Jones PDR - results CtPost article

The CtPost had a follow up article today regarding the referendum turnout. It deserves a follow up comment:

CtPost articles don't maintain a continous link, so I cut/paste and comment:
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4629607

Jones development rights purchase OK'd - ANNE M. AMATO

SHELTON — The city's proposal to purchase development rights at Jones Family Farms was overwhelmingly supported Tuesday. The referendum — approved 5,558 to 1,832 — asked city residents to OK bonding $4.3 million needed to buy an easement protecting 132 acres at the farm from development.
** It should be said that is not the first time the residents overwhelmingly voted to affirm the direction the elected and appointed leaders were making in a land acquisition:
NOVEMBER 7, 2006 $4.3 million Yes: 5558 (75.2%), No: 1832 (24.8%) = 7390
NOVEMBER 2, 2004 $3 million Yes: 8166 (78.3%), No: 2260 (21.7%) = 10426
NOVEMBER 4, 2003 $2 million Yes: 6123 (72.3%), No: 2344 (27.7%) = 8467
JUNE 3, 1997 $6,672,500 Yes: 5159 (89.5%), No: 607 (10.5%) = 5766
The above results are readily available at the secretary of state's website.
(update 2007/1/9) hyperlinks to the above results data is overlayed on the dates

The Jones family would continue to own the land, pay property taxes on it and work it as a farm.
"We were very moved by the enormous support the community showed in approving this," said Terry Jones, the family spokesman. "We knew it was a good proposal and one that would serve the city well for the future, but we also know there's a lot on the plate for taxpayers these days."
The $4.3 million will be combined with a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's farm protection program.
** Other entries in my blog have repetively documented the actual amounts (if rounding, $900k is more appropriate as far as the grant)

Jones said the money will be placed in an endowment that will fund care of the farmland, continue educational programs, and pay for the maintenance of historic buildings at the farm.

"This was a statement by residents of the direction they want us to follow," said Tom Harbinson, the Conservation Commission chairman. "The vote resulted in a 3-1 margin." "Seldom has any issue found the entire community behind it to that degree." Harbinson called the outcome "a victory for Shelton and an example to other farmers."
** Its an example to other communities and I have spoken at Seymour and Orange and Monroe regarding our efforts.

But Mayor Mark A. Lauretti Wednesday expressed some doubts about the purchase.
"This was a tough one for me because there is no public use of the space and [$4.3 million] is a big number," the mayor said. "It weighs on me. Now we have to deal with financing it."
** The USDA grant only applies to conservation easements. The USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service will not contribute to in-fee acquisitions. They recognize that a farmer will have a soil conservation plan, rotation of crops, long term investment in irrigation, drainage tiles, field improvements, prevention against invasive species, etc. A farmer is a better steward of the land with their vested interest than a municipality.

He said it has become increasing difficult to choose which properties to keep undeveloped.
"I'm just not sure this was a good decision," the mayor said.
** I'm sure the Mayor has been misunderstood. Regarding this issue, the Board of Alderman voted unanimously on 3 occassions, the Planning & Zoning unanimous in its 8-24 referral, and the Conservation Commission led the way with championing this unanimously. Additionally, the public has on the 4 occassions listed above voiced their opinion strongly that this is the correct direction they want for their community.

A week ago, Danny Orazietti, a Planning & Zoning Commission member, raised concern that residents might believe the land was being purchased by the city for open space use.
Orazietti said many people may not "realize we are just buying the building rights," adding that the question needed to be "spelled out better."
** look at previous blog entries on Dan's comments. I won't repeat them here.

But proponents of the action said that by preventing sale of the land to a housing developer, it would save the city money in the long run.
** Yes that is true, and I might cover that empircally in future blog entry. However this action was more about ensuring balance, not preventing homes. The farming generation of this family today may be passionate about continuing the farm, but that may not be the case with the next. A family disaster such as death or divorce, and the unknown future nuances regarding estate taxes, could cause the end of using the property for agriculture if it were not protected. This ensures against those possibilities, and gives example to other farmers who have significant unprotected lands, that this is a direction that the community supports and they may want to also consider this as a course of action for their future viability.