Bethlehem residents who followed the debate over the Normanside Country Club earlier this year would have had a healthy dose of deja vu stepping into tonight’s Town Board meeting, when the issue of open space — and how town might be involved in its preservation — reared its head once again.
Strictly speaking, the topic was a proposal put forward by the private group Bethlehem Tomorrow that pitched to the town a structure in which it might invest in open spaces, either by negotiating agreements with landowners to not develop their land or buying property outright.
The white paper was actually presented to the town over a year ago, in September of 2010, and since then town officials, members of Bethlehem Tomorrow, members of the town’s Citizens Advisory Committee on Conservation (or CACC, a group that is basically defunct, having not met in over two years), members of other conservancy groups and large landowners have met to discuss the subject.
This time span was clearly a point of consternation for some of the many people who spoke up at tonight’s board meeting.
“It looks really, really bad,” said Valerie Newell, who served as a member of the CACC. She added that the group had furnished the town with its own study in 2009.
Supervisor Sam Messina, who put the issue on the agenda, said nothing’s been done in the dark and he wants to encourage an open discussion. He was clearly supportive of getting some manner of open space preservation plan in place, though.
“I thought it was a winner for the Town of Bethlehem and there were no downsides,” he said of Bethlehem Tomorrow’s proposal.
“The open space program is a program, it’s not a plan. That’s a very important concept,” Messina added.
That program, in short, would involve as little as spending $6,500 for research and as much as $2.1 million per year to acquire multiple parcels of land. A “medium program” would involve spending about $700,000 to purchase two parcels, and in a memo to the Town Board Messina recommended all or part of this option be considered for implementation in the 2012 budget.
One proposed way to fund this acquisition was to levy a dedicated property tax. Another was to borrow for the funds.
A committee would be formed to vet land investments.
Arguments for adopting the plan include that developed land ostensibly costs more in services than it generates in property taxes and that there are grant opportunities for preservation purposes.
Members of the audience were clearly divided on exactly how — or if — the town should invest in open space. It was reminiscent of the debate surrounding the town’s bid to acquire the Normanside Country Club lands when they went up for auction earlier this year.
Some, then and now, said such purchases are shortsighted and irresponsible, especially during tough times. Jeremy Near, who is running for Town Board on the Republican line, went so far as to label the effort a “government land grab” that would actually reduce the tax rolls.
“People that own land will get taxed for the government to then purchase land, which to me doesn’t make a whole lot of sense,” he said.
Ed Kleinke, who was part of the aforementioned meeting over the white paper, said it’s landowners who are the best stewards of open space. The town has other, less costly mechanisms like proper planning and zoning to help it manage community character, he argued.
“I’m a little disappointed that what you’re looking at tonight kind of leaves out large landowners,” he said.
But others saw such a program as a mechanism for investment in their town.
Resident Karen Shaw said she’s willing to pay for the type of community she wants to live in, and reckoned that this program, if done right, could benefit everyone.
“I don’t see anybody losing in the open space plan,” she said. “It’s a complicated issue, and I respect that, but we all live here together.”
CACC member David VanLuven said the citizens group over time became gridlocked, and saw this proposal as a way of renewing the effort to preserve open space.
“It’s irresponsible for the town not to have an open space program,” he said.
At the end of the evening there was no vote taken, and all that was truly clear is that a debate has been reignited.
“We clearly have two different sets of opposing viewpoints and opinions, and clearly we need to come to a compromise,” Councilman Kyle Kotary said.
Councilman Mark Hennessey said he’s glad the discussion is out in the open. He argued that those who want the town to get involved in open space preservation, including members of Bethlehem Tomorrow, do not constitute a special interest group.
“They’re your neighbors,” he said. “The fabric of a community is stitched together by the things we share.”
