts Point which was built by my
great great grandfather in 1889. No, I can’t vote and no, I’m not moving
to Harpswell so that I can vote. But, the decision the voters will make on
March 9 will affect us and our property. The last I knew about 38% of
Harpswell’s tax rolls were non-resident property owners. If we can’t vote
then, at least, you should hear what we have to say. If the LNG proposal
is approved our property will be in the 2 mile radius inclusion zone for
potential hazard. The property will inevitably be devalued in the
marketplace. Does Harpswell really want to adversely affect non-resident
property owners in this manner?
Make no mistake. The proposed LNG terminal
and LNG tankers will be potential terrorist targets. Liquid natural gas
transport and storage are dangerous business. If we learned anything from
the attacks on our country 9/11/01, we learned that targets of terrorism
can be anywhere and, the LNG terminal and tankers will be inviting
targets. I have not seen any realistic renderings of the proposed 800’
docking facility, two 300’ diameter by 130’ tall storage tanks, or a 1000’
long by 150’ wide super tanker…I wonder why Fairwinds has never given us a
realistic rendering? A 1000’ super tanker requires 12,000 ft diameter to
turn (2.27 miles) and 23,000 ft to come to a full stop (4.35 miles). The
Exxon Valdez had a little trouble in Prince William Sound in 1989. Take a
look at Prince William Sound on a map. It looks a lot easier to navigate
there than among the islands of Middle
Bay and Broad Sound. Is this type
of ship traffic really what Harpswell wants in its future, from 88 to 282
times per year? The potential for explosion and fire are very real with
this type of facility and shipping traffic. There is a two mile radius of
concern for potential disaster around both the proposed facility and the
path of the tanker ships. An explosion and resulting horrendous fire and
heat would be disastrous. I wonder if any of the Town Selectmen or anyone
on Great, Orrs, and Bailey
Island would like to live within that two
mile radius?
My elderly parents live just south of the
proposed facility. I am extremely concerned for their safety. Would they
be able to evacuate in time to ensure their safety? And surely their
property value will decrease significantly. Fair market value in future
years may mean they could salvage 50 cents on the dollar for their
investment in building a beautiful retirement home for which
they saved all their lives. Will the Town compensate them for their loss
if they need to sell to move to an assisted living facility in the future
years? I am sure they didn’t envision this type of negative impact on
their retirement when they built their house on property that has been in
my mother’s family for over 200 years.
Of course, if the LNG proposal is
approved, the Town of Harpswell will need to establish both permanent and
professional fire fighting and police forces, as well as professional
emergency response and emergency medical services. I don’t think Harpswell
will have a choice. The costs
associated with these professional services may exceed any revenue stream
from LNG. And what about Route 123? Will it need to be widened and paved
with concrete to accommodate the construction traffic? Do you really
believe that the necessary construction equipment and materials will come
by ship? I don’t. Who will pay for this road construction? What about
moving the West
Harpswell Elementary School outside
the hazardous 2 mile radius? The Town and the State of Maine will incur
these additional and very costly expenditures.
Many Town residents are looking forward to
property tax relief if the LNG proposal passes. I think that property
taxes will inevidently rise if the proposal passes. Property taxes are
based on fair market value of the property. Approximately 30% of the
property in Harpswell is within the two mile radius of the proposed
facility and shipping lanes. If this facility is built, theses properties
will lose market value. Total losses in property value for these affected
properties are estimated to range from $17.3 to $42 million per year. That
cost to the Town of Harpswell more than offsets any anticipated revenue
stream from the LNG facility. The people who think they are going to
receive tax relief will be sadly mistaken. The net effect of decreased
market value for property within the two mile radius will be that the home
and property owners on Great, Orrs, and Bailey Islands will make up for
the loss by having their property valued higher and/or assessed at a
higher rate. I am sure this will not be welcome by any resident or
non-resident seeking tax relief.
My parents worked very hard over the years
to assure that our 115 year old summer cottage remain in the family. We
afford the maintenance and other expenses on our summer cottage by renting
it to vacationers who come to Harpswell every summer. I’ve seen estimates
that recreational boating near Harpswell Neck,
Middle
Bay, and
Potts Harbor is worth an estimated $3.2
million in direct spending, including the cost of some 380 moorings, fuel,
supplies, insurance, repairs, and groceries associated with boating, and
$14.5 million in net benefits to Harpswell’s economy through income and
employment multipliers. These figures do not include general tourism. What
will be the effect on recreational boating and vacation tourism if the LNG
proposal passes? I think the net effect would be catastrophic. Income from
renting summer cottages would all but disappear.
I am also concerned about the potential
loss of commercial fishing and lobstering business in Harpswell if the LNG
proposal passes. The lobster and fishing industry has been an important
part of the livelihoods’ of Harpswell residents. The potential loss of
fishing grounds and time for these businessmen is unthinkable. The
fishermen and lobstermen have a right to continue the pursuit of their
livings without the hindrance of the LNG facility and its ships.
In 2001 we were shocked when our insurance
company cancelled our policy for our cottage, after 25 years with the same
company and no claims. One of their reasons was that the cottage was too
far from the volunteer fire department. I made many frantic phone calls to
find a new company to provide our fire/hazard insurance. If LNG passes,
will insurance companies cancel policies on properties within the
hazardous 2 mile radius inclusion zone? They might. And that would be a
terrible loss for homeowners in Harpswell.
We were quite disturbed two years ago when
our property taxes doubled. But we will continue to pay them gladly for
many future years of vacationing in beautiful Harpswell. I have spent some
of almost every one of my 56 years vacationing in Harpswell. In the
current real estate market, we cannot afford to permanently retire to
Harpswell. If LNG passes, then we would not want to live in Harpswell. The
coastal beauty of Harpswell is very appealing and luring to us as property
owners and to renters who choose to vacation in Harpswell during the
summer months. Please don’t ruin Harpswell’s beauty forever with this
costly and hazardous LNG facility and its ships.
Many of the facts and figures I’ve
included in this letter were taken from the “Potential Economic and Fiscal
Impacts on the Town of Harpswell, Maine of the LNG Terminal Proposed by
TransCanada Pipelines and CononcoPhillips” prepared by the Yellow Wood
Associates, Inc. , February 2, 2004. This study was commissioned and paid
for by private contributions to FairPlay for
Harpswell.
It disappoints me that private citizens funded this impact study which
the Town of Harpswell did not think
was important. The complete study and its summary are posted on the
FairPlay web site:
http://www.fairplayforharpswell.org/ I think every resident of
Harpswell should read this comprehensive and thought provoking report
before voting on March 9.
I urge you to vote NO on March
9. Harpswell does not need LNG. The
price is just too high!
Robert A. White
Shelby
Township, MI
|