Should voters approve a proposal to spend $12 million to buy and preserve undeveloped land?
Amherst Bee point-counter point

Opinion: No COLLEEN DIPIRRO

President and CEO,

Amherst Chamber of Commerce

We have witnessed all too often resolutions and other public policy initiatives put forth by our elected leaders that are a knee-jerk response to issues impacting our community and town without thoughtful dialogue, and more upsetting, without public input and outreach.

An egregious example of this is the referendum that will appear on the November ballot that asks taxpayers to give our elected officials a blank check for $12 million to purchase land throughout the town. It should be noted that over the life of paying for this bond, taxpayers will ultimately be paying approximately $20 million if this referendum is approved by the voters.

One of the components of the Town of Amherst Comprehensive Master Plan was a recommendation to initiate a "public open space acquisition program consistent with the open space, recreation and greenway network."

The intent of this recommendation is to "target town fiscal resources towards acquiring key parcels that can contribute to building the open space network based upon clear criteria." That is why the referendum that will be on the November ballot is putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

In proposing to spend up to $20 million in taxpayer money, no lands have been even identified for the town to purchase. Rather, an arbitrary number picked out of thin air is being put on the ballot, and the message to the taxpayers is, "trust us, we'll use your money to buy the land we think is in your best interests."

Never mind that the Master Plan identifies specific criteria to purchase such lands, including "connectivity, distribution within the town, protection of valuable natural and cultural resources and protection of visual resources."

We believe a plan should be put forth that first identifies these lands that fulfill the above criteria, puts a price tag on each parcel identified, and then presents it to the taxpayers through public meetings prior to any referendum.

The Amherst Chamber of Commerce has been extremely vocal in expressing its unconditional support for the Master Plan. This plan was unanimously adopted by the Town Board in January 2007 with much fanfare, primarily because it marked a historic first time when the Chamber and Town Board were so uniformly aligned on such a monumental issue impacting our great town.

We took this a step further with the collaborative creation of Sustainable Amherst, a community initiative that is reviewing various components of the Master Plan to make recommendations to the Town Board in order to balance economic development and impacts on our environment.

We are very supportive of an open space acquisition program, but the manner in which this initiative is being presented to the taxpayers is simply poor public policy and as such should be soundly rejected on Election Day.

Opinion: Yes KIM GOODMAN

Amherst Residents

for Green Space

I urge you to vote "yes" on the $12 million open space bond resolution in November.

The money made available will be used to purchase or contract available property, maintaining the dwindling Amherst open space and heading off further residential development. Why do that? Most important to many of us: We will save future taxes. Here's why: Residential property does not generate enough tax income to offset the cost of town services. A detailed analysis by Fox & Co. for the Amherst Industrial Development Agency shows the town's expenses per housing unit at $1.12 for every dollar in tax revenue. By blocking some further residential building, maintenance costs including bond interest charges will generate tax savings. Every $1 million invested in this open space acquisition will create $4 million in savings over the next 20 years.

The Amherst Master Plan and Amherst Planning Department studies support these findings.

Are we alone? Absolutely not. We will join a national movement to protect open space.

An excellent report by internationally recognized scholar, John L. Crompton, finds: "Cost of Community Services Analyses consistently report that ... public costs associated with residential development exceed the public revenues that accrue from it." Council Member Bill Kindel, sponsor of the bond issue, is making copies available in each town library as well as at his town office.

Are there other reasons for supporting this bond issue? Absolutely, and they are even more important than tax savings. Development has downgraded our quality of life: our streets clogged with traffic, our schools overcrowded, our flood danger rising and the distance to open land ever increasing. We can't undo this wreckage, but we can put the brakes on further decline.

Nearby Pittsford, outside Rochester, won a national award for protecting more than 2,000 acres of open land using direct purchase, incentive zoning (transfer of development rights) and mandatory clustering of homes. This is the kind of thing our bond issue will allow us to achieve with careful planning.

Some deep-pocket developers are out to defeat this initiative. They will mount an expensive campaign. The facts are on our side, so you should expect false information and debater's techniques to obfuscate this important issue.

We will attempt to answer their attacks in this newspaper, but we urge you to do your own research. If you do, I'm certain you'll come down on our side.

(Editor's note: The Amherst Bee has provided this space for commentaries reflecting both sides of the bond resolution to be determined by voters on Nov. 6. Comments are published as submitted by the authors.)