To the Editor:

Thank you for your article dated August 22.

My interest in this situation stems from a Master Gardener’s perspective, so yes, I may be biased. To my mind, so much of what happens in that office and on the property benefits so many.

Perhaps if Stony Hill Preserve wasn’t so secretive about their intentions for the property, the lease termination might be more palatable to those involved, even those who are peripherally affected.

From your article: “Bunt said that for the future of the building that currently houses the extension, the only plan they have so far is for ‘UConn to leave’ the location.”

Sorry, that’s just not good enough to give preservationists, gardeners, and folks who volunteer to give back so much to the community a sense of comfort about the direction of that preserve.

The lack of cooperation in repairing the damage from an electrical fire in February also gives pause about the SHP intentions. I’m sure the property, located on a bustling retail road, is worth more if it’s parceled out and sold to the highest bidder.

But again, I don’t know that that is the intent of SHP, nor does anyone except the board of the Preserve.

After such a long partnership — more than 60 years — more of an explanation should be forthcoming if the board of the Stony Hill Preserve would like people to be more comfortable about the direction of this precious parcel of land.

Sincerely,

Pam Roman

Trumbull