Posted on 12/20/2001 3:20:36 AM PST by brityank
[MA] Landowners Take On State
Boston Globe 12.06.01GRAFTON - 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)
I already did, above -- just before you started blathering about how the nazi-Enviros will cause in the rape and murder of children.
Not by a longshot.
Are you one of those fact-free people who argue by insults?
No, Mr. NIMBY, you did not; you alleged that 'costs' occurred, but you cannot enumerate them without admitting that they are not legitimate.
Your 'costs' are the illegitimate use of others property.
Swat a dragonfly BUMP!
Seems like the farmers needing to clear land, could use a good lightning induced fire.
Yes, Mr. Poopyhead, I did enumerate them by type.
I named these imposed actual costs: additional traffic, roads, drainage, water supplies, and fire and police coverage.
I also listed these intangibles: added noise, pollution, crowding, and the fact that the developments seem to be designed to encourage a transient, non-neighborly lifestyle.
One would have to be blind or wilfully ignorant to claim that massive new developments do not impose these costs -- they are obvious to all who care to look. I give to you as one actual example, the city of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Massive development on the east/northeast side of town has indeed imposed both the real and intangible costs I mentioned.
You are apparently so wrapped up in your little anti-enviro snit that you seem quite unable to recognize that there are real costs involved in the position you support.
Whether the imposed costs are worth the return, is a matter that can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Reasonable people can and do use that approach.
Your position admits no debate -- it's pave-and-pack all the way. As such, I find it difficult to distinguish between you and the no-growth environmentalists.
That is a reasonable list. (The demand is driven primarily by immigration BTW.) There are positive externalities as well with economies of scale to the tax base or in balancing utilization of fixed assets, jobs and customers for existing local business, additional businesses that might reduce transportation costs... What we don't do as a society is to accout these impacts in an objective fashion because so many of the decisions are political. That is what the system in my book can eventually address.
Agreed. Well stated.
We also have Big Government, which the enviros love and worship, to blame for a lot of this too. Put responsibility on zoning laws they pass that make no sense.
These socialist enviral Nannys are truly vicious and work 24/7 to limit anything of progress. Some of the worse the well off who just moved into a community! They don't have to work, and they don't want anyone else moving into their new shangra la!
When a state like Oregon or this state re this thread does this, I agree with you re the size of big government. However some of the worse Nannys live in the smaller cities. They control the city councils and mayor's office. If they thought that they could by with banning breathing, they would try it. Of course the ban would not apply to them!
Your idea of 'costs' is a bit twisted.
You NIMBYs never seem to be ready to buy the property on which you wish to inhibit development - no moral responsibility. - It was ok when your house got built, but the next guy is "unfriendly" for buying a much needed house that was built on land that you wished to enjoy without paying for it.
In my area post WW II shacks are selling in the million dollar range due to the housing shortage the NIMBYs have given us. - If you want to add a bedroom to your house to make room for family members, the permits will cost about $16,000 (you can build the room for $10,000) due to all the environmental hand in pocket funds that have been enacted.
There is no reasonable alternative to building these cracker-box subdivisions; due to high taxes, most can't afford any luxury. - If you want to live in an uncrowded place, buy lots of land.
Excuse me, but are you accusing me of this? If so, you are SERIOUSLY mistaken.
Dear Mr. Editor-Surveyor:
You have yet to state that the cost areas I named are incorrect. There is a good reason why you have not so stated: because the cost areas I stated are correct.
Just by happenstance, I came across an interesting financial number to give an idea of cost: on 1 January the Pueblo, CO, retail sales tax is set to increase by about 1%, to a total level of 8%.
The proceeds from the increased taxes are to be used for infrastructure improvements -- things like roads, sewage, and drainage -- for Pueblo West. It's an area where there is massive development taking place. The taxpayers throughout the city are left to pick up the costs imposed by the development of the area.
Next: we both know that the cracker-box subdivision is not a tax issue -- and there are obviously alternatives, as the existence and layout of older areas of town amply demonstrates. The people who buy these tract houses do not lay out the plots, the developers do. In doing so, developers go to a great deal of effort to pack as many houses in the development area as they possibly can. It's simply a matter of maximizing their profit -- with the side effect of imcreasing the aforementioned costs.
Left with no logical position, you have resorted to ill-informed NIMBY-calling. That's your right, I suppose, but I know one editor-surveyor who's doing a good job of lowering my opinon of both editors and surveyors.
So that there is no misunderstanding here, let me state unequivocally: All of your stated 'costs' are in error.
Having spent 13 years working in a county public works department, I can tell you first hand that it is, and has been for at least half a century, standard policy to build in excess capacity for all infrastructure. - The fact that you have that excess capacity available for your own use for a period of time does not in any way create a 'cost' to you when it is ultimately pressed into it's intended use.
This is a chain occurrance, subdivision by subdivision, where each benefits from the one before, and in turn pays for the same excess for the next. - In short, What Goes Around Comes Around.
The high density of most subdivisions is caused by coercion through planning departments, by social egalitarians (most of whom are also NIMBY enviros) who seek "affordable housing" (read: block busters) under state laws, and the developers, and existing residents have little or no say in the matter.
Finally, all matters of economic restraint are Tax Issues. - Taxes kill jobs, taxes kill opportunity, and taxes destroy families by necessitating that both parents be employed. - Taxes, and the extra-constitutional action of governments are a constant drain on our society.
Time for you to take your green glasses off and rub your eyes.
Once we're done grabbing 60% of the land from Connecticut to Maine.
Did you read in the article where the states have essentially taken all of the land here? Native Vermonters vehemently oppose these regulations (Act 250 in VT) because they own and use the land as farmers, loggers, and sportsmen.
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."
Yet Donna Williams has the nerve to claim that this has nothing to do with land-taking and freezing development? Excellent article -- it exposes the repressive, duplicitous nature of the environmentalists, but rather than laying it on too thickly, lets them hang themselves with their own nooses.
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.