From Philip Keyes

Dear Fellow Actonian,

Please forward this email to your fellow citizens and friends in Acton.

We urge you to help spread the word that it's important to attend the Special Town Meeting, Monday, Oct 18th at 7:30pm, and vote against the Yin Peet Land Swap. Most of the town's citizens only received the Town Warrant last Thursday --four days before the meeting-- and most are unaware of the issues surrounding the land swap.

Please vote against this land swap.

Yin Peet may be an artist with a "dream," but in reality she and her lawyer are acting like developers whose vision is more "gamble" than dream. She knowingly bought undevelopable land for a pittance, and now expects the Town's citizens to turn this land into gold by giving her town land that could better serve the community in other ways. In return, she wishes to give the town a swamp with some inaccessible uplands.

Land Swap makes no Fiscal Sense

In a classic move more akin to an aggressive developer, the land that Peet and her lawyer propose swapping to the Town is of no utility. It cannot be developed and would not serve Peet or other developer any benefit whatsoever. A large swamp separates the property she proposes to transfer to the town from the rest of Peet's parcel. It is doubly landlocked: first, by the town's frontage land, and second by a large swamp. (For a map of the land and swamp, click here: http://rfguba.home.comcast.net/lsc/WHTF_LandSwap_Aerial_Map.jpg

This land swap would trade Town land that is highly valued frontage land that the town could use for the common good of the community in return for land of little value and no utility. Why would the town wish to trade good land for a swamp? Peet's lawyer has stated at the Planning Meeting that the value of Peet's swamp and inaccessible uplands is of commensurate value to the town's frontage property. It's hard to imagine any scenario that would make this true. The frontage property is all developable uplands: the Town could currently use it for conservation land trails or recreation use linked to NARA. Peet's back property would be next to impossible to develop and has little value other than open space.
Even if the town's citizens like the idea of making Peet's landlocked parcel developable, the owner should be required to financially remunerate the town in order to compensate for this imbalance. The value of the developable land Peet would receive, and its subsequent increase in the value of the entire property, would be very high--probably far more that her original purchase price. Ask yourself, how much does 12-acres of developable land on a quiet Acton dead-end road bordered by conservation lands worth? A whole lot more than $80K.
The prior owners shared no love for the Town of Acton. If they had wished to express their animosity, they could have sold off this landlocked parcel years ago to a professional developer, but they couldn't. Even professional developers probably realized that this was a lost cause.

The Land Swap makes even less Environmental Sense

* The Town of Acton has put an enormous amount of money toward the high priority of preserving open space in Acton. The Camp Acton Boy Scout land and the Morrison Property cost the town over a million. Many in the town realize that once a quickie mart, always a quickie mart; once a residence, always a residence. There is no reason for the town to facilitate developing parcels that by historical circumstance are not developable. The Selectmen’s decision to support this land swap has set in motion a worrisome precedent that threatens Acton’s open space land.

* The town may or may not wish to spend money on buying a derelict quarry. In other towns, these lands frequently enter into a state of delinquent tax payment and subsequent transfer to the town for lack of tax payment. They are unwanted and unutilizable lands. They are de facto open spaces.

* The quarry land is unique in its location because it abuts two different classifications of town property: conservation/Town Forest land and municipal land. . Human residence and activity will place unnecessary stress on the integrity of this surrounding open space. Fragmentation of large wooded tracts such as the Town Forest and Wills Hole lands is a major cause in the decline of certain birds and animals.

* The Selectmen are concerned with the undue liability the quarry would present if the town owned it. With a better-constructed fence it would be far less liable than the liability the greater human activity at NARA Park presents. There are likely cars, engines, motorcycles and other toxic refuse dumped into the quarry. Yet one of the stated benefits of the transfer is the ability of the town to use its water to irrigate NARA’s wetland plantings at times of summer drought?

* The swamp Peet proposes to give to the Town has various dump sites which include at least one large (oil?) drum and cans. There has been no environmental assessment study about what liability the town assumes by accepting the swamp.

Why has this proposed land swap been kept beneath the radar of Acton's Citizenry?

* Her lawyer states that she and he have met with numerous groups, including Acton's Land Stewardship Committee, when in fact they have met mainly with internal town employees. At the planning board meeting, her lawyer said they had met with the Stewardship committee. This is completely false. They met informally with the volunteer chair of the committee.

* The Selectmen are trying to fly these warrant articles beneath the radar. Many only received the Warrant Notice on Thursday, Oct. 14th -- is this legal? It is certainly procedurally questionable. Only in the last two weeks have there been much effort to engage and educate the public on this issue with Conservation and Planning Board presentations. Why was Yin Peet not encouraged to appear before these important Town boards before she purchased the quarry property?

* There appears to be a "cone of silence" around the town officials and the Selectmen. It is unheard of to have town boards, such as the Planning Board and the Finance Committee, meet six days before a warrant article to discuss this issue prior to a Special Town Meeting. Why is this being rushed? Are the Selectmen afraid of a lawsuit? Why are we being railroaded into making this decision so quickly? More importantly, when is the Town going to stand up for the rights of the town, and not bow under pressure of a lawsuit if Yin Peet doesn't get her way?

Sincerely,
Philip Keyes
Robert Guba
Nan Millett