Specter
User
Platinum Board Member
| Posts: 1116 |  |
|
Re:Ethel Walker land - 2006/08/27 11:01
Good 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 - ) |
Specter (1116)
