Letter to the Editor: Lies, Half-Truths and Politics Behind Opposition to Sale of 19.67 Acres

Mrs. Corona’s recitation of the April 10, 2007 referendum question is at best a half-truth. As reported by the Town’s own attorney, Section 2 of the resolution upon which the vote was premised authorized the appropriation to buy Powder Ridge property “. ..to preserve the Property in its current state and use, including as open and recreational space. The final terms and conditions of such preservation shall be determined by the Selectmen. (emphasis added)”

The recreational use at Powder Ridge has always included the right to build a certain number of single family residences. The net effect of the now-completed sale of the ski area, and the proposed sale of the remainder, is to significantly decrease that number of possible residences.

Contrary to Mrs. Corona’s unsupported assertions, neither the Board of Selectmen nor the Planning and Zoning Commission control whether or not a home can be built on the 19.67 acres. It is not “questionable” under the wording of the “original bond.” The Town’s bond counsel, Joseph Fasi, has provided the Town with his written opinion that”... it was and is my view that a referendum conducted under Charter section 1012 [Tuesday’s referendum] approving the currently proposed sale is the most appropriate approval process, given that the original purchase and permitted land uses were in the first instance authorized by referendum.” He also wrote this: “The sale of the property does not raise a bond question” and “the procedure to authorize the sale of the proposed small portion of the Powder Ridge property is a property transfer issue and not a bond issue.”

The true and final authority on what happens to the 19.67 acres is the upcoming referendum.  The decision belongs to the voters.  The “open space” advocates do not want to keep it for other Town uses.  They want to keep it “open space.”  While they complain there was no bidding process (and even though there was no “bidding process” for the rest of Powder Ridge), and though they find no merit in the two appraisals by licensed appraisers, they have no intention of selling the land to anyone at any price.  They propose that the Town forego $300,000, that it commit to perpetually maintaining this oddly-shaped combination of steep bank and open lot, and that the taxpayers keep paying the $8,000 or so a year in interest it costs to hold onto it. The Town owns a great deal of land. Some of it is available for the Town’s future building and development needs.  When, however, the Town has considered using such property for industrial or other economic uses, Mrs. Corona and her associates are there to assert that the land is “open space” and off limits to any other use.  Check the history of the Strickland Farm off Cherry Hill Road, if you doubt.  “Open Space” for them means “off limits” forever. 

In her letter, Mrs. Corona finds it important to assert that Lori is a “well-known real estate agent” and that her husband runs whatever a “commercial/construction company” is from their existing property.  Lori is a professional real estate agent.  Her husband does not run a “commercial/construction company” from their property.  Lori has never divided or developed a residential or commercial lot in Middlefield or anywhere else.  She is a 29-year farmer and homeowner at her Powder Hill Road property.  The same cannot be said for Mrs. Corona, who has created many residential lots for those “million dollar houses” she seems to now hate.  She is a well-known opponent of nearly every development project in Town, intervening to try to block what is now the newest Lyman golf course, unceasingly harassing the equestrian center across from her home, and attempting to thwart a fishing area for children at Lake Beseck.

Lori realizes that the voters have a choice. She has offered a price higher than the market value of the property because it is adjacent to her home. The new owners of Powder Ridge have already declined to purchase the property. She has agreed to legally and permanently restrict the use of the front field to agriculture and to no more than a single barn not exceeding 5,000 sq. ft. This restriction will be perpetual. Mrs. Corona’s “greenhouse” is impossible under the restrictions. She has also agreed for herself and all subsequent owners that the property cannot be divided into lots or used for more than one home (if any).  It is difficult to imagine an offer for the property which would include a higher price with more protections. In the year or so since Lori’s offer became public the Town has received no competing offers despite more free publicity than any professional marketing of the property could offer.

Should the Town decide to retain the land it may lay dormant, as is the case with the Hubbard Street land the Town has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to warehouse.  Or it may one day be put to one of the many uses permitted under the zoning regulations (See Section 4): Church, school, library, fire department, ambulance headquarters, elder housing.  It will not, however, become “open space,” it will not result in a reduction of the Powder Ridge debt, and it will not cut the Town’s interest costs. Its future will remain uncertain.

Mrs. Corona was a tireless advocate for selling all of the Powder Ridge property to Alpine (without a word about “open space”).  That sale was overwhelmingly approved by the voters, but failed before closing. She was a tireless opponent of selling some of the Powder Ridge property to Sean Hayes’ company, and the voters overwhelmingly approved that sale as well.  She has been a tireless opponent of this proposed sale, complaining both that it should be put out to “bid” and at the same time that it should be kept as “open space.”  Political opponents of this sale have complained that the process leading to the referendum was secret.  They do not tell you that the Democratic member of the Board of Selectmen was present throughout that process, and voted each time to move the sale forward.  Those same opponents who complain about the legal costs of the process required the Town attorney to answer their questions at each opportunity. They would criticize the process if the Town attorney were not involved.  Though they seem to say the Selectman should not have brought the offer to you for a vote, they would be the first to criticize the Board if it had not done so. Another election is just around the bend, of course.

Lori must trust that you, the taxpaying voters of Middlefield, will see through the lies, half-truths, political agenda and flip-flopping of Mrs. Corona and her cohorts. Unlike Mrs. Corona and other opponents, Lori has a plan for the property which will keep it as you expect: open and agricultural. Her promises are backed by permanent legal restrictions which insure that all subsequent owners of the property must also keep her promises. She asks not that you merely trust her, but that you carefully examine the facts to see that the Town's financial interests, and the public's interests in the property, are best protected by her "Yes" vote.

Sincerely,

John A. Corona