| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed, Jul 22 2009, 4:09 pm EDT Post subject: Farmland preservation |
 |
|
Just wondering how people feel about the town spending money on
open space at this time... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 22 2009, 4:31 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Farmland preservation |
|
|
No doubt that it is a bad fiscal climate.
However, since the 1950s patterns of development have not been optimal fiscally or environmentally. Land preservation is a good investment. Missing the opportunity to do so now (irrespective of the fact that real estate values are depressed) would not make sense. If the opportunity is missed and land is developed, the decision not to do so becomes irreversible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jul 23 2009, 7:39 am EDT Post subject: Re: Farmland preservation |
|
|
| In addition to the negative economic impact of residential development, COAH rules have turned commercial development into a financial drain in the long term. All the more reason to support farmland preservation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jul 23 2009, 7:46 am EDT Post subject: Re: Farmland preservation |
|
|
| So is this a want or a need? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jul 23 2009, 7:55 am EDT Post subject: Re: Farmland preservation |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | So is this a want or a need? |
I would rank it way above a new library or ballfield... But still a want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay T
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jul 23 2009, 8:16 am EDT Post subject: Re: Farmland preservation |
|
|
I think we should look at preservation whenever we have the opportunity. At the same time, we do need to place some restrictions on the approach the TC takes in making their review.
1) We need to look for grant money to make any preservation acquisition. I am opposed to dipping right into our open space funds or other means of town funding without first exhausting all of the potential grant opportunities.
2) If we do not get grants and if the purchase can be made by using open space funds then it needs to be seriously considered for both pros and cons on that specific property and residents should be allowed to comment.
3) If the acquisition is such that we cannot cover the expense with open space funds then depending on the cost we need to do either a resident survey using our town's website or if it is over 1 million dollars a full referendum.
No matter what the approach the TC takes we have to make sure the town residents are involved in the process and are aware of the positive and negative impact of proceeding. Residents should have an equal voice whether they choose to take a stance at a meeting, vote through referendum or in an on-line poll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
publius
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jul 23 2009, 1:28 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Farmland preservation |
|
|
| Better buy now! They're not making land the way they used to! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jul 25 2009, 8:25 am EDT Post subject: Re: Farmland preservation |
|
|
| We need to stop the spending now. Baseball fields, Library, its all too much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jul 25 2009, 8:52 am EDT Post subject: Re: Farmland preservation |
|
|
| And school budgets? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jul 25 2009, 9:19 am EDT Post subject: Re: Farmland preservation |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | And school budgets? |
Yes, and school budgets. We have 3 kids there and voted no on principle because they shouldn't have spent a dime on new "smart boards" etc.
But in fairness, a vast majority of the expense was out of their control -- union contracts, required infrastructure repairs, etc. Which only reinforces the point about new new projects. It's never just a one-time expense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jul 25 2009, 10:55 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Farmland preservation |
|
|
| Doesn't it cost less to buy land than the impact of additional development? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jul 26 2009, 7:55 am EDT Post subject: Re: Farmland preservation |
|
|
| If you go and look at the BOE meeting notes the expense of training is over 40,000 for the teachers on how to use the smart board. I can't seem to help thinking that they should try and figure it out first before there is training. Plus they are sending Phys Ed teachers to training which to me seems a bit unnnecessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jul 26 2009, 9:14 am EDT Post subject: Re: Farmland preservation |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | If you go and look at the BOE meeting notes the expense of training is over 40,000 for the teachers on how to use the smart board. I can't seem to help thinking that they should try and figure it out first before there is training. Plus they are sending Phys Ed teachers to training which to me seems a bit unnnecessary. |
I don't have anything against the smart board slong term but it is an example of an elective expense in a tight economic time. My kids have been in classes that use them and it hasn't fundamentally improved their education. We use them at work too -- I had to show the teacher how to get it to work during the parent night. So I know what their capable of and its nice. Just not essential. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jul 26 2009, 9:20 am EDT Post subject: Re: Farmland preservation |
|
|
| We use them at work as well. The 40K in training I think is over kill. I work for a Fortune 500 company and training can be a large cost. So there are champions assigned who go to training and then teach the office. Why did we have to send a large group of teachers as opposed to simply having one or two go and then train the teachers at an in service day or right before school starts. The teachers wouldn't have had to travel and the school would have saved money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
