Jump to content

Red Brook

Rate this topic


j-pod

Recommended Posts

Not a lot of useful information out there.
 

“Wampanoags have occupied the land for millennia and continue to hunt and gather here” There is no mention of who owns the land. Based on proposed use I would say it is currently privately owned. We are blessed to have access to private land for passive recreation in the Commonwealth but that is a privilege not a right. 
 

“Rezoning will allow the cutting of native pine barrens” What is currently preventing a clearcut? Do people think current owners cannot log their property? Will a rezoning changes that option?

 

No link to any study that indicates that the proposed development will negatively impact the aquifer or brook. I think adding some facts would certainly help build momentum. “I don’t like developments” is not enough to say their will be an adverse impact on the ecosystem. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ged said:

Not a lot of useful information out there.
 

“Wampanoags have occupied the land for millennia and continue to hunt and gather here” There is no mention of who owns the land. Based on proposed use I would say it is currently privately owned. We are blessed to have access to private land for passive recreation in the Commonwealth but that is a privilege not a right. 
 

“Rezoning will allow the cutting of native pine barrens” What is currently preventing a clearcut? Do people think current owners cannot log their property? Will a rezoning changes that option?

 

No link to any study that indicates that the proposed development will negatively impact the aquifer or brook. I think adding some facts would certainly help build momentum. “I don’t like developments” is not enough to say their will be an adverse impact on the ecosystem. 
 

 

There is no study, at least in part, because the developer hasn't quantified exactly what they plan to do. They seem to be dangling several proposals to the town including restaurants, stables and a "small city". I believe a casino has been mentioned.

 

Turning a rare and sensitive pine barren into buildings, parking lots and lawns is a world of difference from logging the property. First, i don't believe there's much market for pitch pine and scrub oak. Second, selective harvest, while not ideal, leaves some of the habitat intact.

 

I don't have time now to track down good references to all the harm that can be caused to the headwaters of a tiny brook by blowing up and paving the surrounding land.

 

Just extracting the water from the aquifer can be devastating, especially with weather trends that have repeatedly produced drought in recent years. For a ballpark, figure 100 gallons a day per person used in a residential setting. Restaurants and other business would use huge amounts as well. Not to mention landscaping. 

 

Covering up the sandy ground and natural plant community with buildings and asphalt does not allow the rain and snow melt to recharge the over taxed aquifer. 

 

Runoff from road salt and fertilizer from lawns finds its way into the tiny brook.

Algae blooms are encouraged and the natural invertebrate community that nourishes the newly hatched trout are devastated. 

 

This is a thumbnail sketch that barely scratches the surface. I don't want to waste more time with generalizations for now.

 

If you want a real-time example of the potential consequences, look into the fate of the native brook trout in the Santuit River. That population has apparently winked out in the past decade or so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 mins ago, mikez2 said:

There is no study, at least in part, because the developer hasn't quantified exactly what they plan to do. They seem to be dangling several proposals to the town including restaurants, stables and a "small city". I believe a casino has been mentioned.

 

Turning a rare and sensitive pine barren into buildings, parking lots and lawns is a world of difference from logging the property. First, i don't believe there's much market for pitch pine and scrub oak. Second, selective harvest, while not ideal, leaves some of the habitat intact.

 

I don't have time now to track down good references to all the harm that can be caused to the headwaters of a tiny brook by blowing up and paving the surrounding land.

 

Just extracting the water from the aquifer can be devastating, especially with weather trends that have repeatedly produced drought in recent years. For a ballpark, figure 100 gallons a day per person used in a residential setting. Restaurants and other business would use huge amounts as well. Not to mention landscaping. 

 

Covering up the sandy ground and natural plant community with buildings and asphalt does not allow the rain and snow melt to recharge the over taxed aquifer. 

 

Runoff from road salt and fertilizer from lawns finds its way into the tiny brook.

Algae blooms are encouraged and the natural invertebrate community that nourishes the newly hatched trout are devastated. 

 

This is a thumbnail sketch that barely scratches the surface. I don't want to waste more time with generalizations for now.

 

If you want a real-time example of the potential consequences, look into the fate of the native brook trout in the Santuit River. That population has apparently winked out in the past decade or so. 

Sounds like there isn’t enough information to make an informed decision on this project. 
 

Many developers are required to make improvements to infrastructure in addition to a huge increase in the property tax to benefit the town. If I was a resident of Wareham, new real estate would be the least of my worries.  
 

Also, Towns can create incentives to keep undeveloped properties undeveloped. Other NGO’s can raise money and acquire and protect property. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 mins ago, ged said:

 

 

Also, Towns can create incentives to keep undeveloped properties undeveloped. Other NGO’s can raise money and acquire and protect property. 

This right here is the ideal scenario. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to achieve. I work with a land stewardship organization that mostly operates in Middlesex County. They have acquired or helped towns acquire thousands of acres of for protection. It is an extremely difficult process that takes millions of dollars. They can never out bid developers for choice land. Their only hope is either the seller is an environmentally responsible entity willing to accept a lower bid to preserve the land, or the town is progressive enough (read:affluent) to where they chose preservation over revenue. 

 

In the case of a town that can't see past the $$$$, the land is doomed.

Edited by mikez2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 mins ago, ged said:

I donate money every year to a land trust that protects land in my area. That is the best way to preserve land. 

Agreed. I do the same thing, as well as donate my time as a volunteer naturalist and land steward. Our group has saved and preserved thousands of acres, in some cases prime real-estate in the Boston suburbs that could have made a few selective people very rich indeed.

