It's Thursday. It really is.

It is Thursday (just in case you didn't know).

Another friendly reminder about the precinct meetings tonight.  If you need the details see yesterday's blog post.

Should be a few interesting discussions come Saturday at least.  I actually enjoy a good discussion, a good argument even, over matters.  Keeps the wheels turning, even provides a great mental work out when the wheels start spinning. 

I saw an interesting letter in the FNN about what the intent of the Town Meeting that adopted the tax imposed by the Community Preservation Act.  Not knowing what was in the minds of each and every Town Meeting Member behind their vote, I can only comment on the fact that those in opposition did point out that this was in fact an act passed by the legislature as a way for communities to get around the constraints of Proposition 2 1/2.  

While I have no doubt that there are those who voted to impose this additional tax with the exclusive intent of establishing a piggy bank for land preservation, I also have no doubt, and some knowledge based on comments made then and presently that there are those who supported the add on tax for the other purposes outlined under the then law, and since expanded by changes to the law.

Land preservation was but one aspect, not the exclusive aspect.

Be interesting to see if someone could get a vote passed limiting the use of the money just for land purposes.  Wouldn't be legal I know, just one of those extremely interesting debates.

Anyway being one of the voices arguing against the article addressed in the letter, despite whatever personal assurances from the writer indicting that all those voices against the article are proxies for those involved in still trying to develop the land, all I can offer you is my own personal assurance that I am acting as no one's proxy.  

Let's talk about the hundreds of housing units that could be built on all of this land as stated in the article.  

One can argue 40B all one wants. I would submit that the true prospect of a 40B development isn't going to go away by approving the article. In fact I could make a very strong argument that the more land you take out of the "stream" increases the prospect of a 40B development.

I am also aware of variances and special permits and waivers, just as I am aware of the exacting standards that are supposed to be followed (just anticipating a response to what follows by the way).

First and foremost, the total land in Fairhaven subject to this plan consists of approximately 135 acres.  The parcels are in various zoning districts so this gets a bit tricky for me, at least at the time of writing this piece.  I am relying on the maps and info I can grab from the internet.

I will start with the largest parcel which consists of a total of 28 acres.  this is the land on the border with Mattapoisett, running down to Shaw's Cove.  It is located in an area zoned Agricultural.  Single family residences are allowed (and yes someone might propose a 40B development here, just as someone might propose it elsewhere.  But let's stick with reality for the moment).  You need 50,000 sq. feet for a residential lot.

There are 43,560 sq. feet in an acre.  If you assume every single square foot of this land can be used to meet all the requirements under the zoning by-law, conservation laws and building codes to build houses, if you do the math that comes to 24.4 houses.

The piece in Little Bay consists of approximately 10.2 acres.  If I am reading the maps and everything else correctly, making all of the same assumptions that would mean another 14.8 houses.  Let's forget about the fact the entire parcel is assessed as undevelopable.  Someone might be able to convince the various boards to grant waivers or variances for maybe three houses.

The rest of the land area seems to be in districts which either overly each other and/or require at least the 50,000 sq. ft. lot size, if residence are permitted.  Just for conversation purposes that would mean, based on all of the assumptions noted herein, the remaining approximately 97 acres could result in 84.5 houses.

That is essentially 110 houses under current zoning as as worse case scenario.  For some that may be 110 too many.  I get that.  

Getting that I note that I don't make this point in support of building the 110 houses, or 1 house.  I make this point to note that you should not be fooled by the threat of hundreds of housing units being built.  I also submit that the potential maximum is significantly higher than the probable reality.

You will forgive me if I also disagree with the fact that I do not consider limited access, limited easement or price to be false arguments.  If we are saving this land for our children, exactly what purpose are we saving it for.  To simply look at?

From the information at my disposal there will be no right of access to the Little Bay land.  There will be no right of access to the land abutting the Mattapoisett line, nor to any land other than a right to walk to and from other land.  

One of the very first statements I made concerning this article is why isn't the town looking to establish a land bank for funds to be used to purchase land.  Why aren't we looking to save to have the money to make purchases we as a town deem significant.

People are free to choose whether they feel this is significant enough to approve.  You might have been able to convince me of that fact had I not seen a map showing the fee purchases in Mattapoisett vs. on parcel in Fairhaven.  You might have been able to convince me of that fact if there was no zoning in this town.  You might have been able to convince me of that fact if people in this town are going to get more enjoyment from this land than looking it at.

I am completely ignoring the irony in the whole situation that we are going to use an add on tax to buy some of the land to give to the state, 

This article is what the old timers described as a "Motherhood and Apple Pie" article (pardon the less than PC description).  You can't win arguing against it.  It isn't about winning.  Trust me when I tell you, this is one article that I don't expect to be on the winning side of.  

Tough to fight Motherhood and apple pie when we are only being asked to contribute a mere $200,000 and one dangles the Armageddon scenarios.  

If you feel this is the best use for this money, vote for the article. 

Myself, I look at a map, I see what is going on and I also see that someone else besides myself has made the determination that some land is worth buying and some isn't; and, someone has figured out a way on how to get the money to actually buy the land they want to buy and someone else has found out to make some money and still keep land.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that if you can get someone to pony up the money.  

I for one may feel the concept of island hoping was a good strategy in the Pacific campaign, but it isn't going to work for the stated purposed purposes with these land dealings.  Not unless you really intend to take over the rather large but increasingly isolated islands at some point.  

In closing, since the writer of the above referenced letter can personally assure everyone that the voices making the arguments against the article noted in the letter are proxies for those still involved in trying to develop the property, please at least tell everyone you have written to the facts in your possession to establish that this particular voice is such a proxy?