Voters may need
better reasons from the CCA Party than just “trust us!”
By
Will Collette
 |
| Based on Cornell's report, this is the perfect solution |
When
the Charlestown Town Budget, along with its traditional property tax rate hike,
goes to the voters for their approval this June, there will also be two other
ballot questions for voters to decide.
One
will ask voters for their approval to lock up the land bought by Charlestown for
$2.1 million on the Charlestown Moraine to prevent that land from becoming the
site for two commercial-sized wind turbines. That land, is one of the remnants
of the proposed nuclear power plant project that was killed by citizen activism
in the 1970s.
Rather
than allow even the most remote chance that the town might have a better use
for the land at some distant point in the future, the current Town Council,
totally controlled by the Charlestown Citizens Alliance, wants
that land permanently locked up as open space by giving the state DEM a
conservation easement for free.
The
second ballot question the CCA Party-controlled Council wants voters to approve
is OKing
$2 million to renew the now depleted bond authorization to buy more open space.
Unlike previous bond issues, this one is restricted to open space only and
purposely drops any mention of “recreation,” an option that made it a lot
easier to pass earlier bond issues.
There
has been some dissent to these efforts that have risen from the fiscal
conservative argument that locking up more land as non-taxable open space
reduces the tax base which loads home and business property owners with higher
taxes. But often dissent has taken the form of wanting any open space land
acquisition to be available
for use by all, and not just hardy hikers.
This
is not an uncommon debate around the country, especially in those areas that
are rich enough in land and money – like Charlestown – where more mundane
issues like hunger, bad housing, unemployment, failing infrastructure demand
and get more attention.
I haven't made up my mind about these two bond issues. Contrary to the CCA's belief, I really like and appreciate all our open space. I like it a lot. But I am not sure that we want to rule out some future public use for what was once known as the Whalerock land, such as using it for a school if Charlestown hot-heads get their way and we secede from the Chariho School District.
Nor do I trust the idea of putting $2 million back onto Planning Commissar Ruth Platner's Open Space ATM card. I think she betrayed our trust with her backroom dealings on the YMCA Camp scandal (Y-Gate), the Battle for Ninigret Park and Whalerock. I think she puts the interests of her friends and her own biases about wanting to remove people from the environment ahead of the public interest.
As we get closer to the special election, presumably after we get more information - or knowing the CCA Party, a bunch of murky b.s., I'm sure I will have made up my mind.
I
saw the following piece in one of the many on-line news journals I devour and
it seemed like one that the CCA Party ought to examine as they gear up for the
special election in June.
From: Cornell University via EurekAlert!
What inspires people to support conservation? As concerns grow
about the sustainability of our modern society, this becomes more important. A new study by
researchers at Cornell University provides one simple answer: bird watching and
hunting.
This survey of conservation activity among rural landowners in
Upstate New York considered a range of possible predictors such as gender, age,
education, political ideology, and beliefs about the environment. All other
factors being equal, bird watchers are about five times as likely, and hunters
about four times as likely, as non-recreationists to engage in wildlife and
habitat conservation.
Both bird watchers and hunters were more likely than
non-recreationists to enhance land for wildlife, donate to conservation
organizations, and advocate for wildlife-all actions that significantly impact
conservation success.
The contributions of individuals who identified as both bird
watchers and hunters were even more pronounced. On average, this group was
about eight times more likely than non-recreationists to engage in
conservation.
"We set out to study two groups--bird watchers and
hunters--and didn't anticipate the importance of those who do both, and
wildlife managers probably didn't either," said Dr. Caren ,
the study's lead author, now at North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences.
"We don't even have a proper name for these conservation superstars, other
than hunter/bird watchers."
"Managers often discuss direct and indirect links between
wildlife recreation and conservation," said study co-author Dr. Lincoln
Larson, now at Clemson University. "Our findings not only validate this
connection, but reveal the unexpected strength of the conservation-recreation
relationship."
The study, published in the Journal
of Wildlife Management, speaks to wildlife agency managers. Findings could
assuage concerns about diminishing support for conservation in the United
States and its historic ties (both socially and economically) to hunting, an
activity that has been declining for decades.
"Our results provide hope for wildlife agencies,
organizations, and citizens concerned about conservation," offers study
co-author Dr. Ashley Dayer of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. "Bird
watchers, a group not traditionally thought of as a constituency by many
wildlife management agencies, have real potential to be conservation , if
appropriate mechanisms for them to contribute are available."
As agencies and conservation organizations ponder how to better
work with bird watchers, hunters, and hunter/bird watchers on conservation, one
take-home message is clear: The more time we spend in nature, the more likely
we are to it.
Continue reading at EurekAlert!
