|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Posted in the Spring of 2007. Still relevant if we can stop the Zoning change before the proper studies are done to give us the facts in answering critic's charges about CCPW.)
Now that Konover has withdrawn their Application for a zoning change, let’s all take some time to step back and discuss what’s happened in the past year, correct some misinformation, and work as a community to decide what we want this town to be like in twenty years - and figure out how we can afford our vision.
Recently CCPW has been characterized as a very small group of people who want to control – well, everything, from how much you pay in taxes, to who should sit on the Planning & Zoning Board, to what you eat for breakfast. Perhaps not the breakfast part – but if this had gone on much longer, I think that even more outrageous claims would have been made.
It is true that CCPW is a relatively small group of people. We are people who care about our town, and have logged many hours of community and public service over the past decades to help to make this a good and affordable place to live. But after analyzing the many letters to the Town Times editor over the past years, it is obvious that the group of Konover proponents - the individuals who keep accusing CCPW of being a very small group – is an even SMALLER number of people.
Most of those are proponents with a personal interest - the property owners and their families. There are maybe a half dozen people in total who have written letters to the Editor of the Town Times in support of Konover’s project. There is one lone individual who has written in support of Konover many times in his weekly letter to the editor.
So the next time you hear that accusation, remember that it’s just coming from the same few individuals – a VERY few individuals - over and over again. It’s sort of like the pot calling the kettle black, to use one of the clichés that some frequent letter writers are so fond of.
CCPW is NOT anti-development. In fact, despite a lot of misinformation, we are proponents of any other business uses in the Route 262 corridor EXCEPT for retail. No one in CCPW has a vested interest in the development of this property. We are trying to do what is right for our community, in the short term and the long run.
None of us wants to pay higher taxes. In fact, the main reason that we have been fighting this battle in the first place is that there is a growing body of studies demonstrating that developments of the type that Konover proposed actually cost MORE in taxes for services than is taken in. In other words, when you accept Big Boxes, you can easily end up with HIGHER taxes, along with very busy roads and lower property values. Who needs that kind of “progress”?
We ARE anti Big Box retail for many reasons (just click through the links on this website to learn why). CCPW was formed almost 20 years ago when Homart approached the town about a zoning change on the same piece of land, to build a large retail mall. The citizens who created CCPW at that time became alarmed at and investigated what the additional costs to the town would be in road use and services, and by disseminating that information, filled the public hearings with hundreds of people who opposed a large retail development.
The core group of CCPW citizens went on from there to continue their public service in many ways. One of the actions that they took was to push for the Municipal Industrial Park concept on that same piece of land. Unfortunately, that was never funded. Due to misinformation that was spread, mainly by our local taxpayers group, the proposal lost at Referendum by only 17 votes. If that proposal had been approved, we would have a municipal industrial/business park in a totally developed state today.
So almost twenty years later, Konover came to town, looking for the same thing in the same place that Homart developers wanted.
It’s very easy in this day and age to become discouraged and frightened about our finances and our future - on a personal level, and a town, state, and country level. But it’s very important to realize that a quick fix may cost much more in the long run. Any actions we take to radically change our town will alter it forever.
What may appear to be a good short term solution can alter our ability to choose the best type of development to expand our tax revenue in the future.
So after we've taken our collective deep breath, we all need to find the facts. To start talking, not just ranting. Decide whether we want people who have a potential conflict of interest (if not legally then certainly morally and ethically) to shape our town's future. Look to the future and pass the laws and ordinances that will protect us.
And then let’s pursue a vision that we can all basically agree on for what we want our town to look like in twenty years – and work to make that vision affordable.
Otherwise, when the next developer shows up, we get to do this yet again.