Open Space Transcends Horse Issues

To the Editor:

In a letter to The Bee last week, Cindy Miller, president of Newtown Bridle Lands, states that Meg Maurer’s actions “will have a direct and adverse outcome on Newtown’s future, and infringe not only on our rights but the rights of all Newtown residents who wish to preserve open space.” Unfortunately, this type of language is consistent with the ad placed by Bridle Lands two weeks ago and the flyers which formed the basis for the ad. It is inflammatory and grossly misrepresents the views and actions of Meg Maurer. While I would prefer not to be addressing the issue again, I am compelled to write this week in hopes of clarifying the facts.

Another letter from an NBLA member in The Bee last week stated that Meg “is not attacked personally, her views and opinions are.” It is hard to reconcile this statement with the facts at hand. The gross distortion of Meg Maurer’s position is what made the anonymous flyers and the ad a personal and libelous attack – apart from the utterly false information included in the original flyers claiming that she had sued both a neighbor and the town. The paid advertisement was nearly identical to the flyers. Since NBLA did pay for the ad, it is certainly fair to expect the group as an organization to be held accountable for it. If NBLA does not wish the actions of a few activists to be misinterpreted as reflecting the opinions of all its members, perhaps it would prefer to disclose the individual authorship of the flyers and the ad – or is the ad supposed to be “anonymous” as well?

I must agree with P&Z member Mr Poulin (letter, 8/27/01) that they indeed have shot themselves in the foot. It would behoove Newtown Bridle Lands to rein in their unbridled hyperbole, lest that foot ends up in their mouth yet again.

NBLA Chairperson Andrea Brosnan last week bestowed her thanks upon the first selectman and the chairman of P&Z for their “prompt response” to the outcry triggered by the flyers and the ad. It turns out all the credit actually goes to Mr Fogliano as it was his decision, not Mr Rosenthal’s, to dissolve the committee formed to gather information about horse farm zoning regulations. The first selectman describes the letters and calls elicited by the flyers as “quite hysterical.” He was quoted as saying that he had never received so many “vitriolic” letters. The reason this issue is so “volatile” to quote Mrs Brosnan, lies in the fact that NBLA appears to be either unwilling or incapable of engaging in a factually accurate and civil public discourse. Naturally, people were alarmed by the flyers and the ad. “No Horses in Newtown – it’s happening here, it’s happening now!”? What planet does NBLA live on anyway?

In another of last week’s letters, Meg Maurer is quoted as having asked at a P&Z meeting two years ago, “Who is going to police these farms?” In fact, however, Mrs Maurer never asked that question. Her question was not alluding to all horse farms – just one particular farm. She was asking who would police the compliance of the owner of the neighboring farm, who was forging ahead with major property alternations in apparent indifference to P&Z regulations. Do you see the difference? It’s an important one – one overlooked by NBLA.

Just a few more points to touch on: the horse trails are great, but not necessarily for walking your dog, especially if you use an extended leash. The dogs are invariably drawn to the horse dung along the trail. Also, property owners with easements granted specifically to NBLA should be aware that they are not included on NBLA’s insurance policy unless they have an official easement agreement with NBLA and also forward written information to NBLA, at which point the organization will then include that easement in its insurance coverage, which is capped at one million dollars per incident. In the absence of such an arrangement, property owners are potentially liable for any accident that occurs on these trails.

NBLA does not have a monopoly on public concern for open space. As the average citizen knows, this issue transcends horse trails and horse farms. Fortunately, Newtown is demonstrating considerable foresight under Herb Rosenthal’s leadership by purchasing Fairfield Hills. As difficult as it seems financially, additional such purchases throughout town may be the only way to stem further residential development. Perhaps a highly publicized year-long fundraising effort under the auspices of the Forest Association and The Bee could bring an influx of donations expressly for this purpose. The Save Fairfield Hills Group, the Newtown Forest Association, the tremendous generosity of property owners who have donated tracts of land to be held in public trust, and The Bee itself in its creation of the Pleasance – these are the broader civic elements demonstrating Newtown’s commitment to maintaining open space. I do not hear any of these individuals or groups citing Meg Maurer as a threat to open space. Far from being an infringement on our rights, Meg Maurer’s action will instead help ensure that the debate over open space is one that addresses the universal needs of the community as a whole.

Interested citizens should attend the next meeting of the Open Space Committee. It is open to the public. Unless the time and place are changed unexpectedly at the last minute, the meeting will take place on Tuesday, September 10, at 8:30 am in the Newtown Land Use Office in Canaan Hall at Fairfield Hills.

Jim Allen

Main Street, Newtown                  September 5, 2001