Issues I have overheard
|
|
Clearly the decision on whether to vote for or against Fairwinds will be
difficult for most of us. There are good reasons for voting either way.
Much of the discussion I have heard seems to pass by the other side. In
the space below, I have written down some issues I have heard. Please
write me here
and be sure to tell me which comment you are responding to. |
|
|
4. 11/26/03: I love Harpswell. I hate all the anger, and
I will not write any letters. At first, I was dead set against Fairwinds.
Now I think I may vote for it. I am not worried about a terrorist attack.
That's too remote a possibility. I'm not so worried about the fishermen
anymore, because they seem to catching lobsters OK in Portland Harbor.
Fairwinds has convinced me that they will not harm the environment.
Besides, although it's not so important to me, I am concerned about how
much money SADD 75 will need.
11/30/2003
I ’ll address your points individually:
The terrorists haven’t
disappeared so terrorism is not a “remote” possibility. Due to our
overwhelming military might, terrorism is the new method of war against the
American people. The federal government recognizes this and has devised a
easy-to-communicate “colored” alert system to warn its populace. Perhaps you
are aware of this? The threat is real. Terrorists just don’t attack everyday,
so people, with their short memories, tend to dismiss the possibility glibly.
This dismissive compliance, ironically, makes a target “softer” and increases
the attractiveness of a target and potential for attack because it causes
folks to let their guard down. Bringing this target to Harpswell makes the
town a potential victim of a very real threat. Believe it.
Please read #2 below. Even
Fairwinds admits there will a loss in catch due to the construction of the
pipeline. Portland Harbor is not a comparable situation.
I can say nothing to sway you
if Fairwinds has convinced you that they will not harm the environment. But in
my opinion, that’s snake oil sales, and you’ve bought it. Major industrial
complexes ALWAYS have a detrimental impact on the environment. But don’t
believe me. Just go visit any hulking industrial complex and view the impact
for yourself. Talk to the folks from environmental agencies. You’ll find that
they do their best to just control and mitigate the damage. But there
definitely is damage. Just go over to Cousin’s Island and dive near the power
plant. Witness the ocean floor’s condition for yourself. It’s dead. You’ll
become a believer quickly enough.
The TIF has been created so
that SAD75 wouldn’t get a larger share of tax money from Harpswell. Any
increase in their spending would have to be voted on by all the contributing
towns. Autonomous control of the budget exists only when there are no other
municipalities involved in the decision. This means that Harpswell would have
to fund a “Harpswell only” school system in order to completely control
spending. If you want to talk about that cost, now you’re talking some real
numbers. The lease money vanishes in a puff of green smoke.
I love Harpswell too. It is my
favorite place on this earth. Conoco Phillips will trash and destroy this
town…both in character and in spirit. The damage has already begun. The “hate”
you speak of is just the beginning of said damage. There will be more and
greater dire consequences to follow if this is allowed. That’s not a scare
tactic. That’s reality.
#4 I would like to comment
on the ill-informed comment "I'm not so worried about the
fishermen anymore, because they seem to be catching lobsters OK in Portland
Harbor". A major portion of the best fishing bottom will be off limits to the
lobstermen because of the buoyed off channel for the LNG ship. Some of the
best late summer fishing is between the Whaleboats. Some of the best fishing
is directly off the existing pier that will have a jetty extended over it
making that bottom off limits. Would the author of "not so worried about the
fishermen" like to see their income potentially cut in half!!? Just how
many lobsters constitutes an OK catch?
The issues for me come down to two major ones:
1. Fairness -- is it fair to make
some people poorer to make others richer? Is it fair to destroy the property
values of roughly 100 of our neighbors who live within a stones throw from the
facility? Is is fair to ask the residents of Harpswell Neck to put up with
three years of construction? Is it fair to ask the fishing families of Middle
Bay to assume so much risk? Is it fair to h arm so many or our fellow
Harpswell residents on the hope that our taxes will be lowered?
I have heard from a few people that they don't believe
that property values in the project area will be negatively affected. To those
who think that way, I offer to take you on a tour of the area, and show you
many specific properties, and how close they are to the site. These are
modest, middle class homes, with middle class families living in them. Is it
fair to do this to them? I personally know several families who live near the
site -- they are not sleeping, they are very stressed out as they see the
threat of their homes being rendered worthless, of their life savings being
destroyed. Is that what we want to do to our neighbors?
To those who are thinking of voting for Fairwinds,
please ask yourself one simple question -- If the facility were being built
next door to your property, would you still support it?
