|
Why C.A.R.E.?
By Bob Davidson, Canton
With a town administrator, selectmen, boards and commissions to guide us and watch out for Canton's best interests, when did residents decide they needed another self-appointed "agency"?
Apparently, "agency" is what C.A.R.E. (Canton Advocates for Responsible Expansion) now considers itself. In the second paragraph of the January 6 edition of C.A.R.E. News, while discussing their agenda, they mention "working with other town agencies." The only reason for another "agency" (self-appointed) would seem to be a lack of confidence in the competence of those who are already guiding and administering Canton's town affairs. That appears to be C.A.R.E.'s motivation.
If a vote were taken, it is likely that most voters would indicate they do not support the idea of another agency—"town" or otherwise. They might, however, question the position recently taken by the Zoning Commission.
According to a letter signed by the board of directors of C.A.R.E. that appeared in the Farmington Valley Post on February 7 [C.A.R.E. board of directors applauds decision by Canton Zoning Commission], Zoning Commission members said that the Commission is responsible for providing property value stability, and that a big box store in a residential area would drive down neighboring residential property values. That statement raises some interesting questions.
The Connecticut General Statutes concerning zoning, section 8-2a, state the purpose of the state's regulations. The only mention of "values" refers to "conserving the value of buildings"—not residential property. Is the commission following the regulations, or has C.A.R.E. already infiltrated the Commission? Is the Commission concerned only with the values of residential property? That would not be in the interest in Canton; the value of all property—residential or commercial—is of concern to all residents, since they both have an impact on our tax base. It is generally accepted that as large tracts of land are zoned and sold for commercial use, the value of other available commercial property rises. Is the Commission's stretch to justify their position on the Mills property the reason that the State has now asked them to explain their decision?
Warning: We now have a new agency which has decided for us what the character of our town is to be and what constitutes reasonable growth and development. They have chosen who should serve on what boards and commissions, and have determined the correct lot size in designated sections of town and how the Historic District should be expanded. They have concluded that the town's residents don't care a lick about tax increases or the best educational system as long as we stop that evil sprawl. Simply stated, their idea of "responsible growth" means creating a town in their image of what is correct.
| 
