Rapid River
 

The following is a letter I received from Friends of Richardson:

The character of a unique and historic area in Western Maine is in
jeopardy....and we need your support!

Union Water Power has filed a request for Zoning Change and an Application for
Subdivision for their land at Middle Dam with the Land Use Regulation Commision
(LURC). If approved by LURC, this zoning change and subdivision permit would
allow for an exclusive condo-like development of nine camps in a cluser on a
six acre parcel of land located between the Carry Road and the Rapid River,
about 1,000 feet from Lakewood Camps, and also three other lakefront condos on
the firt point left of the dam on Lower Richardson Lake.

This condo-like cluster of camps would share a large common septic system,
well, parking, and driveways off the Carry Road to access the camps in a
cluster, and the Black Cat dike road to access the three lakefront condos, and
a noise emitting generator for electricity. Access to this development is
specified to be primarily by water access from Mill Brook and/or South arm, or
via Fish Pond Road.

Those of you who know of this place realize that this development would have a
negative impact and cause irreparable damage to the unique and historic
character of this area.

What's At Stake:

* Increased fishing pressure on Rapid River
* Probable environmental damage to a fragile ecology
* Increased boat traffic on lakes and in wilderness areas
* Increased congestion at boat launching areas
* Increased traffic on The Carry Road
* Negative impact on Lakewood Camps, one of Maine's oldest and
continually operating sporting camps (dating back to the 1800s).

A public hearing on this development is scheduled in June, 2004. We have
applied for intervener status and will give testimony before LURC in opposition
to Union Water Power's Petition for Re-zoning and Application fo Subdivision at
Middle Dam. We value and welcome your written comments for use in our
testimony which can be sent to:

Friends of Richardson
P.O. Box 71
Andover, Maine 04217

OR

Land Use Regulation Coimmission
22 State House Station
Agusta, Maine 04333-0022

OR

e-mail


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For more info go to my site and click on "Safe the Rapid"

TIA,


Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

Rapid River
 

d;o( Sorry, I clicked send before proof reading. Excuse the errors, please.
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

Rapid River
 

dave

i lifted a copy of your post and put it onto FFIM...hope you don't
mind!


on a related note, www.flyfishinginmaine.com (FFIM) will be having
their Spring Conclave (over 100 attendees last year) in Rangley this
June....the proceeds of the event are set up to benefit the Save the
Rapid fund (hoping to control the infiltration of SMB, working with
Forrest Bonney & other IF&W employees, etc). currently a bamboo rod
made by maine makers David Van Burgel and Scott Chase is being raffled
off....there are more raffles and details to come, but for info on the
rod check out this link
http://www.flyfishinginmaine.com/conclave/bamboo.php

tim

Rapid River
 

Tim writes:

i lifted a copy of your post and put it onto FFIM...hope you don't
mind!

Not at all. Ya done good.

Yours is the only reply so far to the post. I hope others who have experienced
this wonderful fishery will contribute something to save it from development.
If this goes through, I see Lake Richardson turning into another Lake
Winnipesaukee in the next 25 years. I remember Winnipesaukee in the 40s when
it was undeveloped. Today it is a lake surrounded by a city.

Thanks for your and FFIM's help, Tim. I'll be at Lakewood on the 12th of June,
but may borrow a car from the Carters and meet you at the raffle.

Again, thanks.

Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

Rapid River
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Tim writes:


i lifted a copy of your post and put it onto FFIM...hope you don't
mind!


Not at all. Ya done good.

Yours is the only reply so far to the post. I hope others who have experienced
this wonderful fishery will contribute something to save it from development.
If this goes through, I see Lake Richardson turning into another Lake
Winnipesaukee in the next 25 years. I remember Winnipesaukee in the 40s when
it was undeveloped. Today it is a lake surrounded by a city.

Thanks for your and FFIM's help, Tim. I'll be at Lakewood on the 12th of June,
but may borrow a car from the Carters and meet you at the raffle.

Again, thanks.

Dave


I'm assuming that those are private lands that are being considered for
development?

If so I have missed feelings about this. I am in favor of not having
those lands developed, HOWEVER, I believe the landowners deserve
compensation for the loss in value that results from these new
restrictions. If you are in favor of placing new restrictions on a
landowner that results in a reduction of the value of his land, I
believe that you need to be willing to take the responsibility to
compensate the land owner for that loss.