2. Impact on Harpswell -- if this project is built, it will
change Harpswell forever. Industry attracts other industry. Just look at other
towns where these types of facilities exist -- read John Lloyd's report about
Kenai -- and ask yourself if this is what you want Harpswell to become? Do you
really think that being known as the home of a major LNG facility will help
tourism? Despite what you may hear from Fairwinds, this is a major industrial
complex, and it comes with all of the negative aspects of such a complex. As
to how it will impact the fishermen, I choose to believe what they are saying
rather than what the Fairwinds PR people are saying about the issue. And
believe me, the fishermen who work the affected waters are virtually without
exception against this project. From what I understand, they will are planning
to get active very soon -- so we will all be hearing from them in the near
future.
Chris Duval
3. The Fairwinds Project is just unsafe. A terrorist
attack would cause incredible damage.3.
When the government issues terrorist warnings, they specifically include and
individually note Liquid Natural Gas vulnerabilities. If it is a “real threat”
to the government, it should also be considered “real threat” by Harpswell
residents. Terrorist choose “soft” targets, those whose defenses are most
penetrable. Harpswell, with its rather laid back style, would be considered
such a target. Harpswell residents would have little patience with the demands
needed to ensure an impenetrable defense. The nature of such an attack, the
newsworthiness, would be the lure to terrorists…for a terrorist doesn’t care
how many people are killed in an attack, the motivation is to instill terror.
It’s to keep a populace afraid, unsettled and off balance…they don’t attack to
necessarily kill people…although it’s considered a nice side benefit. There
only guarantee of safety is to build these facilities away from people. This
removes people from harm’s way and eradicates the terrorist’s motivation for
such an attack. [Kevin White]
2. I don't understand why the fishermen are complaining. They catch lobster in
Portland Harbor and near Searsport where there are tankers. Why can't they
catch them here in Harpswell?2. The tanks
themselves are not the problem. It’s the pipeline that is to be laid. During
the construction of the pipe, the sea floor will be water jet drilled to dig a
trench to lay the pipe. A similar operation was done for an electric cable in
Long Island Sound and the damage done to the local clam beds was irreparable.
Long term studies are currently being undertaken to assess the greater
environmental impact from the continued presence of the cable. There is an
area where the cable is exposed above the surface, due to the inability to dig
(a situation very possible in ledge-ridden Maine), and there is a large amount
of damage in this area; and things have yet to return to normal in the area
surrounding the exposure. The disturbance from the construction, as well as
the heat, noise and electro-magnetic radiation from the ongoing use is
expected to cause injury to the fishing industry, resulting in an immediate
precipitous drop in catch. This is known and admitted to by Fairwinds. How
long it will take to, or if it will ever, recover from the damage caused is an
unknown…just like it is in Nova Scotia and Long Island Sound…where they are
still waiting after years. [Kevin White]
1.
Harpswell needs to accept Fairwinds because many of its citizens need relief
from their high taxes.1. Harpswell will see
only temporary relief from taxes until such a time that municipal spending
(due to increased population and development pressures) will ultimately drive
taxes upward. Most likely this will result in permanent higher taxes created
by a higher ongoing level of expenditure by the town. The net result is that
Harpswell citizens will have a more costly infrastructure to maintain and the
taxes will be more burdensome than they are today. Once the “standard of
government living” is raised, it cannot go back to it’s original level. Fringe
economic families, who live on the edge of poverty, will be forced to move
elsewhere as the cost of living in Harpswell will exceed their means. [Kevin
White]
1. Like many I have lost sleep worrying what will become of
Harpswell. Lately what comes to mind mostly is taxes. It is our current
inequitable property tax situation that has brought us to the point that we
are willing to vote on something that will take away fishing jobs, add risks
to the lives of many families, and change Harpswell forever. This is a
shortsighted and irresponsible means to lower taxes. If only the time and
energy currently being put into opposing groups could be harnessed and
redirected to Augusta to bring about meaningful and lasting reform. There are
many possible solutions that don't involve gas plants and big energy
companies. I find it disgraceful that our elected officials have selfishly
allowed this unfair situation to go on year after year at the expense of
Maine's longtime residents and fishermen. Other states have created laws that
deal fairly with property tax issues, such as only allowing assessments at the
point of acquisition and not during ownership. Something similar should be
made available immediately to Maine property owners who are also Maine
residents. We should be putting pressure on the government to swiftly resolve
the property tax issue, instead of being driven to carelessly throw out our
comprehensive plan and welcome industrial blight. The government of Maine
needs to function within its means and not anticipate added income from
increased property evaluations at the expense of Maine residents. [Jane
Meisenbach, Harpswell |