Planning
for future of recreation resources a challenge in hard times
Jan Ellen Spiegel, CT MIRROR
August 9, 2011
Every five years since 1965, the state has reviewed and updated its
plan for maintaining, expanding and improving its network of parks,
forests, trails and other facilities. The process is under way
again--but this time with some significant financial constraints to
overcome.
The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is holding the
first of a series of public meetings tonight to talk about the
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, or SCORP, which is
required for the state to receive money from the federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
The process began late, so final recommendations are expected to be
less extensive than the usual several-hundred-page blueprint. A few
groups among the many with stakes in SCORP continue to feel they have
been shortchanged. And of course all of it is against a backdrop of
diminished and diminishing financial resources likely to make
accomplishing the costlier aspects of any plan more problematic.
"Foremost in everyone's mind, just because of the economic challenges
we're facing, is funding for open space acquisition," said Sandy
Breslin, director of governmental affairs for Audubon Connecticut.
That's not necessarily a deal-breaker, she said noting that Rocky Neck
State Park was acquired during the Great Depression. "During an
economic downturn when you can leverage a dollar, there are great
opportunities that might not otherwise be there."
Audubon Connecticut is part of a coalition called the Connecticut Land
Conservation Council, one of about two dozen groups--from traditional
recreation enthusiasts to educational programs to governmental
entities--that form the advisory board for SCORP. Their meetings, fewer
than usual this cycle, are designed to air concerns and needs as well
as review accomplishments.
In the past five years, successes include expansion of the boardwalk at
Silver Sands State Park in Milford and a new ticket booth and restroom
at Peoples State Forest in Barkhamsted - both projects using federal
LWCF funds. Land acquisition was substantial, using federal and state
funds for purchases directly by the state and for grants to municipal
governments, nonprofits and others to buy land.
But Breslin pointed out that some of those achievements were due to
one-time funding opportunities, and that the funding level for the
usual open space protection programs has fallen from about $42 million
in 2003 to possibly no more than $8 million this year. And the fact
that outdoor recreation accounts for well below one percent of the
state's overall spending is of concern to many outdoor advocates.
Tonight when the SCORP process begins the first of four public forums
over 10 days, the goal will be hear the public's priorities and
concerns about the future of the state's 107 state parks, 32 state
forests, thousands of miles of trails and countless facilities to go
with them.
There is a draft outline, said Tom Tyler, director of Connecticut state
parks for DEEP. But he said the agency is not trying to steer the
outcome: "We're not loading kind of straw man conclusions looking for
people to react to those pro or con.
"We want to hear from people and stakeholders on development of
recreation and prioritizations," he said.
Members of the public also will be able to comment through online tools
and surveys. Tyler, who has been in his position for two years, though
with the department for 14, said it's the public that alerts them to
under-met needs like urban fishing access and new activity trends like
geocaching--a kind of GPS-based treasure hunt activity--and stand up
paddle surfing, which is exactly what it sounds like.
"I'm not sure I could do it," he chuckled. "The growth of that sport is
off the charts--hundreds of percents a year.
"In some ways it's kind of an arcane state process," he said of the
SCORP updates. "But it really does touch everybody to one degree or
another. We think we know a lot, but we learn a lot more when we hear
people's comments."
That said, there are priority items for DEEP. At Hammonasset Beach
State Park, for instance, erosion is jeopardizing the west beach
bathhouse, which now needs to be rebuilt further from the water, and
the dunes in the area also need to be dealt with.
No Child Left Inside, the state's effort to help keep kids and families
connected with the outdoors in an increasingly computer and
indoor-centric world, was a new initiative in the 2005 SCORP. Tyler
would like to expand its programs and extend its sweep throughout the
year.
That's a real key said Breslin. "We're very concerned that people are
losing that connection to the natural world and when that happens
people don't protect what they don't love and understand."
Members of the advisory board generally like the SCORP process and its
goals, but are also realistic.
"It's more thinking after SCORP," said Eric Hammerling, executive
director of the Connecticut Forest and Park Association best known for
its advocacy for trails, who called the economic situation "brutal" for
recreation. "After we say these are our priorities, are we going to
actually invest in them?"
