|
Mr. Loyd's 'myths, misinformation, misconceptions'
refuted 02/26/2004
Fuel Depot Committee efforts explained
By Roberta Weil, Times Record Contributor
I am writing to rebut the assertions made by Mr. Loyd in his Feb. 13
commentary titled "LNG in Harpswell: Myths, misinformation,
misconceptions."
Harpswell is overtaxed for its schools and the level of services
provided by the town to its residents.
It is not easy to deal with the financial burden placed on the town
by SAD 75. As Mr. Loyd is well aware, Harpswell is party to a contract
with three other towns, and this would have to be renegotiated. If the
contract is reopened, the other towns are in a position to make the
financial burden on Harpswell more onerous.
More immediately, while four of the directors on the SAD 75 board are from
Harpswell, voting is weighted according to the national census population
numbers. As Harpswell's population is not growing as quickly as that of
other communities, Harpswell's influence on the board is declining. In the
future, we can see Topsham demanding more school programs and services
largely underwritten by Harpswell's property taxes.
In 2003 approximately 60 per cent of Harpswell's property tax revenues
went to SAD 75.
The town provides minimal services to residents. We have volunteer
firefighting and emergency services. We have largely contributory summer
programs for children. Our small libraries are run primarily by
volunteers. We take our own refuse to the recycling center or pay for
haulage. We do not have a community center or recreation center.
Fortunately, we ask little from town government. Generally speaking, we
are happy if the town offices appear to be functioning efficiently, law
enforcement officials are in evidence from time to time and the roads are
plowed in winter.
Reduced property taxes will make Harpswell a more affordable
place to live.
It is incorrect to look only at the mill rate when discussing property
taxes. It is true that the town of Harpswell has a lower mill rate than
other coastal communities. However, Harpswell has more shoreline than any
other community in Maine, and that shoreline is highly valued. As a
result, our taxes are not low.
Moreover, we will have a revaluation in 2004. All indications are that the
state will increase Harpswell's valuation substantially. In recent years
new construction in town has resulted in increased revenues that have
allowed the town to hold the tax rate relatively constant, thus masking
much of the increase in valuation. This will not continue forever.
No one has claimed that reducing property taxes will make Harpswell a more
affordable town in which to purchase property. The concern is for those
families already living in Harpswell who are having difficulty paying
taxes. Paying taxes in a matter of pride - and there are individuals in
this town who are foregoing food and medication in order to make those
payments. In many cases, these families have owned their land for many
years; and they are not interested in selling their property.
Mr. Loyd neglected to mention that Fairwinds has stated its intent to hire
employees in town. It might provide up to 50 good-paying jobs for local
men and women, jobs with health insurance and retirement benefits. These
jobs would replace those lost in Harpswell when the fuel depot closed.
They would make it possible for some of our children to remain in town,
and to maintain inherited property or to purchase property.
My husband and I have lived within one-half mile of the fuel depot for
more than 30 years. The old fuel depot was a benign presence in our
community. It did not impact our property values. We do not perceive the
proposed LNG facility having more than a short-term negative impact on
property values.
No one has committed the revenue stream to any purposes.
We all know that it is far too early to count upon Fairwind's
producing revenues, as the project is not approved by the town or by the
regulatory authorities.
But the selectmen have produced a document that is available in the town
office, showing the projected revenue stream from Fairwinds. It points out
that the revenue stream before completion of construction is small. The
selectmen have assumed that some of the funds received annually after
project completion would be used to reduce property taxes. However, it
also assumes that 50 percent of the funds received after completion of
construction would be set aside to ensure continuing tax relief in the
future. This is a financially conservative approach, and it would be
subject to a vote of the town.
Prior to the offer from Conoco-Phillips and TransCanada, a list of
impacted fishermen was developed. There are about 300 active fishermen in
the town of Harpswell. Approximately 60 to 65 fishermen from Harpswell and
neighboring towns fish in the Middle Bay area that would be impacted by
the passage of LNG tankers. Not all of their traps are in the impacted
area. Not all of these fishermen are opposed to this project. The possible
negative economic effect of the Fairwinds project on the fishery has been
overblown and overdramatized by a few fishermen.
Moreover, I would suggest strongly to the fishermen that their outcry is
directed at the incorrect target. The creation of a state boat launch on
Mere Point will allow hundreds of boaters to launch their vessels every
day during the prime lobstering months. Many of these boats have blades on
their props intended to cut fishing lines in their way. No one will
compensate the fishermen for the time they have to spend grappling for
their traps or for gear after their lines are cut. There is no control
over oil or gasoline spills from small craft. The boat launch is
potentially far more dangerous environmentally and economically to the
fishery than the proposed LNG facility.