Willi

Rapid River
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:

Tim writes:

i lifted a copy of your post and put it onto FFIM...hope you don't
mind!

Not at all. Ya done good.

Yours is the only reply so far to the post. I hope others who have experienced
this wonderful fishery will contribute something to save it from development.

I'll send a letter to the LURC and to FoRL sometime this week. Need to
mine Quicken this evening for all the info on how much I spent on my
trip in 2001 (a night in Portland coming and going, the Freeport
massacree, Lakewood, etc.). Don't know if I'll ever get back to Maine,
but I do know I'd be less likely to want to if the Rapid was more
developed and crowded and Lakewood was gone.

Read in an newspaper article on the FFIM site that the Carters didn't
know about the bass problem when they bought Lakewood. They must feel
now like they're threatened from all sides.

Any progress in the effort to reduce the bass numbers?

JR

Rapid River
 

Willi writes:

I'm assuming that those are private lands that are being considered for
development?

If so I have missed feelings about this. I am in favor of not having
those lands developed, HOWEVER, I believe the landowners deserve
compensation for the loss in value that results from these new
restrictions. If you are in favor of placing new restrictions on a
landowner that results in a reduction of the value of his land, I
believe that you need to be willing to take the responsibility to
compensate the land owner for that loss.

Willi


Most of the land up there is owned by paper companies (as is most of Maine
ftm). This is not about compensation but about greed. The company that wants
to "develop" the river is doing it simply to please some of the higher
mucky-ups in the company. For example, the condos will be out of reach of most
folks, especially those who fish this wonderful river. The first offerings
will be to executives of the company. The entire ecosystem of the Rapid is in
danger if this goes through.

The New England states are not like the Western states. Our population density
is emmense. We have only a few more places like the Rapid. To open this
pristine land and river to the wealthy will do much harm.

Rapid River
 

JR writes:

Read in an newspaper article on the FFIM site that the Carters didn't
know about the bass problem when they bought Lakewood. They must feel
now like they're threatened from all sides.

Any progress in the effort to reduce the bass numbers?


I imagine their morale is pretty low, but they are hanging tough. There was a
group of Lakewood guests who had joined together and were thinking of buying
Lakewood and using it as a time-share sort of thing. Only problem was that it
would require cooks and maintenance people. When the Carters bought it, we
were very relieved to see they were so dedicated to taking care of the place
and making it a success.

The bass don't seem to be a problem. I have fished at Lower Dam all the way to
Long Pool and never caught a bass. The same with the currents at Pond in the
River. However, I saw one gentleman catch small bass one after another at 2nd
current and release them. About the 3rd one I asked him to kill them before
returning them to the river.

Right now, devolopment of the river and the lake is the main worry. Union
Power could have sold that portion of the land when Florida Power bought them
out, but I guess they say a way to make some dough regardless how it hurt the
ecosystem.

Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

Rapid River
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:


Most of the land up there is owned by paper companies (as is most of Maine
ftm). This is not about compensation but about greed. The company that wants
to "develop" the river is doing it simply to please some of the higher
mucky-ups in the company. For example, the condos will be out of reach of most
folks, especially those who fish this wonderful river. The first offerings
will be to executives of the company. The entire ecosystem of the Rapid is in
danger if this goes through.

The New England states are not like the Western states. Our population density
is emmense. We have only a few more places like the Rapid. To open this
pristine land and river to the wealthy will do much harm.





I'm VERY much in favor of preserving places like the Rapid but feel that
there are legitimate compensations that need to be paid to the land
owner who is giving up some of his rights. In CO, the BLM and the Nation
Forest will often do land swaps in cases like this or some monetary
compensation can be paid. It doesn't matter if the land is owned by a
private person or a wealthy corporation. If you place new restrictions
on land that rule out development, that land loses much of its value and
I think the land owner is entitled to compensation for this loss.

Willi

Rapid River
 

Willi wrote:

I'm assuming that those are private lands that are being considered for
development?

If so I have missed feelings about this. I am in favor of not having
those lands developed, HOWEVER, I believe the landowners deserve
compensation for the loss in value that results from these new
restrictions. If you are in favor of placing new restrictions on a
landowner that results in a reduction of the value of his land, I
believe that you need to be willing to take the responsibility to
compensate the land owner for that loss.

My understanding is that this involves a rezoning that would allow
development not allowed under the current zoning, i.e., it is not a new
restriction, but rather the elimination of a long-standing restriction.

JR