The Commons
Town and Village

Newfane voters reject land purchase

Originally published in The Commons issue #181 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012).


NEWFANE—Voters at Special Town Meeting have rejected the Selectboard’s request to purchase property that has been landlocked since Tropical Storm Irene destroyed the bridge that provides access to the parcel.

The board considered buying the land, at 14 Lynch Bridge Rd., so that the town could redistribute anticipated funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) more strategically.

But residents at the Nov. 8 meeting, saying they were motivated by a distrust of FEMA and uncertainty over unforeseen costs, described the plan as too risky.

Voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, which would have authorized the board to spend up to $190,000 for the property.

“I want to just be as clear as possible,” Selectboard chair John Mack said. “This is actually a very complicated situation which is presented to the Selectboard, and this is, at least in part, why we are bringing it to the town for a vote.”

During Tropical Storm Irene, Lynch Bridge — the property’s only connection to public roads — washed away.

FEMA, in collaboration with the Vermont state government, has determined that it will pay $562,000 to have the bridge rebuilt.

However, if the town chooses not to rebuild the bridge, but rather to discontinue the road, the Selectboard can instead use a little over $500,000 of the funds for other projects or equipment, Mack said.

“You’ve got a bridge that serves one homeowner, this doesn’t seem in my mind the best use of [] half a million dollars,” Mack said. “What I felt is was I can’t walk away from $275,000 in good conscience.”

If the town elected not to rebuild the bridge, the property would remain landlocked, and the Selectboard would discontinue the road.

The town could take these steps without buying the property, but then the property owners, the Monroe family, would have the right to sue.

“We think as the board that we felt both ethically that it’s the right thing to do, to pay the landowner and ... not have someone sue us and slow the process down,” Mack said.

Although the vote against the article was not unanimous, no voter spoke in favor of the article.

The voters spoke in favor of using the FEMA money for its original intent: to rebuild the bridge.

Some residents present at the meeting expressed a mistrust of FEMA, saying they believed that the agency might not give the town the money which they’ve allocated.

1 | 2 | Next


What do you think? Leave us a comment

Editor’s note: Our terms of service require you to use your real names. We will remove anonymous or pseudonymous comments that come to our attention. We rely on our readers’ personal integrity to stand behind what they say; please do not write anything to someone that you wouldn’t say to his or her face without your needing to wear a ski mask while saying it. Thanks for doing your part to make your responses forceful, thoughtful, provocative, and civil. We also consider your comments for the letters column in the print newspaper.

Comments

No comments yet.

Add Comment

* Required information
(will not be published)
Enter the word table backwards.
 
Enter answer:
 
Notify me of new comments via email.
 
Remember my form details on this computer.
 
I have read and understand the privacy policy. *
 






News and Views

News

Voices

Arts

Life and Work

Milestones

Submit your news

Submit commentary

Support us

Become a member

Advertising

Print advertising

Web advertising

About us

Contact us