|
Managing Growth Wisely
By Kirk D. Sinclair, Norfolk
A proposal for the development of 750 acres of land, historically known as the Yale Farm, confronts the towns of Norfolk and North Canaan. Developing a "world class" golf course and 58 lots of high-priced housing will necessarily have large impacts, whether for the good or the bad. Projects of such magnitude deserve to be scrutinized carefully.
The developers and associates of the Yale Farm proposal have made three deceptive claims. I do not suggest that the deceptive claims were intentional—they may have resulted from the human tendency to conclude that "what's good for us is good for all." Nevertheless, the large scale of this proposal calls for better illumination of these claims. I will cite these three deceptive claims, describe why they are deceptive, suggest the tough questions that cut through the deception, and detail the actions that might ensue.
Deceptive Claim #1: The world class golf course to be developed will provide recreational benefits to the residents of Connecticut.
The Reality: The claim that the golf course would provide recreational benefits to the citizens of Connecticut was made in the application to the state requesting a diversion of water. Golf courses require prodigious amounts of water. The state mandates that withdrawing such abnormally large amounts from a watershed—in this case the watershed lands that channel water into the Whiting River—requires a special permit. The permit must convince the state that the abnormal amounts of water to be withdrawn would not critically stress the watershed, and be justified by the benefits gained.
Proposing a world class golf course for a region known as the "Icebox of Connecticut" might seem strange. Northwest Connecticut would not be high up on many people’s lists as a haven for golf. Consider, too, that of the very few golf courses that exist in this rural comer, one private course already lies in Norfolk and one public course is located in North Canaan. Given this context, the current "market" of Connecticut residents would not seem to support the introduction of another golf course in this region. The proposal additionally calls for 58 high-priced lots either because these are needed to create the market for the golf course, or because the world class golf course is really meant to create the market for 58 expensive lots.
In either case the claim of providing recreational benefits via a golf course would not apply to current residents of the state, only to the future market to be created by the lots. The recreational benefit repeatedly stated in the diversion application is thus inaccurate.
The Tough Question: Has anyone done a market analysis regarding the financial viability of a world class golf course in the northwest hills of Connecticut, as the current market of residents now stands?
The Follow-Up: If a market analysis has been done that suggests a golf course is independently viable, that data needs to be made public. If such an analysis does not exist, or does not support the viability of the golf course, then the permit application needs to be changed. The language needs to be altered to accurately reflect that the recreational benefits are intended for an affluent market that does not correspond to the current market of Connecticut residents. The state can then determine whether this more accurate claim serves as a justifiable benefit, while others will need to judge whether the market that needs to be created through the 58 lots is attainable.
Deceptive Claim #2: Opponents of the proposal are being elitist in their protest against high-priced development.
The Reality: The goal of any debate is to frame the issue in a manner beneficial to the position you support. If you support nuclear energy, you focus on the supposed ecological benefits over fossil fuels. If you oppose nuclear energy, you focus on the risks as compared to renewable energy sources.
Norfolk was the only town in Litchfield County to decrease in population throughout the ‘80s, with most of those leaving being of low and moderate income. This trend continued in the ‘90s. Given this trend, opposing growth in Norfolk would be foolish. Anyone needing to gather support for a development proposal would emphasize that they represent growth, and make claims that elitist opposition represents no growth.
Employing this strategy depends upon the cooperation of the residents, who must assume that all growth is the same in terms of the benefits provided. In a town where previous loss has been concentrated in particular cross-sections—that of low- and moderate-income families—all growth is not the same. As it does with ecosystems, diversity increases the health of a community. Different socioeconomic classes fill different niches in the support of community functions, and the best type of community growth would target an area of previous community loss. Norfolk needs growth that is affordable for those of modest income, not growth for the affluent.
Changing the debate from "growth vs. no growth" to "what type of growth" reverses the elitism charge. The developers and their associates proposing high-priced growth, in a town lacking affordable growth, are the ones promoting exclusivity. They need to respond to charges of elitism.
The Tough Question: What will be the impacts of this proposal on affordable growth, the growth most needed in the town of Norfolk?
The Follow-Up: If the developers and their representatives provide evidence that the high-priced growth they propose will trickle down to benefit affordable growth, residents need to determine if this indirect path to affordable growth suits them best. Attracting a five-acre industry such as New England Miniature Ball could be accomplished, if pursued with the same effort needed to create the market for a 150-acre golf course. Though light industry may offer a less attractive profit margin, the returns are less risky than a world class golf course situated in the "icebox" of the state. Rather than planning for a sizable number of expensive lots and assuming that affordable real estate will follow, a considered option should be starting with affordable lots.
If developers admit to no effect, or to no consideration of the impacts upon affordable growth, they might be saluted for their candor—but residents must assess this proposal as one intended mainly to benefit the developers and their associates, not the town.
