Ethel Walker land - 2006/08/25 20:16Due to something I read in a local Simsbury paper today, I have to say...
As much as I love open space, expecting the town to pay $11 million to preserve the Ethel Walker land is downright irresponsible.
All we ever hear about is our high taxes and less services. How is spending this money going to help the town? It helps Ethel Walker but not the town of Simsbury. Joan is correct in saying that there are many alumni of the school who can make donations to help improve its financial situation. If I remember correctly, as a private school, Ethel Walker:
*does not pay taxes *employees' children attend Simsbury schools *can purchase homes in the area and not pay taxes on them
The same goes for Westminster who is buying up an adjoining neighborhood for employee housing. It is not Simsbury's responsiblity to rescue private institutions when the going gets tough. Ethel Walker gives nothing back to Simsbury and in my opinion, is not a good neighbor to the town or its citizens. Expecting the town to pay an exorbitant price for this land is unconcionable!!
Registered users are welcome to participate in discussions.
If you are already registered, please login first. Not registered? Signup for free!
Specter
User Platinum Board Member
Posts: 1116
Re:Ethel Walker land - 2006/08/26 10:31I agree uconniac. While the government has some responsibility to protect open space (and anyone from a highly developed area like Phoenix, Tuscon, St. George, Florida, New York (city), any of the cities down the east coast, etc. etc. etc.), Simsbury already has a ton of open space.
I thought this problem was resolved previously - wasn't there an agreement reached last year between EW and the citizen's group and Simsbury Land Trust? What happened to that? Remember how we all thought that was a great accomplishment - groups working together to solve the problem rather than taking diametrically opposed positions? Why is the town all of sudden involved in this?___________________ Talk atya L8r,
Specter
The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth. - Edith Sitwell (1887 - 1964); SHARE (2005 - )
Registered users are welcome to participate in discussions.
If you are already registered, please login first. Not registered? Signup for free!
harlow
User Platinum Board Member
Posts: 144
Re:Ethel Walker land - 2006/08/26 17:29My only beef on the whole Ethel Walker thing is if that school has never paid taxes, and now all of a sudden EW decides that to sell, how can EW own this land for 75 years or 50 years, whatever, and never pay tax on it and then earn a cool 11 millon dollars for land they never paid tax on. Dont they owe some sort of "backtax" on this profit? I dont think the school has too many kids enrolled in Simsbury Schools. Most of their kids go to the private schools for high school. It would be interesting to know how many of their kids do use the school system.
Registered users are welcome to participate in discussions.
If you are already registered, please login first. Not registered? Signup for free!
SimsburyInfo4U
User Senior Board Member
Posts: 18
Re:Ethel Walker land - 2006/08/27 09:00It's important for all of Simsbury to be educated on this issue and aware of issues that go beyond the economics of buying land, bond issues, etc. This land seems to have more issues associated with it than just preventing more McMansions to be built or flooding our schools with another couple hundred kids. For lots of good information, go to:
All of the obvious reasons for preserving open space aside (wildlife, forests, rural character etc), this land is located on top of one of the town's most important aquifers (the Stratton Brook Aquifer) which provides 73% of the water for the 14,000 Aquarion customers in Simsbury, Granby, and East Granby. It also provides 100% of the water to many residents on private wells (some quotes from the following link). The potential for pollution of this water source is, to me, the greatest issue.
I have heard discussions by some people about passing ordinances that prohibit lawn fertilizer and pesticides on any homes built on this land, etc. But I think this is silly. You can't effectively legislate and enforce effectively how people use their own land/property in this way. What if someone parked their car in their driveway and for some reason their car had an oil leak? Or their gas tank leaked? Or the oil delivery man spilled oil during a delivery? You can't have people living on land they own and have them feel like they are living on environmental eggshells.
I think the water issues are very critical and important to consider. There are far too many homes in this area who depend on clean and safe drinking water from their wells - and clean and safe drinking water from a water company goes without saying.
If this aquifer becomes polluted, I don't know how something like that can be remedied. But I do think that we all need to understand that land isn't just what we see with our eyes but it's also what's below it, above it, and around it. The issues are sometimes far more complex than who pays taxes, how much something costs, or what some private school needs to help their endowment.
***END OF POST***
Registered users are welcome to participate in discussions.
If you are already registered, please login first. Not registered? Signup for free!
Specter
User Platinum Board Member
Posts: 1116
Re:Ethel Walker land - 2006/08/27 11:01Good points Info - and I am amazed that I actually agree with you on anything. Water is quite important. But I still wonder what happened to the original deal that everybody worked out last year for this parcel? I mean I thought it was a done deal.
But doesn't this go back to our original disagreements? That property owners have a right to sell their land if they choose? That they have a right to believe it can be developed if sold? When the Land Trust and the Keep the Woods folks came out last year and told everyone they had a solution, I applauded it (as opposed to SHARE's in-you-face tactics - not working with the land owner, but simply opposing). However, I don't seem to remember anyone saying that the town would have to foot the entire bill.
Here is an article from the Courant from November 30, 2005 (emphasis mine):
Although the Trust for Public Land signed an agreement with Simsbury officials to help preserve 450 acres of woodland owned by the Ethel Walker School that is proposed for development, there is still no assurance that the land will be saved.
The arrangement is the first of many steps that must take place to prevent the school from building a large luxury-home subdivision. Plans call for construction of more than 120 houses on 165 acres of the property, which is zoned residential. Homes would be built on 1- and 2-acre lots and sold for about $1 million.
Under the terms of the accord, the trust has taken the lead in trying to negotiate a fair purchase price for the property.
Assuming that the school and the trust can establish a reasonable value for the land, town officials would then have to settle on how much it could reimburse the trust for a portion of the preservation costs. The town's contribution would be subject to a referendum.
If residents authorize the spending, the trust would then seek to raise the remainder of the purchase price privately. Then, the trust would buy the land or the development rights and transfer ownership to the town.
There may be opportunities for the trust to raise some of the funds from foundations, but officials at the trust have advised that most of the private funds are likely to be solicited from concerned Simsbury residents and school alumni.
Nothing is guaranteed. Nevertheless, residents have good reason to feel optimistic. The trust, a national organization, has a good record of preserving open space.
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Remember, at the base of this discussion is what will happen to our taxes and our town's fiscal health if the measure is approved (and quite honestly, for an issue of this size, I believe it should go to the ballot). And as far as that goes - the town's fiscal health impacts everyone, not just Aquarion customers.
If it is so important to the people who use Aquarion - let them buy the property - or Aquarion. I mean - I don't see the town rushing to protect my well from the tobacco field pesticides/herbicides that are getting closer every year to my well. I am going to have to be the one to protect my water supply. Why should I pay for someone elses supply to be protected? Can I expect the town to bail me out at your expense? In some respects it's like me having to pay for the band shell which does not benefit everyone in town.
I do have another question. Is this aquifer a flowing one (as opposed to a stationary, spring-fed lake)? If so, do you know which way it flows? Is there a hydrologic map that shows where it runs?
Overall, this is a thorny issue.....___________________ Talk atya L8r,
Specter
The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth. - Edith Sitwell (1887 - 1964); SHARE (2005 - )
Registered users are welcome to participate in discussions.
If you are already registered, please login first. Not registered? Signup for free!
Specter (1116)