Hammerling is also concerned about the threatened elimination of the
Recreational Trails Program, which presently handles about $1 million a
year from the federal government for trails (about $11 million total
since it began in 1993), because of expected personnel cutbacks in the
state budget currently in place. He and others pointed to the economic,
jobs and other cost-effective benefits of investing in outdoor
recreation. "There are benefits to public health, eco-tourism, local
economies, healthy livable communities," he said. "Those are all
affected by how we protect our landscape and provide access to it."
But a number of groups said access for their enthusiasts has not
improved, and in some cases left them feeling like second-class
recreational citizens.
Mountain bikers have long complained that they are often excluded from
trails. "More of an arbitrary thing than one where there's a definite
reason," said Charlie Beristain, of Bike Walk Connecticut and the
Connecticut chapter of the New England Mountain Bike Association. "All
these facilities -- whether parks or trails -- are meant to be
multi-use: horses and cyclers and Frisbee players, but there doesn't
seem to be a process that includes as many of those users as possible."
Diane Ciano, who chairs the trail committee of the Connecticut Horse
Council, has had the same complaint. "Don't forget about us," she said.
"We're a historic user group and want to be recognized."
Ciano pointed to the case of the Farmington Canal Heritage Trail that
was paved and is no longer usable for horses. She said while horses are
allowed in all state parks and forests unless otherwise noted, often
there is no trailer access or parking, and signage is confusing.
But those who have felt most left-out are all terrain
vehicle--ATV--enthusiasts, 70,000 strong. More than half of them own
the 4-wheel variety known as quads.
"There's not one place in all of Connecticut, which has 40,000 quads,
to legally ride," said Jerry Shinners, administrator of the New England
Trail Riders Association. "So where do they go? Illegally wherever in
the state they want."
That illegal riding as well as flouting of registration requirements is
an open secret known to DEEP, but the two sides have been at odds
despite policy put in place several years ago to set aside ATV land.
Shinners would like to see a system like the one in Massachusetts where
there are six quad accessible areas and all vehicles are licensed. "Not
only do you control illegal riding," he said. "You can control the
environmental damage as well."
The meetings are scheduled for tonight at Sessions Woods in Burlington,
Thursday at Fort Trumbull in New London, Aug. 16 at UConn in Storrs and
Aug. 18 at the Kellogg Environmental Center in Derby. All meetings run
from 7 to 10 p.m. For directions and other information on the meetings,
or to comment online or by email, go to www.ct.gov/deep/scorp.
DeStefano's Route: Better, But ...
Hartford Courant "commentary"
By TONI GOLD
October 22, 2006
Democratic gubernatorial candidate John DeStefano's "Plan for Smart
Growth," released just a week after Gov. M. Jodi Rell's "Responsible
Growth" executive order, has upped the ante on an issue that needed to
be added to the gubernatorial campaign.
The debate over how to grow jobs and encourage growth - and at the same
time combat sprawl, relieve traffic congestion and preserve community
character and livability - has been joined. DeStefano's proposal is
much broader and also more detailed that Rell's; it shows his longer
acquaintance with the issue. It reflects his experience as mayor of New
Haven as well as his chairmanship of the 2003 blue ribbon Commission on
the Property Tax Burden and Smart Growth Incentives, which his proposal
tracks closely.
There is little doubt of Destefano's commitment to this cause, and
little doubt that he could begin to implement as soon as he is in
office. Rell's plan is an insufficient, reactive response to a
perceived want, DeStefano's is an urgent and comprehensive response to
an understood need. Most significantly, his plan states that, "By its
nature, smart growth cannot exist in isolation of other policies, such
as transportation, economic development, the environment and - most
importantly - the property tax."
This key part of DeStefano's plan is the essential ingredient missing
from Rell's - comprehensive rebalancing of the entire portfolio of
state revenues to support smart growth principles and policies.
DeStefano understands that smart growth cannot be a reality without
removal of the largest of the state sprawl subsidies - the too-high
property tax, and he recognizes the problem of actually enforcing the
link, so that the "tax shift away from property taxes is not just a
hidden tax increase."
