Top 10 Reasons to Vote Yes on Feb 26
February 14, 2007 - 3:05pm
Editorials
At a Special Town Meeting on Monday, February 26, voters will decide the future of the Ferrari farm property. Will it be conservation land, or will it be sold to a developer? Our town officials have been working with the Trust for Public Land and the Dunstable Rural Land Trust to come up with a way for us to set aside 150 acres of the Ferrari property as open space without raising property taxes, but it requires your support.
To encourage everyone to support this initiative, we thought we'd share our "Top 10" reasons to go to the Special Town Meeting and vote YES on February 26:
- Voting YES preserves a key parcel of open space without raising property taxes. The town is already collecting the funds it would need to pay the debt through CPA.
- Voting YES means we can avoid the tax increase that would ultimately result from the land becoming a relatively large housing development. (This is the property that came close to being developed as a 150 house 40B project.) Developers have already been asking about the land's availability and the owners are ready to sell. So, if the town doesn't buy it, chances are good that a developer will. Recent history has shown that the increase in tax revenue from housing developments does not cover the corresponding increases in municipal expenses.
- Voting YES will get us the benefit of $1 million in funds coming from other sources to cover part of the cost. We're effectively getting the land at a 40% discount.
- Voting YES will help protect the town water supply. The Ferrari property drains into Joint Grass Brook which flows down to the town well site on Salmon Brook.
Voting YES gives us easy access to a ready-made network of wide-open trails for recreational activities, such as walking, skiing, mountain biking, horseback riding, and bird watching. Your kids and dogs will love it. It also provides another way to get in to Flat Rock Hill and the quarry, which offer a variety of terrain. If you are familiar with Beaver Brook in Hollis, NH, think of this as an opportunity to create a resource like that here in Dunstable.
Ferrari "puzzle piece"Voting YES makes the surrounding conservation land even more valuable as a habitat where natural species can thrive without being disturbed by urban development. Filling in this large piece of our open space "puzzle" creates a 425 acre block of contiguous open space.
Voting YES is consistent with town's Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. (Download plan as 4MB PDF .) We didn't come up with this idea as a knee jerk reaction to the land going on the market. We were actually waiting/hoping for an opportunity like this. For decades, the town has put a high priority on preserving the "greenway" along Salmon Brook and this parcel is a significant part of that plan. Many of the conservationists in town would agree that if we could only buy one more parcel of land as open space, this would be the land to buy. It's that high of a priority.
Read-Parkhurst homeVoting YES will ensure the preservation of one of Dunstable's historical homes. The Ferrari farm house, once known as the Read-Parkhurst house was built by militia Captain Caleb Read around 1805 and was the birth home of Sara Read Roby, who later paid for the construction of the Town Hall. Part of the land purchase price would be paid for by selling 10 acres and the house and barn with a historical preservation restriction.
Voting YES will help preserve the character of Mill Street - which was identified as "heritage landscape" because it is one of the few neighborhoods that hasn't been changed by the town's growth and development. It was the site of an old saw mill. You can walk down Mill Street today and get a sense of what the town was like before its growth spurt. A large development on the Ferrari property would require the road to be widened and the increased traffic would destroy the quiet nature of the neighborhood.- Voting YES will preserve this beautiful piece of land forever. 200 years from now, Dunstable residents will still be able to walk the trails on that property and experience the same beauty that you can see today... except the trees will be a lot older.
If that makes sense to you, then please go to the Special Town Meeting on February 26 and VOTE YES. The future of the Ferrari property will be decided at that meeting - not by a ballot vote. Preserving the land will require a two-thirds affirmative vote at the town meeting. A "no" vote will very likely result in the land being sold to a developer who will find a way to cover the land with houses. We won't get a second chance.
» login to post comments | printer friendly version
It's just a matter of time
Submitted by Kathy Icenogle on February 23, 2007 - 4:37pm.
If I wasn't faced with several "Land for Sale" signs on the Best property (on Rt 113 and Lowell Road), I might agree with your claim that the threat of the property being sold to a developer was unfounded. But it is an easily verifiable fact that the land was put on the market within months of the town passing up the opportunity to buy the land.
I believe that the reason that the Best property hasn't sold YET is just a matter of price. The real estate market has been relatively soft in recent years. My understanding is that the Best family can afford to wait until the market meets their price. The only thing that will keep that land from turning into some kind of housing development is for some benevolent 3rd party to come along and buy it before a developer gets it, but I wouldn't count on that happening. It's just a matter of time before we see houses there... and I doubt that whatever gets built there will fit the historical character of that section of Rt. 113. I regret the outcome of that town meeting every time I drive by one of those "For Sale" signs.
