|
(October 2002) The "nays”
have it. As do the naysayers.
I voted in favor of
the "Village District” rezoning at the October 7 special town
meeting for several reasons. First, it represented a chance to
control growth and preserve parcels of land. Secondly, it offered a
way for the town to realize $1.8 million in annual tax revenues.
But, although the proposal received a majority vote, it failed to
gain the two-thirds majority needed to become law. So it went down
to defeat and probably won’t be brought back again. If you were
against it, you are probably relieved.
That relief, however,
may be short-lived, as we consider the reality of what 4,000 more
homes being built all across town will do to our traffic, our town
services, and our already skyrocketing property taxes.
This was an issue
decided by emotions, not logic. It was the "Midge versus Mary”
show. And that’s unfortunate for the town and the taxpayers.
The vote would have
allowed the rezoning necessary for construction of a Village
District. Such a project would have been built under the watchful
eye of the Planning Board and four or five other town agencies.
Logically, this should
have been a win. The project would have brought in $1.8 million in
revenues to the town, and virtually assured that large parcels of
Kingston remain undeveloped through the "transfer of development
rights” concept. The concept makes great sense on a number of
fronts. But this wasn’t decided logically. This was in part a
referendum on Mary O’Donnell, the property owner.
Mary has never caught
a break in this town. If she says it’s white, there are 50 people
who say it’s black. There’s a long-time underlying attitude of
some people who are suspicious of her because she might actually
realize a profit from the sale of land (which will still be the
case, by the way). One veteran observer noted, correctly I suspect,
that if the property owner had been someone else, the article would
have passed. Sad but true. What does that say about us as a town?
Not all opposition to
this was based on who owns the land. Traffic was raised as a
legitimate concern. No question, traffic is a hot-button issue.
There are few things that my Type A personality likes less than
sitting in traffic, so I sympathize and concur. But this particular
development offered a situation far more pedestrian-friendly than
what we will see as the remaining 4000 houses in Kingston get built
far and wide – and undoubtedly more so than whatever ultimately
ends up being built on the site. I have faith in our planning board
(in the spirit of full disclosure I should mention that my wife sits
on that board) that they would not allow a project to go through
without addressing traffic issues satisfactorily and would have
given us a Village District that we would be proud of. This project
in fact would have shifted the burden of traffic alleviation to the
developers or the T, instead of to us as taxpayers.
Under this proposal,
additional tracts of land would have been preserved without
taxpayers having to dig deeper for more acquisitions, as we have
done in the past with the Kelleher property, Bay Farm and Camp Nekon.
Land preservation is an excellent idea but the town is getting
strapped for cash. Even the proposed November acquisition may well
fail at the next special town meeting because we just can’t keep
bankrolling all these expenditures without some way to replace the
funds.
A couple of final
thoughts about the actual discussion and vote: the move by John
Creed to cut off discussion on the Village District article because
it had taken up 53 minutes essentially eliminated any chance for
passage, because it prevented additional information from being
heard. I’m no fan of longer-than-needed discussions, but that
wasn’t the case here. It was a complicated issue, and 53 minutes
is a small amount of time to invest in considering an idea that
could net the town nearly $2 million in annual revenues. And new
ground was still being covered during the discussion. Creed deserves
credit for encouraging his fellow Town and Country residents to
remain for the vote after their rent control article had passed, but
his parliamentary maneuver displayed a surprising lack of patience.
And, to those
attention-deficit souls in the audience who groaned their way
through this lengthy presentation, be thankful that someone at least
had the initiative to bring a unique idea before the voters.
So, where do we go
from here? The town should seek a way to recoup some of the revenues
that it lost by voting this project down, and the revenues we lose
from our constant spending spree. Perhaps there is another
commercial or industrial development that can help the town’s cash
position without further burdening the residential taxpayer. Maybe
the Kingston Business Association or the Industrial Development
Commission can take a leadership role and bring forth suggestions to
help the town recover from its spending woes.
This was a special
town meeting that defied logic at every turn. Voters forked over
$600,000 in less than two hours and then thumbed their noses at a
way to get it back. We need to take a far more critical, cautious
look at future spending until we find a way to stop the fiscal
bloodletting that is becoming legendary. |