He proposes to make that link to governance policies through
transparency, "real, significant savings in the cost of government,"
spurring development in targeted areas through land-use regulatory
reform, improved planning and data collection, and streamlined
permitting. One can snort at such lofty rhetoric, but in fact these are
all integral techniques of the emerging technology of smart growth, and
there are excellent models and pilots for all of them.
This is not to say that the skepticism shouldn't remain and the
pressure be kept on to make sure these key governance pieces actually
materialize. DeStefano's plan can be critiqued, particularly in its
transportation proposals.
To first give full credit, DeStefano recognizes the importance of
"reforming" the state Department of Transportation, and good for him
that he is willing to use that word. He understands,as only a local
official can, the havoc the state transportation agency can wreak on
the character, livability and economic health of towns and cities, and
the frustrating subordination of public transit in any form to the
highway imperative that has ruled the DOT for too long.
His proposal for separate agencies and funding sources for transit and
for ports is long overdue. But his plan, like Rell's, flunks the
eastern Connecticut transit-oriented development test: his
transportation projects for that part of the state are to extend Route
11, widen Route 6, widen the Route 2 bridge over the Thames, and widen
I-95 between Branford and the Rhode Island line - projects that are
immensely expensive.
They need to be re-evaluated in light of the modern understanding that
new road capacity begets more traffic volume - the reality that makes
highway expansion self-fulfilling and self-defeating, the reality that
gave us Fairfield County gridlock, and is rapidly working its way with
New Haven and Hartford. The need in eastern Connecticut as it faces the
development pressure from Boston and Providence, casinos and film
studios, is to deflect the supposedly "inevitable" trajectory toward
gridlock.
But how?
It's much easier to do the right thing if you first stop doing the
wrong thing. DeStefano surely understands the need to call a halt, not
only to the eastern Connecticut sprawl-driving highway projects, but to
a number of others around the state, all of which will re-congest
shortly after construction and leave us with yet more infrastructure to
maintain in addition to that which we can't afford to maintain now.
Commendably he includes a "fix-it first" policy for roads, but that is
not enough. It is these billions of dollars of new highway projects
from which dollars can and should be shifted in order to fund transit.
All the good talk about transit is meaningless unless there is an
actual shift of dollars away from highways - a flexibility that is in
fact available in both federal and state funds. The single biggest
source of transit funds is the pot of money we already have.
But beyond halting the wrong things, and in addition to starting the
right things, Connecticut needs a Big Vision - a truly statewide vision
of "smart transportation," not just a collection of regional bus and
rail fragments that address only the needs of our individual,
way-too-small regions.
A smart transportation vision, say one using our statewide network of
rail rights-of-way, can lead economic growth. It would connect the
entire state into a single economic entity, and thereby benefit all
regions. It would spark compact, transit-oriented development that
would reinforce our traditional town centers as it promotes cleaner
air, affordable housing, efficient sites for new businesses and the
preservation of farms and forest.
That's a lot of good stuff. Is the Big Vision just a fantasy, or could
it actually happen? I mean, really - how could the Land of Steady
Habits justify such a thing? The thought of garnering the public
support, not to mention finding the billions of dollars to fund it, is
enough to give pause to the boldest elected leader. But as Daniel
Burnham reminded us, "Make no small plans; they do not stir men's
soul." Big Visions stir souls, without which nothing important can
happen, and a Big Vision is almost always easier to sell than a small
vision.
These two new smart growth proposals are pretty wonky. They are likely
to get a big yawn from the voters, and at worst, taxpayer resistance.
Rell has put smart growth into the discussion - good for her. DeStefano
has offered the missing tax reform piece, a sense of urgency and more
specifics - even better. But neither has offered a Big Vision for the
state as a whole. I'm betting the voters are way ahead of the
politicians on this one. They would follow visionary leadership if it
were offered.
Toni
Gold of Hartford is the president of Urban Edge Associates and a senior
associate with Project for Public Spaces, a nonprofit whose mission is
to create and sustain public places that build communities. She is a
member of the Place Board of Contributors.
Three
Salem Landowners Win Back Farm Status
By ALLISON FRANK
Day Staff Writer, East Lyme/Salem
Published on 3/12/2004
Salem
— Three families whose farmland
tax status was repealed by the town have won the designation back.
