Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[MA] Landowners Take On State
The Sierra Times ^ | 6 December, 2001 | Boston Globe via Sierra Times

Posted on 12/20/2001 3:20:36 AM PST by brityank

[MA] Landowners Take On State


Boston Globe 12.06.01

GRAFTON - Tom Casale hasn't actually seen a ringed boghaunter dragonfly lately. But if he did, he'd probably swat it dead.

"My mother always used to say they'd sew your lips closed if you let them get too close," Casale said, standing on the porch of his A-frame house in the woods off Old Upton Road.

The dragonfly is one of five rare species whose preservation led the state to designate 8,700 acres in Grafton, Upton, and Hopkinton, including Casale's land, as the state's 26th Area of Critical Environmental Concern, part of a program to protect ecologically sensitive land.

The program has been in place in Massachusetts since 1975, but Casale and several other landowners in Grafton and Upton say that environmental-concern designations are being used with more vigor as a tool to control growth. In a lawsuit currently in the appeals process, they contend the designation diminishes the value of their land by imposing broader regulations on development.

"It's not right," Casale said. "Why should one half of the town be under this jurisdiction while the other side of town is not? It's a land-taking, and the thing that has us really up in arms is, they tried to push it through in a covert manner."

The clash in this land of thick woods, rolling hills, and dairy farms has become another flashpoint in the war on sprawl, as environmentalists seek to protect undeveloped land and landowners raise constitutional objections based on property rights.

The issue reached the US Supreme Court recently, in the case of a Rhode Island man prevented from building on his land because of wetlands regulations, and another case set to be heard this term of a Lake Tahoe, Calif., woman who says the government should compensate her for imposing a moratorium on development.

In the ACEC program, in which 100,000 acres have been protected thus far, there is no ban on development but, rather, an increased level of regulatory scrutiny on the designated land. Any 10 people can nominate an area for ACEC designation by showing the land has four of 11 characteristics that make it environmentally sensitive - a habitat for rare species, for example, or a wetlands ecosystem.

Massachusetts officials say the program is mostly about educating people about precious resources in the state, not slowing development. A Worcester Superior Court judge agreed, saying there was no evidence that any landowner had been economically harmed by the Grafton-Upton-Hopkinton designation.

But landowners say the designation makes it more cumbersome for farmers to clear land for hayfields, and has put a chill on development and potential land sales in an area outside the Interstate-495 loop and north of Worcester.

"They blatantly lied to us, saying it wouldn't affect development. It will, financially," said Lee Robinson, who owns about 400 acres in Grafton. "We have land planners who estimated there would be $10,000 more in permitting costs per lot under the ACEC. For a 50-lot project, that's half a million dollars. And we were told it wouldn't affect us at all."

Donna Williams, who as chairwoman of the Grafton Conservation Commission spearheaded the ACEC effort, said in an interview that the designation "has no regulatory impact except for existing regulations."

But even a small project in an ACEC must go through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, or MEPA, review process, which is normally reserved for large projects.

Having a lower threshold at which MEPA kicks in "adds cost, for going through the environmental review; but, more importantly, it adds uncertainty by adding another step in the development process," said R.J. Lyman, former head of the MEPA office and now an attorney at Goodwin, Proctor & Hoar.

"Any time there is uncertainty and cost, developers will tend to look elsewhere," Lyman said.

Williams defends the process that led to the ACEC, saying "there was nothing secretive about it." She accuses Casale and a handful of others of "spreading a lot of misinformation, and putting a lot of fear into people that was totally unjustified."

Grafton state Representative George Peterson, a Republican who initially supported the designation and then turned against it, said the notification process for the ACEC program is flawed. He has proposed a bill requiring a public meeting with all affected landowners present, at the very beginning of the process.

"Once that nomination is in, the train has left the station and it's difficult to turn it around," he said. "I was not happy with the process."

The Grafton-Upton-Hopkinton ACEC, slightly downsized from the original proposal, was signed by Environmental Affairs Secretary Robert Durand, over the objections of local legislators, selectmen, and planning board members. State officials make no apologies for identifying sensitive areas in a fast-growing state.

