Committee cites Project Blue as cautionary tale on transparency

Several committee members repeatedly returned to "Project Blue" as a cautionary example of how promising proposals can collapse when developers change scope and withhold information. Members said changing project descriptions and early nondisclosure agreements eroded trust, and that transparency about end users and power/water plans is essential to maintain public confidence. "It was the lack of transparency," one member said, noting that even after unanimous public rejection some work on the project continued, which deepened mistrust.The group discussed requiring concrete developer commitments — such as a named end user or firm engineering plans — at key permitting stages and using breakout-topic outreach sessions so residents can get topic-specific information (power, water, infrastructure). Committee members also suggested considering community benefits agreements or set-term approvals so towns can hold developers to clear obligations over time.