Groton Open Space Association

Council Approves Weakened Measure To Protect Open Space

GROTON–The Town Council approved July 19, 2005, a weakened measure to afford some protection to town lands that were acquired with proceeds of a 1988 bond issue to raise money for buying open space tracts.

In approving the weaker measure of Councilor Natalie Burfoot-Billing, the council rejected stronger protection that had been proposed by Councilor Elissa Wright and that sought to note in land records of the six parcels their status — “in perpetuity” — as open space for conservation and recreation. Ms. Burfoot-Billing had drafted her version in response to Ms. Wright’s.

Ms. Burfoot-Billing’s measure, approved by a vote of 6-2, with Ms. Wright and Councilor Paulann Sheets voting against, provides that the source and purpose of the purchase funds would be placed in the records of four of the six lands. It makes no reference to the phrase “in perpetuity,” which is included in the title of Ms. Wright’s resolution.

Records of five of the six lands did not mention how they were acquired. Ms. Burfoot-Billing’s measure leaves out two of the tracts–the 240-acre Copp Property, because its deed does include restrictions, and the 35-acre Merritt Farm because some information exists on its records as a result of state contributions to its acquisition. (The Merritt property differs from the 75-acre Merritt tract, also atop Fort Hill, that GOSA is seeking to buy with the help of a state grant.)

The council’s decision was preceded by considerable debate and public input. The town attorney had questioned Ms. Wright’s resolution on grounds that it might unduly restrict future governments. This concern was echoed by Ms. Burfoot-Billing and Councilor Thomas Skrmetti.

Mr. Skrmetti was scornful of advocates of Ms. Wright’s measure, commenting after their input:”It’s really good to see special interest groups alive and well in Groton. I really think this is an engineered crisis led by a small group of people.” He did not define “special interest group,” a term often used for an organization that stands to profit from certain pieces of legislation. GOSA is incorporated as a non-profit organization under Chapter 501 (c) (3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. In response to a question from GOSA President Priscilla Pratt, Mr. Skrmetti said his previous talk of selling the lands was “hypothetical.”

Councilor Frank O’Beirne, apparently attempting to find common ground, said all members of the council were interested in protecting the land “to a certain extent.” This statement seemed to sum up the basic disagreement, because Ms. Wright aimed to provide protection to the full extent possible under the law, in order that future generations could enjoy the lands without fear of future deals to sell it off or to use it for purposes other than those authorized by referendum voters.

Former Councilor Richard Dixon, who played a key role in acquisition of the lands, said it was the intent of the council that approved the bond issue that the lands should be held “in perpetuity.”

Councilor Wright said that the six properties “are committed. It is not in the power of anyone on this council to change that. The lands are held in trust for the purposes approved by the voters, and that is in perpetuity.”

At one point during the debate, Councilor Peter Bartinik proposed an amendment to Ms. Wright’s resolution to delete a controversial reference in the resolution to the history of the Spicer Property atop Fort Hill. The property, donated by Elihu Spicer for a poor farm, wound up being used for a police station, public works garage, municipal office and public meeting facility. Mr. Bartinik’s motion failed to pass by a vote of 5-3, with Mr. Bartinik, Ms. Wright and Ms. Sheets voting in favor.