What we know about the Ferrari property is that it has been on the market for a few years now and has come close to being sold for development a couple of times already. I believe the Ferraris want to see the property sold sooner versus later. If we don't buy it, the likelihood of it being sold to a developer is very high. The land was almost sold to 40B developer who would have put a LOT of houses on it. He apparently walked away from the deal due to health issues. Since we have yet to actually produce any affordable housing, we are currently at risk of another 40B developer cutting such a deal. But, I think the more likely case is that a developer would buy it to put in a large subdivision like Parkhurst or Unkety Brook.
I'm curious. Why do you think the land is so difficult to develop? My understanding is that it is 70% dry, buildable land - roughly 100 acres. There's some ledge, but not all 100 acres. I have heard numbers suggesting that something between 22-40 houses could be built there. All a developer needs to turn that property into a full-fledged subdivision is a second egress (street outlet). Do you really believe that, for the kind of money that could be made on such a development, a developer wouldn't be able to come to an agreement with one of the abutters to get that second egress?
Bottom line - I believe that the prospect of the Ferrari property turning into a relatively large subdivision is a very real possibility. I would also point out that the threat of development is only one of my 10 reasons to vote yes.
You are correct that by voting "yes," we would be making a commitment to paying a 20 year debt, but that does not necessarily "lock us into CPA" for 20 years. We would have other options. CPA just happens to be the most sensible way to fund this.
One of our options would be to reduce the CPA surcharge each year to cover only this debt. Initially, we need the full 3% to pay the debt, but the percentage could be reduced each year as our debt payments are reduced. In 2011, we could choose to drop CPA and pay the debt the same way we pay any debt, as a debt exclusion. However, as long as there are any kind of matching funds coming through from the state, we would be ill-advised to abandon CPA. Our willingness to accept the CPA surcharge is currently bringing state dollars into town and we need every dollar we can get. People are already looking at that funding as opportunity to fund some of the things we have been needing to do, such as deal with the flooding on the Babe Ruth baseball field or, perhaps, putting a new roof on the Union Building.
We were smart to adopt CPA. Being "locked in" to a good deal doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me.
To decide how to vote on this question, you mostly need to decide whether you think the town should acquire the property. That is the fundamental question at stake here. The relevance of CPA is that it gives us a way to pay for the land that has the least impact on our pockets and no impact on those who qualify for a CPA exemption.
» login to post comments
[Comment unpublished]
Submitted by Kathy Icenogle on February 26, 2007 - 12:50pm.
There was a comment here that we had to unpublish because the author did not provide a legitimate email address in the post, which we require. We'd like to encourage the author to send an email to editor@dunstablecommons.net to request that we republish the comment. We will respect the privacy of your email address.
» login to post comments
You didn't HAVE to unpublish it
Submitted by Unregistered visitor (not verified) on February 26, 2007 - 4:16pm.
I suspect you CHOSE to unpublish it.
Why do you need a valid email address?
» login to post comments
Maybe not "have to", but should...
Submitted by Kathy Icenogle on February 26, 2007 - 6:14pm.
They say the only things that "have to" applies to are death and taxes. So, yes, you could argue that I didn't have to unpublish the comment. But it is our policy to not support anonymous communication.
You might be surprised to know that I very reluctantly unpublished that particular comment, because the person clearly shares the same views as me and I appreciated what he or she had to say... The comment argues with your position. So, believe me, if it was not for a commitment to being consistent with our policy, I would want to have that comment published.
Similar to other publications (you might read the Groton Herald editorial from last Friday), we allow people to publish statements without publicly showing their name, but we as editors, want to be able to get in touch with whoever posts a comment. That is why a valid email address is required.
Kathy
» login to post comments
Here we go again,,,
The last time we had a town meeting to spend lots of money to buy land, we were told that if the town did not approve the purchase that 'a developer' would ruin the town by developing it. Well, that same parcel is still available for sale! (The 'best' property on Rt 113). Now, we get the same story... if we don't rush out to approve this purchase, it will be developed to the the detriment of the town. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
We already know how difficult it will be to develop this piece of property.
Also, approving this purchase will effective lock us in to the CPA for 20 years...