Article 3, the non-binding Advisory Question regarding the future of the former tannery site, only provides two answers. Neither selection is as simple as the wording makes it appear. The first, "Commercial/Business," isn't just a general vote for a preference of commercial use on the site. It is a vote to continue attempting to sell the lot as a single unit. As will be outlined below there are a wide range of other approaches to utilizing the site for commerce, all of which make infinitely more sense. The second option is "Park/Open Space," which could cover a wide range of activities on the lot including mixed commercial/public uses. In other words, a vote for "Commercial/Business" is a vote to stay on the same failed path we've been on, where a vote for "Park/Open Space" indicates an interest in pursuing new approaches to putting the former tannery site back to work for the citizens of Camden.

In the past six years only one legitimate party has shown interest in the property. That party backed out of negotiations before the town had an opportunity to consider whether to sell to them citing the high expense and time-delays associated with development of the former tannery site. Many have said this party was a willing buyer but for a few vocal "not-in-my-backyard" neighbors. However, with a little understanding of the restrictions and regulations placed on the former tannery site by Maine Department of Environmental Protection following remediation, it is clear to anyone why no legitimate buyer has emerged: purchasing the former tannery site as a unified lot would come with the burdens of uncertainty, added expense and potential legal liability.

In 2008 the town invested in the site's remediation in the most responsible way imaginable: in cooperation with the DEP through its Voluntary Response Action Program. Upon completion of the remediation efforts, the DEP issued a Certificate of Completion. This document shows that the state of Maine has approved the site as safe and useful for a wide range of purposes, including commercial, residential and recreational uses.

But the Certificate also places certain restrictions and regulations on what is known as the VRAP zone, covering approximately one-third of the property: (1) the owner may not excavate in the VRAP zone without obtaining the DEP's approval; (2) any habitable structure placed in the VRAP zone must have subslab vapor venting systems installed; and (3) although the Certificate releases any owner from liability under state law, it has no impact on liability to third parties. In a region such as ours where numerous properties suitable for commercial development are available, it is not surprising that when the former tannery site is marketed as a single parcel - VRAP zone included - it has not been competitive.

And so regardless of your thoughts on commercial use versus park space, two things are clear: a new approach is needed if the former tannery site is ever to be anything more than a vacant lot, and the town must take responsibility for reclaiming the VRAP portion since it is unlikely any commercial enterprise will ever be willing to do so. Perhaps the VRAP portion is beautified and the town continues marketing for sale the remaining unencumbered portion of the property; or maybe the entire lot remains in possession of the town with commercial activities allowed, much like our public landing currently operates; or perhaps a beautiful park on the whole property is envisioned and developed as fundraising efforts allow. All of these approaches start with voting "Park/Open Space" on Article 3 to get us off the current path.

Wyatt McConnell lives in Camden.