During
mediation with a judge in
New Britain Feb. 25, First Selectman Larry Reitz said, the town agreed
to settle three lawsuits from Melvin and Juanita Chappell, David
Gernhard
and Alfreda Shapere. The landowners lost their status as farm owners
under
Public Act 490 last year. The law, passed by the General Assembly in
1963,
allows towns to tax farms, forestland and open space at a lower rate
than
commercial or residential property.
Reitz
said the town also has agreed
to eventually reinstate the designation for a fourth couple, David and
Anne Bingham, who sued after losing their farm assessment on 27 acres.
The settlement requires the town to pay the first three families a
total
of $5,000 in refunds from last year's tax bills, Reitz said. The
Binghams'
lawsuit is still being settled; the amount of their refund has not yet
been determined.
The four families
are among roughly 40 residents whose farmland designation was stripped
by former tax assessor Rosalyn Dupuis, who resigned last October after
two years. Dupuis had reviewed the properties that benefited from PA
490
more critically than her predecessors.
While
a status of forestland is granted by the state Department of
Environmental
Protection, farm status designation is the responsibility of local tax
assessors. The law provides assessors with points to consider,
including
acreage and productivity, but they are given broad discretion to
determine
what constitutes a farm.
David Bingham,
who is president of the Salem Land Trust and a member of the Planning
and
Zoning Commission, said Dupuis was misinterpreting the PA 490
regulations,
and concentrated too heavily on the moneymaking aspect of farming.
Bingham
said he had let his land go fallow for a year, but that it never
stopped
being a farm. He said he allows other farmers to use his land for
haying,
pasturing livestock, and cutting fence posts, among other things.
“Farming isn't
necessarily something that you do every year,” said Bingham, a
physician.
“That was the one sticking point with the previous assessor.”
About
20 petitioners had pleaded
their cases to the town's Board of Assessment Appeals after losing
their
farmland designation, and about five had their assessments restored.
The
Board of Assessment Appeals had ruled that the farm designation should
not apply in cases where farms had become inactive, or are solely for
personal
use. The Chappells lost their assessment for the latter reason.
Juanita
Chappell said Thursday that
she's pleased the lawsuit was settled in their favor, but fears the
town
may remove the designation again someday. She and her husband depend on
the tax relief, she said, adding they are entitled to it, too. Although
they are retired, the Chappells still raise oxen to sell for beef, and
grow vegetables for profit on their Harris Road property. They also
have
added chickens since losing the designation, she said.
Gernhard,
reached at home Thursday,
said he is satisfied with the settlement. Shapere could not be reached
for comment.
old
news...
Sec.
15. Subsection (a) of section
27 of senate bill 2002 of the current session is repealed and the
following
is substituted in lieu thereof:
(a) Any contract for the protection
of open space entered into by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection with BHC
Company, Aquarion or Kelda Group, jointly or individually,
and The Nature Conservancy, [through]
for purchase of land or interests in land from said
companies shall be on such terms
and conditions as are approved by the commissioner. Such terms
and conditions shall provide for
the filing on the land records in the town in which the land is located,
restrictions or easements that provide
that all land or interest in land subject to such purchase is
preserved in perpetuity in its natural
and open condition for the protection of natural resources and
public water supplies. Such
restrictions
or easements may allow only those recreational activities
which are not prohibited in subsection
(c) of section 7-131d of the general statutes and shall allow
for improvements and activities
necessary only for land and natural resource management and safe
and adequate potable water. Such
permanent restrictions or easements shall be in favor of the State
of Connecticut acting through the
Commissioner of Environmental Protection. Such permanent
restrictions or easements shall
also include a requirement that the property be available to the general
public for recreational purposes
as permitted under subsection (c) of section 7-131d of the general
statutes and shall allow for the
installation of such permanent fixtures as may be necessary to provide
such permitted recreational activities.
The Department of Environmental Protection and the state are
hereby authorized to carry out and
fulfill their obligations under any such contract. In addition to such
rights as said companies may have
pursuant to chapter 53 of the general statutes, those rights in and
to land or interests in land reserved
by said companies in their conveyances to the state in
accordance with the provisions of
said contract shall be enforceable in equity.