Land disposal question deserves support

If the legislature or a state agency wants to sell land — or swap it — to a developer... residents of the state should have the opportunity to speak up.

While the contest for governor, as well as for federal, local and other state offices, understandably dominates the debate as Connecticut’s Election Day approaches, two questions that don’t involve an office are also worth your attention — and action.

They are two proposed amendments to the Connecticut State Constitution.

One is creation of a so-called lockbox to make sure money intended for the state’s transportation infrastructure — the Special Transportation Fund — goes and stays there.

A second ballot question, though, has rustled up less attention, but is also worthy of support.

It is technically titled SJR 35, “Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the State Constitution to Protect Real Property Held or Controlled by the State.”

In short, this proposal would require a public hearing before the state could transfer ownership of public property to a private entity.

And if the property is under the jurisdiction of either the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection or the Department of Agriculture, it would require a two-thirds supportive vote from the state legislature to complete the transfer.

Supporters rightly note the amendment would increase transparency by bringing these transactions under far more intense scrutiny.

As it is, the General Assembly can allow the sale of buildings, state parks, forests and other valuable public lands like watershed protection areas with no public input through the use of so-called conveyance bills, which require no public participation.

These are properties that have been set aside to protect both our environment and the aesthetic quality of life in Connecticut.

If the legislature or a state agency wants to sell land — or swap it — to a developer, particularly state park or riverfront land, as has happened, residents of the state should have the opportunity to speak up.

In fact, one of the precipitating events that led to SJR 35 was just such a conveyance act that became known as the Haddam Land Swap, in which some 17 acres of scenic property purchased by the state in 2003 for conservation purposes, was going to be turned over to a private developer in exchange for an 87-acre parcel owned by the developer.

The issue became a flash point for environmentalists, politicians and residents of the area. It subsequently fell apart under the weight of dramatically different appraisals of the value of the two parcels.

After a year-long battle, the deal collapsed.

Nevertheless, SJR 35 would be an important buttress against any future proposal to sell off — or swap —land in which we all have an interest.

In all matters having to do with governmental agencies — state, federal or local — more transparency is always better.

You can familiarize yourself with the basics of both referendum questions at the website of the state’s Office of Legislative Research at https://www.cga.ct.gov/2018/rpt/pdf/2018-R-0230

.pdf.

These are two good proposals for the future of life in Connecticut.