Vote ‘yes’ on Question 2 on ballot
Open land locally and in Connecticut is constantly under pressure from powerful, outside, agglomerated economic forces (i.e. “development”). Right or wrong, this is the “nature of the beast” and to protect nature from being completely consumed by these forces we must put up organization and procedural speed bumps.
This is most important on the municipal level and ideally is done by cooperative land trusts with a diverse representation from said municipality. Sometimes, though, in consideration of the potency of the outside economic forces we are trying to manage, the government, either local or state or both, must get involved.
Danbury and surrounding towns do a pretty good job protecting and acquiring open lands when there is an opportunity. A recent case in point is the receipt, by Danbury, of the Westman farm up near Bear Mountain. At the risk of sounding grandiose, it must be asserted that civilization is predicated upon nature. It you don’t leave a bit of the latter alone, you (we) are kicking the ladder out from under yourself.
In addition to less tangible but critical psychological benefits, open land is requisite for air and water filtering. In short, land preservation is
Land preservation is not about ‘tree-hugging’ — it is about having a stake the future of your community.
not about “tree-hugging” — it is about having a stake the future of your community/polity. Land and property values, to go more crass for a moment, are linked to land preservation. To ignore the principal of the “wealth of nature,” and its direct relation to the more familiar definition of “wealth,” is to undermine the social and economic future of your locale.
As said, it would be nice to leave government out of it, but private and cooperative efforts, at this time, still need to be augmented by formal laws. In other words, state government is like a deadly mercenary one needs as an ally on this issue. (Less provocatively: We need to use government for our purposes before it is manipulated by special interests.) Connecticut helpfully taxes open land in way that is less than the usual market rate to facilitate its resistance to development. Land already held by the state is also, surprisingly, vulnerable to development. This was demonstrated in an attempted land swap in Haddam in 2011, where the state almost traded away to a developer, for whatever dubious reasons, prime acreage for much valuable land.
Messing with the state constitution is dicey, but voting yes on Question 2 on the Nov. 6 ballot will help Connecticut stave off the inevitably increasing pressure on its public lands as open private lands continue to be swallowed up by the open ended mechanisms of modern capitalism. A “yes” on Question 2 will put in place a constitution amendment that will make it procedurally more difficult for the state to sell or trade way land administered by the Department of Energy and Environment Protection (DEEP) and/or the Department of Agriculture.
The state is actually permitted to sell or swap off its land, at present, but the amendment will require a public hearing and a two-thirds majority vote in the General Assembly. As suggested by the inclusion of the Department of Agricultural, this amendment will also help preserve food-growing farmland — which could be pretty critical in the future. Cut kids a break and vote yes on Question 2 on your ballot sheet on Nov. 6.