PHIPPSBURG

When Jack Parker applied to remove dilapidated pilings from the beach near his Phippsburg cottage last year, he quickly learned that residents, tourists and others had — to put it mildly — strong feelings about his plans.

“We were surprised at the intensity and the tone of the objections,” said Parker.

The pilings are the only remains of the old Eastern Steamship Company wharf in Phippsburg that tourists used to pour into the Midcoast during the summer. Long abandoned, the pilings serve no practical purpose, but many residents and summer visitors find the remains aesthetically pleasing.

In September 2016, Parker filed an application to remove the pilings, citing erosion as the motivating factor to pull them out. While many residents have been vocal in their opposition to their removal, Parker’s application was approved by the Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Over the summer, the town filed an appeal.

Throughout the permitting process, tensions have run high. Though some have accused Parker of having an ulterior motive, Parker insists that environmental concerns have motivated him since building a home on the beach, right next to the pilings.

People are “spreading of false narratives about us wanting to build a new dock, and about our dislike of the pilings,” he said.

“This is our sixth summer at the cottage, and as a boy growing up I spent a lot of time at that cottage, so I’ve seen the beach ebb and flow and come and go, just like everybody else has,” said Parker, who today is the CEO of Woolwich-based Reed & Reed, a construction and wind power firm.

“But a couple years ago we noticed at some particularly high tides with storms, the erosion had gone so much further into the beach,” said Parker, recalling how recent tides had scoured a four-foot vertical drop at a bulkhead at the beach. “That’s when I knew.

“The beach used to go a lot further out toward the pilings,” he added. “I used to fish there a lot, and now at high tide in the summertime there’s barely enough room for people to walk by.”

Observing the currents in front of the beach, Parker suspected that the pilings might be causing or exacerbating the erosion. He commissioned a study to find out what effect the pilings had on the beach, and it confirmed his suspicion.

The commissioned study would become the basis of his application, and the only scientific study of the pilings that would be included in the permit and appeal process. While some would offer anecdotal evidence that no erosion was taking place, Parker pointed to environmental science as backing up his concern that erosion was an increasing risk.

“The real threat is not from what’s happening today, but as sea levels rise and storms become more intense — you’ve seen the hurricane news, right?” said Parker. “So what we all know now from listening to the news the last month, as ocean levels warm, it creates more energy in storms. That’s how hurricanes become more powerful. They pass over warm water. The same can be said of rising sea levels and intense storms.

“And what we’ve seen is the rate of increase in the rise of sea levels has actually increased just in the last six years,” he added.

Even if the impact of the pilings on the beach is minor now, argues Parker, global warming will make it a major issue in the not-so-distant future.

“We love the looks of them,” Parker said of the pilings, but the risk of increased erosion outweighed any aesthetic pleasure derived from the remains of the old pier.

While he knew the pilings were popular, Parker said he expected the townspeople to agree with his assessment. Instead, he’s been surprised with the hostility he’s faced since the permit to remove the pilings became public.

On the I LOVE Popham Beach! Facebook page, some people have vented their frustration.

“Hey, if you don’t like the view, DON’T LIVE HERE!” said one commenter.

“I believe Mr. Parker is acting on his own behalf and pursuing his own agenda with little or no regard to Popham Beach, the history that goes along with this wonderful little seaside village, or the people who have been there for generations,” added another.

Parker dismisses some of the online comments, however, noting that many of the most outspoken commenters are from out of state.

“A lot of the really vocal opponents aren’t from around here. You know that, right?” said Parker, listing several people who have spoken up in opposition. “A lot of those folks don’t own property. They come here maybe for a week or two out of the year, maybe every year, maybe not at all, but they certainly have opinions.”

But the opposition has gone beyond just words on social media, according to Parker.

“We’ve had trash thrown on our property and some other acts of vandalism on the property. We’ve had nasty public comments. We’ve had signs posted on our property and around the neighborhood — really mean spirited things. We’ve had a protester on our private property with a sign,” Parker said.

“When people don’t have anything substantive to offer to a debate, they resort to what I call odious personal attacks,” Parker added.

Not everyone in Phippsburg is hostile to his efforts, he said, but their support has been silent so far.

In the meantime, the appeal process rolls on. While that process isn’t expected to be completed for some time, the permit issued by the DEP allows Parker to remove the pilings between Oct. 15 and April 1. Parker said he has not decided whether he will remove the pilings before the appeal has run its course. If he does, it’s unclear what the consequences will be.