We need to correct the misimpression fostered by previous generations that natural areas in public ownership are community assets. How can they compare, for instance, with the value of providing business opportunities to important constituents?
More at:
Please share widely!
You’re leaving out pretty much all of the facts regarding this land-swap between Lantana’s and the state. According to an old Patriot Ledger article, this deal has been in the works for five years:
<
p>The 3.2 acres that the state would be giving up are part of the Blue Hills Reservation that is fairly isolated from the rest of the park- hemmed in by Routes 24 and 128. Hart’s land is land-locked by the Reservation itself, and Route 128. Because that land is land-locked due to the land taking from the original construction of 128, the state is legally bound to provide Hart access to his land. That access would end up going over the Blue Hills Reservation anyways.
<
p>Given that Hart has a right to use his property, the state can either create access for him through the reservation, or can swap a comparable piece of land which has street frontage. The swap option seems to be the least disruptive.
View Larger Map
For some reason I can’t get the embedded Google Map for the area to work. Here’s the link http://maps.google.c…
I also found this map on the Friends of the Blue Hills website:
Again, it’s quite apparent that to get to his parcel, Hart would have to go over quite a bit of Reservation land; the swap prevents that.
ShillelaghLaw:
<
p>
Can you answer these questions?
<
p>
1) what road did the inholding have frontage on before the Highway Dept taking? (if there was no such frontage, there is no obligation to provide access)
<
p>
2) If there was such frontage, how do you know that the taking did not compensate the owner for it?
<
p>
3) If you think the current owner can demand and acquire access to the parcel from the state, why does the state characterize the land as “undevelopable?” See: http://www.friendsof…
<
p>
4) If the land is developable, why does Randolph assess it at about $1000/acre? (vs. $235,000/acre for land on High St).
<
p>
5) If someone took your car out of your driveway and left you a pizza crust and a gum wrapper, would you call that a ‘swap’?
<
p>
I’ll address #5 first. The “pizza crust” analogy mischaracterizes the deal. You’re forgetting, or more likely omitting, the fact that Hart has to pay the difference between the appraised value of the two parcels. So to use your analogy, it would be more like someone taking my car from my driveway, and leaving me a different car and a check for the Kelly Bluebook value of the difference between the two.
As for questions 1 & 2, I’m just going by what I’ve read in the papers- I haven’t done any kind of title search on the property. But as far as the assessed value of the land-locked parcel is concerned, the town can only assess it based on it’s current allowed use, not on what the land might be worth if the owner was successful in suing the state for access. I suspect that the same is true for the state’s classification of the land as unbuildable.
A swap implies some parity in value between the items to be exchanged. If one is worth several hundred times the other, it is not really a swap, is it?
<
p>
The only reason this deal is being called a swap is that it looks bad if the state is simply selling the parkland for development, and moreover making only one party eligible to buy it.
<
p>
Interestingly, the first version of the legislation said nothing but a swap, but simply authorized a sale. At that time Hart did not yet own the remote inholding. See:
http://www.friendsof…
Every piece of land is a thing unto itself, similar to no other. Each one is going to have positive and negative characteristics, and cash is the only way to balance them out.
<
p>
I don’t see the big deal here. The assessed value and state designations tell nothing about the quality of the land.
<
p>
So, I guess it is fair to say that the state is selling the land– in return for other land and cash. Selling one thing in return for another thing or combination of things and cash is a functional definition of a “swap.”
<
p>
I guess I would want to hear the answers to Laurel’s reasonable questions above– does the land to be swapped out have some special environmental value to it? Does the land to be swapped in have any serious deteriment to it?– before deciding that the deal does not seem corrupt.
<
p>
But there certainly isn’t anything in this thread that suggests that it is.
other than contiguous borders with the park, are there any features of the parcels to be swapped that make the transaction more or less desirable? for example, are there vernal pools on either parcel, or unusual plant communities? has the habitat been degraded or otherwise trampled in either, etc?
Funny you should ask…
<
p>
The mature oak woodland to be bulldozed is highly visible, has 400 ft of frontage on a major town road, contains the initial 250 ft of the Smith Trail, and is immediately adjacent to a certified vernal pool. It has intact soils and vegetation, supports forty species of native plants, and is crisscrossed by ancient stone walls.
<
p>
The remote inholding, in contrast, is not connected to any trail, is not associated with any wetlands, is not visible from any road (unless you whip your head around on the 24-to-128 ramp), is covered with impassable burnt-over scrub, and is full of highway noise and fumes.