To the Editor:

I’m sure there are some people who read this that feel very differently than me and believe that the protection of woodland habitat/green spaces in our town is somehow less important than accommodating the growth of our town. To those folks, please read on.

Recently, a friend mentioned that he can’t believe the town is contemplating a tax rate increase, yet many folks are against the proposed cluster home development/other projects that are forced on our town by state mandate. His thinking is that the new housing starts would be a boon to our economy and lessen the tax burden.

Having sat through most of the last two board of selectmen meetings related to the budget, I give these elected and appointed officials a lot of credit and respect. To not only sit through these long meetings, but to also have to make the hard choices of which services or teaching jobs to eliminate along with knowing that likely very few people will love the outcome because a tax increase is still expected, is not an enviable job. I do not like a tax increase anymore than the next person, however more housing is simply not the answer to our financial burdens.

Still not sure, please read on.

The data is from a 30 year study of the Cost of Community Services by The American Farmland Trust. This study points squarely at the realities and misconceptions about the costs vs. revenue a municipality can expect from three varying land use types: commercial/industrial, agriculture/open land, and residential development. Residential developments have the largest net cost to a town once town services are factored in, with agricultural/open land having the least and commercial development landing in the middle.

Further, the study summarizes some of these misconceptions:

Open Lands — including productive farms and forests — are an interim land use that should be developed to their “highest and best use.”

Agricultural land gets an unfair tax break when it is assessed at its current use value for farming or ranching instead of at its potential use value for residential or commercial development.

Residential development will lower property taxes by increasing the tax base.

The study continues,” On average because residential land uses do not cover their costs, they must be subsidized by other community land uses. Converting agricultural land to residential land use should not be seen as a way to balance local budgets.”

Since the amount of buildable space is shrinking yet the need for more housing is increasing, I feel a town wide moratorium (one year) on large scale housing development starts would be a promising idea to assure we are planning our future rather than at the whim of each new proposal that comes our way. This would give our town officials a chance to draft new framework that assures a low impact approach and requires third party reviewed fiscal, environmental and traffic study impact reports before a green light is given.

Dan Holmes

Newtown