A false narrative in Alna

Dear Editor:

The most strongly debated article on Alna’s 2024 annual town meeting warrant was a new mining and blasting ordinance brought forward by the Planning Board. The new ordinance was developed by Alna’s all-volunteer Planning Board through a process praised for its openness and transparency, and as a model of best practices.

The Planning Board reviewed similar ordinances from communities across Maine, consulted with town counsel and mining experts, accepted written comments continuously, and heard oral comments at a public workshop. To handle this heavy workload, Alna’s Planning Board met every other week over nearly a year. 

The Planning Board carefully reviewed every public comment received, as reflected in 19 drafts still posted on the Alna town website.  Representatives of Crooker Construction, arguably the largest single stakeholder in the process, were among the most consistent attendees and commenters. Indeed, during the workshop, Crooker representatives complimented the Planning Board for their professionalism in the development effort, and for incorporating many of Crooker’s comments into the draft.

Despite the Planning Board’s outreach, notably absent from the process were Alna’s small gravel pit owners. 

Following defeat of the ordinance at town meeting, opponents to the ordinance, most of whom had not read the ordinance, have accused the Planning Board of pursuing a predetermined agenda. This accusation ignores the extensive research, public comment, and debate that went into the draft ordinance.  The draft ordinance reflected the views of those members of the public who chose to participate in the public comment opportunities.

The accusation that the Planning Board is to blame, by those who failed to participate in the ordinance development process, is a false narrative created by the opponents who fail to take personal responsibility for not participating.

Alna’s Planning Board is to be commended for the hard, competent, and even-handed work that they performed over nearly a year. Certainly, more work is needed. The Planning Board should be permitted to continue their work, gather additional input, and revise the ordinance. It makes no sense to start over from scratch with a new ad hoc committee focused on those with financial interests rather than the public interest.  

Linda Kristan

Alna