Why buy land residents can't use?

When Bill Kindel presented his resolution for buying land to control development, I agreed with the concept that the town should be able to direct what is to be built and where. What I found confusing was the need to borrow $12 million to do this and exactly what his intentions are.

I have attended a number of board meetings and have seen developers present their plans for approval. Consent for any construction was based on whether the property was zoned for such development and if the proposal coincided with the Amherst master plan. When residents spoke loudly at one of the meetings in opposition to Wal-Mart on Millersport Highway, the application was resoundingly defeated.

Not once did a board member ask whether the town needed to purchase the land in order to stop construction. So why do we need to borrow money to control growth? Do Amherst residents really need to own and maintain more public property rather than have it generate tax revenue, even as farmland?

When I think of public land, I envision parks in the middle of a residential community where people are walking and children are playing - this is green space. I am having a very difficult time of seeing the benefit of owning - as a taxpayer - land that cannot be used by residents. Let's find a better use for that money and stop raising taxes.

Alice Miranda

Amherst