A simple response would be to state what % of the proposed restriction is buildable and what is wet. In addition, what % of the Farrington uplands.dry land/buildable land will be used for septic for CIVICO? Is any of that land (developed for septic or any other purpose) part of the town investment in a conservation restriction?
These should be straightforward statements of fact. > On Jun 3, 2025, at 7:20 AM, Joseph Kolchinsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > At this point in the conversation, I believe we’ve done something meaningful > - we’ve surfaced nearly every angle of this project and created space for > residents to get informed, ask tough questions, and form their own opinion. > We still have a few weeks to go, and there are more opportunities to learn > (see here > <https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/98415/Nature-Link-Timeline-4-30-2025?bidId=>). > > > I’ve asked my share of questions - both publicly and privately - and I’ve > done my best to distill what I’ve learned into this Letter of Support + Q&A > <https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d>. Whether you agree or disagree, I > hope it helps clarify some of the complexity. > > That said, one open question still feels unresolved - and I want to flag it > not just because I think it will influence how one might vote, but because it > highlights why some debates may be missing the forest for the trees. > > The question: How much of the Farrington land is actually buildable? > > This has come up a lot in arguments against the Conservation Restrictions > (CRs). Some claim the land is mostly wetlands already - so a CR doesn’t > “save” much because the land would go undeveloped anyway. > > Here’s the issue: whether the wetlands have shifted or not, the outcome is > the same - this land is at risk without permanent protection. > > Let’s walk through both outcomes of a wetland survey: > If the survey shows wetlands have shifted from the studies done 20 years ago, > then we’ve just proved the central point: wetland boundaries are unreliable, > and CRs are the only permanent tool we have to lock down land use. > If the survey shows no shift, then we’ve confirmed that much of the land is > still developable - which means it’s valuable and unprotected. CRs are still > the best way to prevent future buildout. > So yes, it’s fine to want an updated wetland survey (and I will always > support having accurate data). But if the goal is to use that data to decide > whether this land is worth protecting, I think we’re asking the wrong > question. The risk isn’t tied to what the wetland map says today - it’s that > the map can change tomorrow. That’s why I believe the CRs matter, regardless > of what any new survey might show. > > Joey > > Joseph Kolchinsky > -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected]. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
