Open space debate back on in Bethlehem

Proposal stokes discussion about plans to buy land

— Bethlehem residents who followed the debate over the Normanside Country Club earlier this year would have had a healthy dose of deja vu stepping into tonight's Town Board meeting, when the issue of open space — and how town might be involved in its preservation — reared its head once again.

Strictly speaking, the topic was a proposal put forward by the private group Bethlehem Tomorrow that pitched to the town a structure in which it might invest in open spaces, either by negotiating agreements with landowners to not develop their land or buying property outright.

The white paper was actually presented to the town over a year ago, in September of 2010, and since then town officials, members of Bethlehem Tomorrow, members of the town's Citizens Advisory Committee on Conservation (or CACC, a group that is basically defunct, having not met in over two years), members of other conservancy groups and large landowners have met to discuss the subject.

This time span was clearly a point of consternation for some of the many people who spoke up at tonight's board meeting.

“It looks really, really bad,” said Valerie Newell, who served as a member of the CACC. She added that the group had furnished the town with its own study in 2009.

Supervisor Sam Messina, who put the issue on the agenda, said nothing's been done in the dark and he wants to encourage an open discussion. He was clearly supportive of getting some manner of open space preservation plan in place, though.

“I thought it was a winner for the Town of Bethlehem and there were no downsides,” he said of Bethlehem Tomorrow's proposal.

“The open space program is a program, it's not a plan. That's a very important concept,” Messina added.

That program, in short, would involve as little as spending $6,500 for research and as much as $2.1 million per year to acquire multiple parcels of land. A “medium program” would involve spending about $700,000 to purchase two parcels, and in a memo to the Town Board Messina recommended all or part of this option be considered for implementation in the 2012 budget.

Vote on this Story by clicking on the Icon


RichardReevesEllington 4 years, 4 months ago

This article brings up an point that has an important undercurrent. It begs the question as to what type of community, Bethlehem citizens want. One side would have "development" as a priority in order to continually increase the tax base.The development has taken three primary forms: industrial, retail, and apartments. A secondary is private home building on once wooded sites. On the other side are people who place the traditional sense on community, people services and support, and support of existing businesses.

As I have walked Bethlehem, I find a majority putting the traditional community to the fore. When they do support "development" they want it at costs which benefits the Town: living wages for those employed, minimal pollution, and all the infrastructure costs covered by the new businesses and not primarily at the tax payer expense. The net effect of development should be measurable improvement to our community and these improvements explained to citizens before proceeding.

The problem is that all the current data is anecdotal and needs better quantification. This can be collected in town meetings, monthly board meetings, and on line questionnaires. If elected supervisor, I would put this basic question to Bethlehem citizens before proceeding on piece meal approaches.

For more about me please go to bethlehemsupervisor.com


Sign in to comment