Laserfiche WebLink
July 26th, 2020 <br /> <br /> <br />Dear Council Members, <br /> <br />The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our opposition to the proposed Long Lake Rowing Club (LLRC) <br />clubhouse and boat storage facility at Summit Beach on Long Lake. We are citizens of Orono and attend Orono <br />public schools. <br /> <br />The Vision Statement of Orono City is as follows: <br /> <br />To be the residential community of choice and remain widely recognized for its preservation of natural rural beauty, <br />quality of life, and recreational assets. <br /> <br />These words should be defined as you consider the LLRC proposal. As defined by the Cambridge Dictionary: <br /> <br />“preservation”—the act of keeping something the same, or of preventing it from being damaged. <br /> <br />“natural”— as found in nature not involving anything made or done by people. <br /> <br />“rural”--- in, of or like the countryside. <br /> <br />“quality of life”—the level of comfort or satisfaction that a person or group enjoys. <br /> <br />“recreational”—connected with ways of enjoying yourself when you are not working. <br /> <br />Proceeding with the proposal of LLRC or any private interest group as related to Summit Beach is at clear <br />odds with the Vision Statement that you as Council Members were elected to uphold. <br /> <br />Our objection to the LLRC proposal is in no way “anti-rowing” but rather “pro natural space and public <br />use.” Long Lake has only two public beaches for the enjoyment of all members of our local and extended <br />community. The overwhelming majority of Orono residents do not participate in rowing. While some <br />community members gain a greater quality of life participating in this recreational activity, most of us do <br />not. While rowing is a wonderful way to enjoy the outdoors, practice team work and engage in physical <br />activity, this is not the point. Building a facility for use by a small subset of community members is not in <br />the best interest of our community at large. <br /> <br />Moreover, the arguments that have been used (safety, underuse, security, improvement) to promote this <br />facility are troubling and serve to obfuscate the real issue that this project is not in line with our city Vision, <br />nor is it a public benefit. The promotional material describes the LLRC facility as a “timeless beach <br />destination that generations of neighbors can continue to use.” We believe that the natural beauty of this <br />beach is in itself timeless and does not require buildings to make it something that the public will enjoy for <br />generations to come. <br /> <br />In fact, the Dayton family gifted this land to the city as a designated natural use space for public <br />enjoyment. The letter submitted by the Dayton’s long-time caretaker testifies to this. It is an inappropriate <br />overreach for any one organization, no matter its focus to assume that it’s mission should overshadow <br />this history. <br /> <br />We have read the meeting notes, letters and other documents associated with the LLRC proposal. There <br />are many unanswered questions regarding LLRC that need to be addressed. <br /> <br />• Who are the faces of LLRC? The website lists no Executive Director, Board, Donors or Members. <br />This information needs to be public as this entity is asking for ownership of public land.