"It does not prohibit development. It's not designed to prohibit development. What it does is educate people about what they have in their backyards and what they share with other communities," said Leslie Luchonok, director of the ACEC program. "This is a very public process," he added.

The Grafton-Upton-Hopkinton ACEC was the first case in which an ACEC challenge reached the courts in 26 years of the program, Luchonok said. Two more designations are in the pipeline, in the Nashua River watershed.

The controversy has left a bad taste in an area known for its rural conventions, though only roughly 50 miles from Boston.

"Some of these Yankee farmers are pretty stubborn. And they have good reason," Casale said. "They say we've been good stewards of the land, but then they come in and say, `We'll take it from here."'

Williams, the Conservation Commission chairwoman, said that "the landowners have been good stewards of the land. No one is arguing that." But, she said, "can they continue to be good stewards? Not with the development pressures you have in this region. We can't be certain of the future. It's necessary to have this kind of review to protect these resources."

The 8,700 acres that were designated represent an ecological system "that works, and there aren't a whole lot left in the state that haven't been impacted. So why not protect it and celebrate it?" Williams views the ACEC showdown with some bitterness as well. In an article for Sanctuary magazine, a publication of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, for which she works, Williams castigates "property rights zealots."

On the subject of seeking ACEC designations, she advises against bringing elected officials into the nomination process, because they will "fold up like paper parasols on grapefruits when buffeted by a political breeze. You need only 10 nominators. Use committed environmentalists with strong spines."

To Casale, her advice is proof that the ACEC program is in the hands of environmentalists opposed to development.

The nomination process needs to be beyond reproach, he said, and elected officials representing the views of constituents should not be so readily dismissed.

"Of course they want to put the brakes on growth. But not this way. This is back-door," he said.

Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL. www.SierraTimes.com All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2001 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: enviralists; green; masslist; michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
To: editor-surveyor
Agree- I absolutely despise these incestuous little groups who want to use the force of the government to make others do as they wish.
21 posted on 12/20/2001 9:47:40 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
"SMART GROWTH" = Liberalism's new term to redistribute wealth and population from the Republican controlled suburbs to the Democrat controlled cities. Smart Growth is a bad word.
22 posted on 12/20/2001 9:49:42 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: brityank; CheneyChick; vikingchick; Victoria Delsoul; WIMom; susangirl; coteblanche...
Oh, my heart is just freeping bleeding to pieces for Massachusetts and the rest of the good-for-nothing postage stamp states of New England.

These parcels of pompousity wouldn't even make a decent county out West, yet they keep sending up a dozen self-congratulatory senators (and hardly more congressmen) who think nothing of the federal hording of 60% of the land west of the Mississippi.

Once we're done grabbing 60% of the land from Connecticut to Maine, I vote we export enough California colonistas to increase the population on the remaining land there by 10% to 20%.

This article has put a vicious, vengeful grin on this Californian's face. If New England doesn't like it, then they can go clean their own house, so that we'll finally be able to clean ours.


23 posted on 12/20/2001 9:51:31 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; ThanksBTTT; carry-okie
Bump!
24 posted on 12/20/2001 9:54:23 AM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
What you posted is great!: ""SMART GROWTH" = Liberalism's new term to redistribute wealth and population from the Republican controlled suburbs to the Democrat controlled cities. Smart Growth is a bad word."

Very insightful, Old Pro!

25 posted on 12/20/2001 9:54:35 AM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
My thoughts exactly. Thanks for the bump and article.
26 posted on 12/20/2001 9:57:01 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The word hasn't gotten out to the Boston Globe yet but

The Enviro-wackos are committing scientific fraud

: [LYNX HOAX] Wilderness Institute Calls Federal Action Against Scientific Fraud By ESA Officials
and all their studies need to be reviewed.
27 posted on 12/20/2001 10:03:33 AM PST by flamefront
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Elitist B!tch!

Nazi Elitist b!tch.

Stay well - stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

28 posted on 12/20/2001 10:11:12 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
As for your idea of taking 60% of the land from CT through Maine and relocating a whole buch of Left Coast wackos to the ther Left Coast here in New England it s*cks. What we have here is the putification of these original cradels of Liberty into a miasmic cesspool of statists in control. The number of senators these small states have is a left over from the original ratification of our Constitution and the only part not subject to change by amendment. get used to it. Now if you would care to guarantee that all these new residents would be of the same character as say you or Travis McGee we would have a resotation of our rights up here.

