To the editor:
There are several inaccuracies in Ms. Hritzuk’s Letter to the Editor, in my opinion. In fairness to the elected officials and Stockbridge residents who participated in the Town Meeting, these should be noted:
The moderator did not use a “disdainful and dismissive tone” in introducing Article 17. In fact, recognizing the interest in this item, the moderator moved it up to be discussed following Warrant Article 8. This was a courtesy that did not have to be offered.
Ms. Hritzuk is also incorrect in implying that the moderator deliberately misapplied rules regarding when non-residents could speak. At the beginning of the meeting, the moderator explained that residents speak first, followed by non-residents. If any non-residents spoke earlier than the rules allow, this occurred without the knowledge of the moderator, as he pointed out. Ms. Hritzuk could have chosen to speak after resident comments were completed, but she did not.
It is also an unfair statement to allege that “many speakers repeatedly misrepresented the facts of the citizen’s petition.” The speakers being referred to noted that the initial expense to the town would be the full $600,000 purchase price and that it would not be until the 2026 Town Meeting that partial reimbursement from Community Preservation funds could potentially be approved. Speakers also noted that a large portion of the town’s recapture of the purchase price would come from the sale of two building lots to be created on the site. The supporters of the purchase made no mention of the time and cost involved in improving raw land for sale, or of the speculative nature of having the town assume the role of land developer.
Ms. Hritzuk writes, “the meeting seemed designed to derail the citizen’s position.” I am aware of no reasonable basis for such an accusation. The supporters of the petition conducted an energetic and lengthy campaign of letter writing and promotion of their plan. I saw no letters in opposition and heard no negative comments by town officials or others prior to town meeting. The conduct of town officials and voters in opposition was respectful and civil, as was the conduct of those in favor.
In my opinion, the petition item failed because it did not deserve to win. The land in question is not fragile or in need of more protection than our rigorous land-use regulations already provide. The overall quality of the surrounding community would not be adversely affected by the development of some homes on the site. The financing plan raised legitimate questions, and the voters recognized that.
It may well be that some parcels enrolled in Chapter 60 are inappropriate for development. At the meeting, a study of the enrolled parcels was suggested in order to be ready if any such site was ever removed from Chapter 60 and offered for development. There may be parcels worthy of the Town’s investment, whether for conservation or affordable housing, but not the one the voters wisely rejected.
Jon Gottlieb and Elisabeth Youngerman
Stockbridge
Click here to read The Berkshire Edge’s policy for submitting Letters to the Editor.
