To the Editor:
The discussion surrounding the Kuehn’s Way cluster development off State Road in Tisbury should dispense with ad hominem labeling of those who question the wisdom of the development, and focus exclusively on the project’s merits and demerits.
Has there been a thorough analysis of the fiscal consequences for the town of Tisbury, in terms of tax revenues and infrastructure obligations? Jeff Kristal, the head of the zoning board of appeals (ZBA), has stated that “something” is going to go in there. What would generate more revenue for the town, property tax from four private homes (their value enhanced by proximity to the conservation land), or cluster housing owned by a nonprofit housing group that would agree to make a “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILOT)? Will the PILOT equal the lost property tax revenue, and cover additional burdens on the town?
What is the cost associated with provision of town services like police, fire, schools? How does that compare with conventional, less dense development in an R50 zone?
Would a pedestrian crosswalk have to be installed so residents could safely get to the other side of the road to wait for a VTA bus? Or would a new turnoff need to be created, à la Woodside and Hillside Village?
If the untested denitrification system proves inadequate, a septic plume may be heading for private wells and Lake Tashmoo. Larry Gomez, Tisbury selectman, predicts that sooner rather than later, the development will require the town to foot the bill for extending town water and sewering. Hence he is not in favor of the project.
Wouldn’t “smart development” mandate that all cluster housing, “affordable” or not, be contiguous to or within already developed residential areas — more affordable for everyone? The Kuehn’s Way proposal seems to embody many features of “stupid” growth, not “smart.”
Speaking of contiguity, the Land Bank justifies its participation in this project with the idea of adding land to another conservation property. The Land Bank has refused to purchase in-town properties (say, for a park) because they do not have “conservation value.” Yet enabling the insertion of dense development next to conservation lands will degrade the conservation and recreational value of those lands, and flies in the face of the Land Bank’s mission. Think light pollution; runoff from asphalt surfaces; houses in the middle of the woods, which nature lovers will not appreciate; and the fact that the IHT, as the owner of the whole tract, can use the Land Bank easement area for septic management, which could involve constructing new septic infrastructure and subsequent “restoration.”
Did the Land Bank ever consider acquiring the whole property for the public instead of just purchasing an easement on a fraction of the parcel? Wouldn’t this enhance the value of the whole conservation tract and have a fiscal benefit, in the sense that (as a number of studies have shown) undeveloped land ends up being cheapest for the town?
A Land Bank representative told me that affordable housing advocates see themselves as being in competition with the Land Bank for land. I should think that those two universes are mutually exclusive. Surely strong candidates for conservation purchases are a priori inappropriate for housing developments.
From various quarters I get the impression that the main reason for going ahead with the Kuehn’s Way proposal comes down to “doing something” — even if it isn’t smart development. An editorial in the Martha’s Vineyard Times [Oct. 6, “‘Only all of us can solve it’”] provided a rundown of the history of the project, and concluded that because “there is no commitment to a comprehensive approach to housing,” this project should be OKed, even though, they implied, its siting is arbitrary.
Hasn’t just such a comprehensive process been launched? Does it make sense to go ahead with an outdated proposal when a process is getting underway that could, and should, lead to comprehensive planning? In my view, two indispensable components of such planning are an aggressive outreach campaign to landlords to make sure that they register all existing affordable housing units with the town (to catch up with 40B requirements), and zoning changes to increase allowable density in already developed areas. Surely the MVC should have taken the lead on proactive “smart” planning for appropriately sited residences years ago. Now, the MVC has failed to adequately review a project, overlaid on an old one, that has major implications for water quality and other planning issues.
I am also concerned as to how percentages of various reductions in the scope of the project are being calculated and stated. For example, at the ZBA hearing, Island Housing Trust executive director Philippe Jordi stated that 20 units is a 10 percent reduction from 22. Actually, 10 percent of 22 is 2.2, not 2. Furthermore, the discussion of wastewater volume should be in terms of number of bedrooms, not housing units.
I thought Jeff Kristal did a good job running the ZBA hearing on the project on Sept. 22, but I question two points. Mr. Kristal strongly implied that only abutters could contribute their views, and that someone assumed to be living in West Tisbury had no standing to comment on the project. Yet Mr. Gomez feels that this project will create precedents that will affect all of the towns on the Island, and everyone should weigh in now. Also, Mr. Kristal allowed Doug Ruskin, an IHT board member (of West Tisbury), to state in ad hominem vein not once but twice, and more sanctimoniously, that IHT board members and staff are “responsible” people, and anyone who questions the project is in the wrong. I have also heard and read other comments labeling the abutters and neighbors as “rich” people who are just selfish and cannot accept “change.”
Such maligning and patronization of longtime taxpaying residents, some of them Islanders who have spent years working on their own houses, should stop. Being rich or not has no bearing on whether this development is “affordable” for the town of Tisbury, or whether, at $319,000 per unit, it is the best way to spend money to generate “crisis” affordable housing for seniors, families, young workers, and seasonal workers.
Katherine Scott
Tisbury
The post Kuehn’s Way, on the merits appeared first on Martha's Vineyard Times.