63 acre Hoerle Farm will acquire Agricultural Preservation Restriction
I can probably count on one hand -- after sticking it in a snowblower-- how many times Amherst Town Meeting has turned down an open space farmland preservation article, so it's a safe bet the 63 acre Hoerle Farm article already approved by the Community Preservation Act Committee will easily pass.
The land is currently in an agricultural protection program that generates almost no taxes so it's not like the revenue to the the town will decrease any. Moving up to the APR program only protects it all the more from being sold off for development.
And the state is paying 90% of the cost.
Of course one of the BIG problems in Amherst is the skewed tax base where half of all property in town is owned by tax exempts -- Amherst College, UMass and Hampshire College being the top three -- and the town's Conservation program coming in at #4.
About the only thing that trumps (if I dare use that word) open space preservation is historical preservation.
Five years ago, in order to save the privately owned Kimball House, the town paid the state $286,000 (with CPA money naturally) and swapped another larger parcel of land to get property out of the APR program so the property behind the Kimball House could be developed.
Kimball House, North East Street
Although in that case the owner built the most expensive house in Amherst, so all in all a net property tax gain.
Either way, it was all done with CPA money -- the manna that falls from the heavens -- so nobody cares.
Speaking of tax base, farmland doesn't contribute much in taxes, there are plenty of buildable lots sitting unsold and almost every home could add an apartment by turning a room or garage or barn into one, so long as the property is owner occupied. So that could add to taxes. Also do we need more taxes or better spending?
ReplyDeleteThe latter.
ReplyDeleteThis is mistaken logic, 2:46: protected farmland costs the Town nothing, and it increases the value of all the other land, which if used as 2:12 suggests, would be big win-win: plenty of housing within the existing "built infrastructure" combined with the "environmental services" that protected land provides to all of us.
ReplyDeleteThen why do we have such a housing shortage?
ReplyDeleteIf we have such a housing shortage how come there are so many house for sale signs?
ReplyDeleteBecause our property taxes are too damn high.
ReplyDeleteNobody is selling their house because of their property taxes. They wouldn't have bought it in the first place. Look at you, you live here.
ReplyDeleteI have other issues.
ReplyDeleteAll too many people are being driven out by outrageously high property taxes.
As do I.
ReplyDeleteI second that, Ed.
ReplyDeletePeople, like myself, are selling houses and moving from this town at an astounding rate because the town is degrading at an alarming rate. One cannot walk along the downtown without being accosted and harassed by a homeless person. The roads are a mess, public safety is stretched beyond what is necessary and expected for whet we paid in taxes. The homes located on the main streets and roadways into town look as if they belong in blighted city. The schools have many issues and a declining enrollment. Any more questions on why people leave? I could go on and on.
ReplyDeleteYou could go on and on but that would just be babbling now wouldn't it.
ReplyDeleteAny idea what the property owner is planning for the land he owns that is not part of the APR proposal? He is clearing trees for a driveway to the north of 870 South East St (owned by his wife). There is some land to the east of that property that doesn’t appear to be part of the APR proposal.
ReplyDelete