No doubt that's the best hope for the Wareham land. However if the town just wants the $$$$ and approves the zoning changes, no land preservation group will ever be able to afford to acquire the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 mins ago, mikez2 said:

Agreed. I do the same thing, as well as donate my time as a volunteer naturalist and land steward. Our group has saved and preserved thousands of acres, in some cases prime real-estate in the Boston suburbs that could have made a few selective people very rich indeed.

No doubt that's the best hope for the Wareham land. However if the town just wants the $$$$ and approves the zoning changes, no land preservation group will ever be able to afford to acquire the land.

I am a volunteer and donor to Sudbury Valley Trustees. Great organization. 
 

I am also a person that believes that land owners have the right to develop their land according to all applicable laws and regulations. Landowners carry the burden of property tax. Towns can agree to reduce this in exchange for restrictions on future use of first right of refusal to purchase to prevent development. 
 

I think we should have a minimum lot size per dwelling in MA, but 40B is mostly about achieving a desired density of units and would defeat this goal. 
 

Most developers would much prefer not to have to include affordable units in their developments because they generate much less $ per sq.ft. for those particular units. It is used as a means to an end. Simple math.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 mins ago, ged said:

I am a volunteer and donor to Sudbury Valley Trustees. Great organization. 
 

 

 

Yes that's the same one I have worked with for about 10 years.

I love them, even though they recently made a deal for land down the street from me that includes a 40B. They made a deal with the devil to save a piece because they couldn't acquire the whole thing. Intellectually I get it. Emotionally, it burns my ass and selfishly I dread the astronomical increase in traffic to what was once a quiet country road.

 

I doubt very much that any developer will complain about 40B. 40B is scam that opens land to development that wouldn't otherwise be developed. 40B is a gold rush that has kept the bulldozers busy for years. Developers making money hand over fist.

"Affordable" is a joke and total sham. When you cram a huge pile of units overpriced by 30%, then reduce a small fraction so they're only overpriced by 10%, you're not helping poor people find affordable housing. You're inflating the local market to the point that no lower income families can live in town.

Yeah, my heart bleeds for the developers that suffer such inconvenience. :soapbox:

 

But now we've gone far astray from Red Brook. That is a special case. Some pieces of land have more to lose. The loss of the Salter population would be a loss that far outshines the loss of the typical white pine/low diversity habitat that gets blown up on a daily basis in the name of "affordable" housing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 mins ago, mikez2 said:

Yes that's the same one I have worked with for about 10 years.

I love them, even though they recently made a deal for land down the street from me that includes a 40B. They made a deal with the devil to save a piece because they couldn't acquire the whole thing. Intellectually I get it. Emotionally, it burns my ass and selfishly I dread the astronomical increase in traffic to what was once a quiet country road.

 

I doubt very much that any developer will complain about 40B. 40B is scam that opens land to development that wouldn't otherwise be developed. 40B is a gold rush that has kept the bulldozers busy for years. Developers making money hand over fist.

"Affordable" is a joke and total sham. When you cram a huge pile of units overpriced by 30%, then reduce a small fraction so they're only overpriced by 10%, you're not helping poor people find affordable housing. You're inflating the local market to the point that no lower income families can live in town.

Yeah, my heart bleeds for the developers that suffer such inconvenience. :soapbox:

 

But now we've gone far astray from Red Brook. That is a special case. Some pieces of land have more to lose. The loss of the Salter population would be a loss that far outshines the loss of the typical white pine/low diversity habitat that gets blown up on a daily basis in the name of "affordable" housing. 

The 40B thing is complicated. 100% of the new “inventory” counts toward the % of “affordable” (often 80% of area median income) even though only 20-25% of new inventory is at a reduced cost. 
 

Once you reach 10% “affordable inventory” the city/town is no longer subject to this zoning mechanism. 

 

I grew up poor, in low income housing. My three sisters and I benefited from this opportunity as children and each grew up to be successful adults, owning homes and contributing to society. That is the actual purpose of affordable housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ged said:

 

 

I grew up poor, in low income housing. My three sisters and I benefited from this opportunity as children and each grew up to be successful adults, owning homes and contributing to society. That is the actual purpose of affordable housing.

When you grew up poor, would your family been able to afford $2000.00 a month for a two bedroom?

That's what's called "affordable" housing in a modern 40B in the suburbs. It's not about "low income". It doesn't help poor people. It's about cramming hundreds of units onto space that previously would've housed 2 or 3 families. 

Again  rather than make a town affordable to low income families, it drives rent prices up in existing housing and prices the the poor people out of town.

I rent. I've lived in my place for over 10 years. In that time, 40B has swallowed my town whole. There used to be some truly affordable housing which is why I was able to move here after my divorce. Today there is way, way more rental property available thanks to new development, but none of it is "affordable" to low income families. That includes the old housing which prices have risen to keep pace with the unrealistic inflated prices of the new housing. There is no way I could afford to move here now. I'm only able to afford it because my landlord has gotten so rich putting huge 40B clusters all over town, he hasn't gotten around to raising the rent in his slum units. He's been trying to sell the place for years but it's too old and run down to interest buyers in a town full of new units. Eventually he'll either sell or jack the rent and the last low income renters in town will be forced to move 20 miles west into the ghettos of Fitchburg. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 mins ago, ged said:

I didn’t live in “affordable”, I lived in “low income” which is usually much more objectionable to town residents. :)

 

Agreed.

And while this is far off the topic of Red brook, let me just conclude my 40B observations by saying, these snooty suburban towns who sell their souls and the natural spaces for the proverbial fist full dollars, like to make themselves feel better by calling some of the units "affordable".

However those same towns people would be mortified and never agree to a development project if they thought their new neighbors would be actual poor people. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...