Deceptive Claim #3: Kids from the high-priced development will be attending private schools.
The Reality: This might be viewed as a preemptive strike against those who wish to frame the debate to include affordable growth. Some might view the decline of low- and moderate-income groups in Norfolk as a good thing. The single most expensive infrastructure cost associated with residential development is education. More affordable development means more students in schools, which means a greater tax burden; sending kids off to private schools implies a saving in taxes, despite the usual tax burden that accompanies residential development.
This argument loses its persuasiveness in the context of a town like Norfolk. As a town that went from 2,400 in population to 1,600, we already have much of the infrastructure capacity to provide an education to the kids from the "affordable masses." On the other hand, affluent taxpayers generally are not known for their charity and eagerness to dish out property taxes with little expectation of a return. While the affluent may have fewer kids in public schools—not to mention less representation in PTOs, volunteer fire departments, and a variety of other civic functions—they are seldom underrepresented in government. The affluent will, at some point, want services commensurate with their taxes, and they will develop the connections to achieve that goal.
The claim that kids from an affluent population will be attending private school is deceptive in any context. This country spent nearly a century learning the hard way that large residential lots fail to achieve the intended function of preserving rural character. Again, the affluent population attracted by large-acre lots actually had the nerve to demand that their property taxes not be considered as charitable donations to their new municipalities. They demanded services, these services created a tax burden, commercial and industrial growth was needed to offset the burden, and urban sprawl gained a new foothold. The large-acre lots that started this process also forced the commercial development to occur in strips along transportation corridors. These strips form barriers that isolate open space areas, degrade natural resources, interfere with recreational opportunities, create traffic problems, and dramatically change the character of the community.
In contrast, well planned affordable growth will preserve open space, have less impact on resources, create less of a tax burden, and maintain community character better than growth for the affluent. The evidence for this is overwhelming, supported by about 100 years worth of data. I suggest searching for "smart growth" on the Internet, or for "exurbia" (the regrettable pattern of urban migration that dominated the 20th century) in academic journals for more information on this.
The Tough Question: In light of the overwhelming evidence supporting clustered, affordable development as desirable for a town, would the developers and associates be willing to partner with the townspeople and commissions to resubmit a proposal more along the lines of affordable growth?
The Follow-Up: Developers prefer high-priced growth to affordable growth; they stand to make more money, regardless of the impacts upon the community. For this reason incentives are provided by the state and other sources to pursue affordable growth. Townspeople and developers could work together to plan precisely what is best for the town and take advantage of these incentives. This may reflect a Pollyannaish view of developers taking the best interests of a town into consideration, but such harmonic pursuit of the mutual good does have some precedence.
If the developers and associates of the Yale Farm proposal would not cooperate in such a course of harmonic action, then there are some regulations as well as incentives intended to steer towns toward adopting more affordable growth. These should be investigated to see how they might affect the current proposal.
In Conclusion: The town of Norfolk explicitly promotes tourism as a desired part of its community character. A world class golf course would seem to fit into such a scheme (although the scheme needs to be coupled with 58 high-priced lots to work). In contrast, the historical importance of this area as a working landscape has been overlooked, quite regrettably.
You might wonder why an affluent town like Norfolk does not exhibit a similar community character as those towns in which initial high-priced development resulted in urban sprawl. Throughout the years even the affluent population of the town—indeed, especially the affluent population—has been involved with the working landscape. From the charcoal pits of the 19th century to the Denny Tree Farm, the people of this area have worked the landscape and provided a particular character to their communities.
In working landscapes, the affluent contribute to a different character than found in bedroom communities. In working landscapes, college and high school students provide labor on the farms and the forests in the summer, adults have recreational access if they show the proper respect for the land, and everyone—including the affluent—can be found rolling up their sleeves at the civic functions that occur outside of a meeting room. A working landscape encourages integration; a bedroom community encourages segregation.
The developers and associates behind the Yale Farm proposal may not intend to be deceptive. Maybe they think "what's good for us is good for all." Certainly, there are many people satisfied with living in bedroom communities. Maybe the affluent population inhabiting the 58 lots that are required to support the proposed golf course will be happy. This will not stop them from wanting a return on their property taxes, with demands that differ from the affluent who work the landscape. Neither will this atone for removing the entire 750 acres from what has been a special part of the area's working landscape.
Light industry may or may not contribute to the working landscape, but it would not remove extensive acreage. Neither would affordable housing. Let us get back the assets we have lost, the low- and moderate-income groups that fill important niches in a healthy, diverse community. Let us not dilute further the asset we still have, an affluent population still connected to the working landscape. Let us ask the tough questions that need to be asked when faced with a major development proposal. Finally, let us take the actions needed to manage our growth proactively and avoid the sprawl that plagues too many communities.
| 
