You can send letters via e-mail to: letters@thejournalnews.com

Here are the leading arguments in support of the Putnam County Community Open Space Fund:

* We need to protect Putnam County’s special quality of life for our children and for future generations.

* Preserving Putnam’s forests and natural lands are vital to keeping our air and water clean.

* The program would only allow land purchases from willing sellers at fair market share.

* $4 a month is a small price to pay for preserving our quality of life.

* Sprawl and overdevelopment is a serious problem in Putnam County today. The program will protect natural areas from development.

Following are links to information about the economic benefits of preserving open space. I note some points to make, visit the links for plenty more. I encourage you to write. Your letter will go a long way to helping gather YES votes for the November referendum. Tell folks to vote YES!

Dennis

_________________________________
Dennis W. Schvejda, Advocacy Director
NY/NJ Trail Conference

* Moneys from the fund will be used to acquire land in Putnam County that is important for our drinking water quality, air quality, passive recreational opportunities and the natural environment, as well as farmland and other important open landscapes.

* Voters polled cited growth and development as the most important issue facing Putnam County, receiving a greater number of responses than other typical top tier local issues including taxes, schools and education, and the economy.

Open Space Is a Good Investment: The Financial Argument for Open Space Preservation - 12 pages
http://www.anjec.org/pdfs/OpenSpaceGoodInvestment2004.pdf

* Preserving open space has the long-range benefit of avoiding future costs. Communities and counties across the nation are finding that single-family residential tax ratables don’t cover the costs of municipal services, community infrastructure and local schools. Studies show that for every $1.00 collected in taxes, residential development costs between $1.04 to $1.67 in services — and these costs continue forever, generally increasing over time. Even including the initial cost of acquisition, open space is less costly to taxpayers over the long term than development of the same parcel. The major public costs to preserve natural areas are finite, often paid by a bond or loan over 20 years.

Opportunity Knocks – Open Space is a Community Investment - 16 pages
http://www.heritageconservancy.org/news/pdf/opportunity.pdf

* A dollar spent to purchase land or development rights avoids greater and repeated costs of municipal and school district services. Kids from new homes will need to be educated. Over all, conservation of land will complement new development. Both growth and preservation have places in the future of our communities. It is this balance that is important. Land preservation is not an extravagant expense. It’s an investment in your community.

Bibliography: The Economic Benefits of Open Space
http://tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm?content_item_id=1076&folder_id=726  

* Protecting open space eliminates the costs of new government services, including schools, water, trash removal, sewers, policing, and fire protection--the primary burdens on local government budgets.

* Protecting open space can improve municipal bond ratings and reduce the costs of government borrowing.

* "The old adage that cows do not send their children to school expresses a documented fact-- that farms and other types of open land, far from being a drain on local taxes, actually subsidize local government by generating far more in property taxes than they demand in services. The opposite is true of most suburban forms of residential development. In other words, maintaining a substantial open space system is one important was of controlling the costs of government."

* Protecting open space can stabilize or increase nearby or adjacent property values--avoiding the need for increased property tax rates.

Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space
http://tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm?content_item_id=1145&folder_id=727

* Too many community leaders feel they must choose between economic growth and open space protection. But no such choice is necessary. Open space protection is good for a community's health, stability, beauty, and quality of life. It is also good for the bottom line.

Fate of Putnam's open space in voters' hands
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050919/NEWS04/509190345/1017

By SUSAN ELAN
selan@thejournalnews.com 

THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: September 19, 2005)

With the prospect of a 10 percent tax increase looming next year, Putnam County residents get to vote in November on whether it's worth an additional $45 per average household for 20 years to preserve woodlands, lakeshores and wetlands.

The Nov. 8 referendum will ask for support for the creation of a $20 million open-space fund to buy farmland and environmentally vulnerable property.

Environmentalists, residents and politicians overwhelmingly say they want to safeguard open space. But things get trickier when they are asked whether they are willing to pay for it.

"I like having open space," said Jack Tesler, a Mahopac resident since 1965. "The roads are so congested. If they build more, it will create more problems for future generations."

But what sounds like a ringing endorsement of the county's open-space resolution turns out not to be a sure thing.

"Taxes are increasing all the time," Tesler continued. "Where does it stop? I think open space is a good thing, but I don't want to pay for it."

Fishing and hunting enthusiast Lynn Greenwood of Carmel, a natural ally of the open-space movement, has doubts about the proposed new spending.

"The county can't take care of what it already has," said Greenwood, who was born in Carmel in 1937 and has lived there ever since. "So much of what the county owns is hidden. People are not aware of it, so it is underutilized."

Ann Fanizzi, a Southeast resident who leads the Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space, and Legislator Vincent Tamagna, R-Philipstown, chairman of the county's Land Acquisition Committee, say they feel confident that most voters recognize that the benefits of increasing the county's open-space stock far outweigh the cost. Most households would have to pay less than $5 a month, they said.

A 2004 poll commissioned by the Open Space Institute and the Trust for Public Land found that up to 67 percent of voters would support spending $20 million. Voters said growth and development were the most important issues facing the county.

"This is a unique opportunity for present residents to leave a legacy to future generations," Fanizzi said. "For an insignificant amount (for each taxpayer), this investment in open space would increase property values, and enrich the recreational, aesthetic and water-quality opportunities for the community."

"We don't want our community to look like Westchester or Dutchess counties," Tamagna said. "I think we will be successful."

But Friday, Legislature Chairman Robert McGuigan, R-Mahopac, said deep resentment over taxes and other matters is seething among county voters, as demonstrated in Tuesday's primary in which all the incumbent Republicans in Carmel were defeated.

"They're tired of taxes, and I will use that to gauge my votes in the future," McGuigan said. "I'm not hearing much support for it (open space), and I am very apprehensive. This could have a dramatic impact, once the average taxpayer adds up the bill."

Putnam County Executive Robert Bondi said residents might see a more compelling reason to support the open-space resolution if the money could be used to purchase property with facilities ready for the community to use and if the burden of paying off the $20 million plus interest were to be lightened by commercial taxpayers.

"We have no support for retail development anywhere in this county," Bondi said. "We would have to raise taxes to pay for open space. There is no other way to finance it."

Under the referendum resolution, the county could purchase properties for passive recreation, such as hiking and biking, and for nonrecreational uses, such as nature preserves. The money also could go toward farms and development rights to farms; environmentally sensitive areas; and land that falls into special circumstances. A new, five-member county Open Space Advisory Committee and the Legislature would have to vote unanimously to make an exception.

Debra Boccarossa, a real estate agent from Carmel, said that while she knows open space makes the community attractive to home buyers, she wants to see more upscale commercial development to bring down her $17,000 annual tax bill.

"You have to go to Danbury for the boutiques and restaurants this community doesn't offer," she said.

Peter Gebhardt, a member of the Hamlet of Carmel Civic Association, said he remains undecided on whether to support the open-space fund despite his attendance at a forum on the issue late last week.

"How can I vote unless they tell us what they want to purchase, what it will cost and how it will benefit the community?" he said.