Neighborhood destruction is morally and ethically wrong
To the Editor:
At the 8/1 Town Council meeting, the majority, with no stated rationale or questions, voted party line to allow the purchase of two homes on upper Church Hill Road, with more possible. No notice was given to the other neighbors of the town's intent or plans. “Perhaps” a parking lot for library overflow, access to the trail or a senior/community center.
The first selectman cherry picked the Plan of Conservation & Development professing his “interpretation” which was the exact opposite of what the document proposes - keeping that area residential. The one resident who spoke for the purchase was the homeowner who approached the town to buy her home. The other 19 spoke passionately against this stating lack of notice, loss of property values, decimation of their neighborhood and the wetland/natural setting, speed with which this was being steamrolled, lack of any clear plan or apparent concern for them. Many of the majority did not even look at these speakers, sadly and disrespectfully, most noticeably the first selectman, himself.
The POCD never said the town should acquire these properties, as the first selectman stated, but rather that area should remain residential. There is no need for a parking lot as the library can expand on their own campus and there are multiple lots for the trail of which the town should make residents aware. As for a senior/community center, we still don’t know if our residents even want one. So why the push for this land?
No notification, lack of proper process. Is this fair to the Church Hill residents who do not want their neighborhood destroyed? This is morally and ethically wrong.