Washington, CT Potter Farm Proposal Withdrawn
Source: zwire.com, by Ann Compton
January 27, 2007
WASHINGTON - The $2 million Potter Farm land deal that has created heated controversy in Washington since last fall has been withdrawn by the owners.
A handwritten letter received this week by the Board of Selectmen signed by Anne, Linda, John and Tim Potter, owners of the former dairy farm located on Sunny Ridge Road, states, "It is with regret that we have decided to withdraw our property offer to the Town of Washington."
The Potters' letter thanks the selectmen for their "thoughtful, positive suggestions," as well as the other boards and commissions who reviewed the proposal and approved it.
"We thank the Washington Community Housing Trust for their effort," it adds.
The 120-acre farm off Route 109 has been on the market since 2004, listed for sale at $8.5 million. The proposal called for the town to buy development rights on 97 acres of the property including 78 acres of conservation easements, as well as an additional 23 acres to provide five lots for affordable housing, at a cost to the town of $1.5 million, with $500,000 contributed by the Washington Community Housing Trust.
Public opinion was less than enthusiastic about the deal, with concerns and criticism surfacing at three public meetings held last November and December, and on January 6.
Complaints included the precedent set by the town in buying conservation easements, the financial breakdown and the possible consideration of other available property in town.
The Potters' letter addressed the hostility exhibited in the meetings.
"We expected that the informational meetings would provide a forum for reasoned exchange and debate. Instead, public discussion has been acrimonious and divisive. Written comment has been political, personal and inaccurate.
"A friend who wrote a note of support said, 'I don't understand why people are so contentious - why folks can't come together to create solutions (be it farmland or school building issues) with grace and generosity and good hearts - especially since all of us in this area are so blessed.'"
The proposal, unveiled last November after three months of executive session meetings, was supported by the Housing Commission, which agreed to contribute $125,000 of its housing fund.
The Conservation Commission refused to endorse the proposal or to contribute any of its open space funds, saying it was a development rather than an open space project.
The Planning Commission issued an opinion that the proposal was in keeping with the town's Plan of Conservation and Development.
First Selectman Richard Sears said he and the Board of Selectmen were surprised and disappointed by the Potters' decision to withdraw the deal.
"We have a sense of lost opportunity," he explained. "We wanted the people to have a chance to make the decision, to seriously consider what kind of town we want to be now and in the future.
"We knew this deal wasn't perfect, but it raised awareness about housing issues, open space, keeping our young, old and middle income people in town, while keeping taxes down.
"This referendum would have offered a choice to move toward these goals and there's disappointment that we won't get to do that."
Mr. Sears said town officials have learned much from the Potter experience.
"It helped clarify the process for considering future land purchases and refine the vetting process. This is the first time we've done this and we learned as we went along."
Mr. Sears said the town will continue to pursue appropriate land purchases, but they will have to offer value to the town.
"We didn't go out seeking this deal, the landowner came to us. There's a big difference between someone looking for private gain and a fully developed proposition," he noted.
"We had an owner who was willing to invest thousands of dollars in such things as testing, surveying and legal counsel in preparing this proposition.
"We are certainly interested in examining parcels that offer what the town values and where the seller is willing to invest in what the buyer wants. It's not the town's job to develop a piece of property."
The process Mr. Sears suggests to sellers who believe they might have property the town could seriously consider is to bring it to the attention of the Board of Selectmen, which will screen it and pass it to the appropriate town commissions.
"That's one thing we learned how to do in the Potter deal," observed Mr. Sears.
In spite of months of planning, discussion and consideration, Mr. Sears said the Potter proposition did not cost the town much money.
"Our only expense was in our time negotiating and some legal counsel," he said.
Mr. Sears hopes that one thing will come out of the Potter experience; "a return to civility, where public discourse is a debate on the merits of the issue and reasonable people can agree or disagree with respect."