Moreover, the younger fishermen might consider their own futures. Fishing
is less attractive as one gets older and develops arthritic or mechanical
problems with one's hands, wrists, elbows and shoulders. A good paying job
in town might be attractive.
Is Harpswell under the gun to remove the buildings and the pier at the
fuel depot?
No, Harpswell is not "under the gun" to remove the facilities at the
fuel depot; but we do have to keep in mind that this will have to be done.
With each passing year the facilities become less usable, or reusable, and
more of a nuisance. The buildings already have been subject to extensive
and recurring vandalism.
Over the years the Fuel Depot Committee has been approached by a number of
individuals and several corporations about the use of the fuel depot. We
have approached educational and research institutions. All have either
wanted the town of Harpswell to provide funding for their efforts or have
found the restrictions placed by the Department of Environmental
Protection on the property to be too onerous. The committee and past
boards of selectmen have not been inclined to pursue these projects, as
they would place a greater burden on property taxes and the outcome might
be uncertain financially for the town.
To my knowledge no one has distorted or misrepresented the condition of
the site or the level of contamination. Remediation has occurred - as far
as is possible with the technology available to us today. However, there
is residual fuel in the bedrock. This is why there are test wells
throughout the fuel depot that are monitored twice a year. This is why the
Department of Defense retains liability for future pollution found at the
site.
The voters of the town of Harpswell have been told repeatedly that if
nature continues on its present course, the property will probably be
judged to be "clean" in approximately 40 to 50 years.
Is the Conoco-Phillips/ TransCanada project Harpswell's last chance to
develop the fuel depot?
To my knowledge only Mr. Loyd in his article has suggested that
Fairwinds is Harpswell's last chance to develop the Fuel Depot. No one has
said that. However, only Conoco-Phillips and Trans-Canada have studied the
property and made a serious financial offer to the town. Because the
Fairwinds proposal is the only serious offer that the town of Harpswell
has received, it is incumbent upon us as a town to consider this proposal.
Mr. Loyd is correct in one respect: The Fuel Depot Committee has been
relaxed about seeking to develop the fuel depot. We have enjoyed the
beauty of the land and its permanent nature. It would be wonderful to have
property of this size and attractiveness available over the long-term to
the residents of Harpswell. But the town's Budget Advisory Committee has,
in my view, regarded the fuel depot as being of marginal interest as they
have struggled to prevent substantial property tax increases. No private
individual has stepped forward with the funds to create a permanent park.
Several months ago, The Times Record published a letter from a Brunswick
resident. The gist of the letter was that if Harpswell behaves this way in
response to the Fairwinds proposal, who in their right mind would ever
want to set up a business in that town? Unfortunately, this mirrors my own
belief. Mr. Loyd is far too optimistic in believing that we will receive
another offer in the near future for the use of the Fuel Depot - and far
too optimistic in believing that it also will not be opposed.
Do we need Fairwinds?
The offer the town of Harpswell has received from Conoco-Phillips and
TransCanada Pipelines is very financially remunerative to the town. The
lease contains many safeguards for the town and promises town
representation.
Mr. Loyd is correct in saying that Harpswell does not need to be saved
financially. That is why the lease is so very positive for the town of
Harpswell. For once, we were negotiating from a position of strength.
Mr. Loyd's article, like much of the campaign against Fairwinds,
concentrates on ME. It is a very personal ME. He discounts or ignores
intentionally the possible economic and financial benefit to the greater
ME - the region and the state of Maine.
During the construction period, contracts would be let and workers hired.
Some of this money would be spent in the state of Maine. To the extent
that it is spent in Maine, the positive multiplier effect would be felt
throughout the local and regional economy. Moreover, the state would
receive more tax revenues. The state's simulation model suggests that
during construction the benefit to the region will be as much as $257
million per year and that increased tax revenues to the state will be $6.5
million annually.
During and after construction, there will be a need for many ancillary
services. Many of these services could be provided by Harpswell residents
or by firms in neighboring cities and towns. The multiplier effect would
not be temporary, it would be long-term and sustainable. Here the state's
simulation model suggests that the benefits might total $105 million
annually.
If the LNG could be sold to power the Cousin's Island power plant,
Harpswell and Maine would have significantly better air quality. This, in
turn, should lead to reduced medical expenses for lung-related illnesses.
I support the Fairwinds proposal. - In April 2002, representatives
of TransCanada Pipe-lines Ltd. called me, as chairperson of the Fuel Depot
Committee, regarding the use of the fuel depot property. In the course of
a subsequent conversation, they asked me how I would react to an LNG
facility. I told them that I personally regarded the reuse of the fuel
depot as an LNG facility appropriate and that I would see no reason to
oppose it.
I still believe that today.
Roberta Weil of Harpswell is the chairperson of the Fuel Depot
Committee.
|