The fact is the Liberals from CT, MA, RI, and VT are a scourage on this land. Yes, they control the politics here that does not mean everyone from New England wants to see the war on the West continue or to have been waged at all.

I suggest you calm down. i in some ways enjoy seeing many of those who have quietly gone along in Liberal Land getting gored by this ox.

Stay well - stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

29 posted on 12/20/2001 10:19:54 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"can they continue to be good stewards? Not with the development pressures you have in this region. We can't be certain of the future. It's necessary to have this kind of review to protect these resources."

If we pick this one apart, we can see that there really is a problem lurking in here, which neither side really wants us to discuss.

First off, you can kind of see her point. It is a plain fact that suburban housing developments completely destroy wildlife habitat. Just about any development you care to name has the following characteristics: close-packed (and ugly) houses, fenced yards, plenty of concrete, and no space for wildlife. When one lives near such a development, it's common to see all sorts of unexpected wildlife in the yard -- or dead alongside the road -- as the animals are pushed out by construction. This represents a real loss to a community.

Digging deeper, one can find a couple of agendas at work here.

On the one hand, the anti-development crowd commonly resorts to this back-door method of finding an obscure little beast as a means of bringing the weight of the Federal government to bear on their behalf. This prevents an honest and necessary discussion for finding a balance between home-building and preservation of wildlife habitat -- both of which are needed and desirable.

On the other hand, the developers' interests are often at odds with the rest of the community. Mutually satisfactory outcomes are rare: it's almost impossible for members of the community to influence developers once they've got it in their minds to build. Unlike normal citizens, developers have virtually unlimited resources, and large staffs of lobbyists and lawyers who can devote all of their time, efforts -- and campaign contributions -- toward total victory. Eventually the normal citizens will miss a meeting, and then they're toast.

Just as with the environmentalists, the developers work hard to avoid necessary discussion on homes vs. wildlife. In addition, the developers work hard to mask the fact that their handiwork inevitably leads to real and significant monetary costs to the community, including additional traffic, roads, drainage, water supplies, and fire and police coverage -- not to mention the intangible losses such as added noise, pollution, crowding, and the fact that the developments seem to be designed to encourage a transient, non-neighborly lifestyle.

Which brings us to the real problem: people like us -- the ones in the middle -- end up paying the price imposed by both sides of this battle, and we really haven't got much choice other than to pick which group to which we'll surrender.

30 posted on 12/20/2001 10:24:28 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Who may nominate and elgibility features
31 posted on 12/20/2001 10:25:18 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
B.S.
I see you know male bovine dung when you see it too.
Understanding, with dawning clarity, is slowly coming to much of the ignorant masses attention. snicker...ignorant masses...Massachusetts
32 posted on 12/20/2001 10:26:59 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth; editor-surveyor
If New England doesn't like it, then they can go clean their own house, so that we'll finally be able to clean ours.

Here, here!!! hehehe.


33 posted on 12/20/2001 10:31:09 AM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Massachusetts...America's dilema in microcosm.
Should they start enforcing or restricting immigration standards?
34 posted on 12/20/2001 10:32:05 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
Here, here!!! hehehe.
LOL
What a play on words you have there.
35 posted on 12/20/2001 10:34:20 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Hopkinton is my home town, I have relatives in Grafton and Upton.
Bump for later read
36 posted on 12/20/2001 10:39:37 AM PST by The Mayor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan;brityank;1oldpro
Here is a well-documented resource for educating people of the logical fallacies, unintended consequences, and environmental damage caused by Smart Growth (Agenda21) in Portland, Oregon.
37 posted on 12/20/2001 10:41:57 AM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
A bump for a fellow author, to whom I owe a favor.


38 posted on 12/20/2001 10:45:03 AM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Thanks, that's worth saving
39 posted on 12/20/2001 10:46:08 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: brityank
"Property Rights is not just a Western Problem."

That's a good point Brity...we westerners tend to think this is only happening in the west but some of the most important court cases have been in the eastern US.

40 posted on 12/20/2001 10:53:03 AM PST by Cuttnhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson