I found this article interesting from the standpoint that many Greenwich citizens have actively fought any influx of industry or development in general in the town. The idea, which I've heard stated repeatedly, is that Greenwich has historically been only an agricultural community and should stay that way. The fact that agriculture and industry has historically existed side-by-side is often overlooked. In fact, Greenwich exists largely because of the factories that sprang up along the Battenkill, taking advantage of the water power it provided. While it is true most of these no longer exist, to say Greenwich never was an industrial town is false.
I was a member of the town planning board several decades ago. At that time, a proposal was presented to create an industrial park in Clark's Mills on a former industrial site. It centered around a trash burn plant, which would provide power for the industrial park. Trash burn plants at the time were a red flag topic, so for that reason alone there was understandably much opposition. But there were other industries ready to locate to this park if it came to fruition. If memory serves correct, one was a plywood manufacture. Opposition got pretty nasty, even reaching the point where some were publicly accusing the town supervisor at the time of having his hands in the pockets of the plywood manufacturer. Many of us on the town planning board had fingers pointed at us as well, not only in regards to this project but pretty much anything the concerned citizens opposed. That seemed to include most subdivisions of any type. It seemed that once people acquired their little piece of God's country, they didn't want any further development. They failed to recognize that the purpose of the planning board was not simply to deny subdivisions and stifle development, but to provide oversight and due diligence to make sure it was done correctly. The accusations and threats to planning board members were endless. At one point, an industrial subdivision, which was in reality only a technicality because the Industrial Development Agency (IDA) would not close on the funding for the already approved project to the existing Greenwich industry without subdividing the parcel affected by the grant, resulted a frivolous lawsuit against the town. The lawsuit contained easily verifiable false information and was thrown out of court. But the process still cost the Greenwich taxpayers $16k in legal fees before it was thrown out. Due to the accusations and threats against planning board members, eventually there was a mass exodus when nearly half of the planning board resigned.
Getting back to the proposed Clark's Mills industrial park, eventually the developers threw up their hands and decided Greenwich was not the place to be. They took their business elsewhere. The concerned citizens viewed this as a success story, ignoring the loss of potential jobs and tax revenue.
There has been similar opposition in years since. Consider the battles that ensued when Hannaford wanted to locate in Greenwich. It's surprising they didn't give up. I'd be willing to bet most of the opponents of the Greenwich Hannaford probably now shop there.
I understand the concerns. I grew up on a farm in Greenwich and have lived in this town for over 70 years. Where I live, I can remember when it was dirt roads and farms 1/2 mile apart with nothing in between. By the 80s we were seeing small farms lose their viability as machinery became too big to handle the small rocky fields and corporate farms overtook the small family farms. Today, there are many fields in which we used to plant crops and cut hay that are unrecognizable and have reverted back to forest. Some I brush hog to keep them in check. Either way, it is not viable agricultural land anymore. It's no wonder farmers sell off property for development. In many cases, that property is no longer an asset but a liability. So while many of us are nostalgic for the way things were, and hate to see these changes, the fact is change is inevitable.
Getting back to the original point about agriculture and industry in Greenwich, during the discourse in nearly every planning board meeting I attended, it was brought up "Greenwich is only an agricultural town, and it needs to stay that way". Again, not a true statement. While development needs to be well planned and executed, using that argument that Greenwich has always been agricultural, and void of industry, has no validity.
Micheal, you write "While some may see the ruralness of this area as charming, there are features for growth that are desperately needed here- roads with more than two lanes, quality high-speed internet access, mass transportation, and abundant low-cost utilities. " .. Sorry my friend, if I wanted to live where there are 4 lane highways I can move to Wilton, and guess what? No thanks. Mass transit for Greenwich is not something that has a reason for being, and the internet has changed the retail profile of every small town in America. When I came here in 1989 our down town was down trodden and now there are glimpses of life. There is no longer an Agway at the bottom of Main St. The milking machine store, the clothing store, the hardware store, all gone. The changes you propose might increase tax revenue but at what cost? I grew up in a town small in Westchester in a house my Dad bought for 18K. The property tax on that house is now 22K a year. The mantra that I grew up with was we need to GROW....So now, here, why? To increase for the sake of increasing is the mode of a cancer, To grow to meet a current demand is one thing, to change in anticipation of some sort of economic boon as yet to be defined is another. I like our population as it is, I like our rural nature, our two lane roads,
and wonder if the changes you outline would lead to lees tax burden on homeowners. It never seems to work out that way, more populous municipalities have higher tax rates, or am I wrong on this.
I found this article interesting from the standpoint that many Greenwich citizens have actively fought any influx of industry or development in general in the town. The idea, which I've heard stated repeatedly, is that Greenwich has historically been only an agricultural community and should stay that way. The fact that agriculture and industry has historically existed side-by-side is often overlooked. In fact, Greenwich exists largely because of the factories that sprang up along the Battenkill, taking advantage of the water power it provided. While it is true most of these no longer exist, to say Greenwich never was an industrial town is false.
I was a member of the town planning board several decades ago. At that time, a proposal was presented to create an industrial park in Clark's Mills on a former industrial site. It centered around a trash burn plant, which would provide power for the industrial park. Trash burn plants at the time were a red flag topic, so for that reason alone there was understandably much opposition. But there were other industries ready to locate to this park if it came to fruition. If memory serves correct, one was a plywood manufacture. Opposition got pretty nasty, even reaching the point where some were publicly accusing the town supervisor at the time of having his hands in the pockets of the plywood manufacturer. Many of us on the town planning board had fingers pointed at us as well, not only in regards to this project but pretty much anything the concerned citizens opposed. That seemed to include most subdivisions of any type. It seemed that once people acquired their little piece of God's country, they didn't want any further development. They failed to recognize that the purpose of the planning board was not simply to deny subdivisions and stifle development, but to provide oversight and due diligence to make sure it was done correctly. The accusations and threats to planning board members were endless. At one point, an industrial subdivision, which was in reality only a technicality because the Industrial Development Agency (IDA) would not close on the funding for the already approved project to the existing Greenwich industry without subdividing the parcel affected by the grant, resulted a frivolous lawsuit against the town. The lawsuit contained easily verifiable false information and was thrown out of court. But the process still cost the Greenwich taxpayers $16k in legal fees before it was thrown out. Due to the accusations and threats against planning board members, eventually there was a mass exodus when nearly half of the planning board resigned.
Getting back to the proposed Clark's Mills industrial park, eventually the developers threw up their hands and decided Greenwich was not the place to be. They took their business elsewhere. The concerned citizens viewed this as a success story, ignoring the loss of potential jobs and tax revenue.
There has been similar opposition in years since. Consider the battles that ensued when Hannaford wanted to locate in Greenwich. It's surprising they didn't give up. I'd be willing to bet most of the opponents of the Greenwich Hannaford probably now shop there.
I understand the concerns. I grew up on a farm in Greenwich and have lived in this town for over 70 years. Where I live, I can remember when it was dirt roads and farms 1/2 mile apart with nothing in between. By the 80s we were seeing small farms lose their viability as machinery became too big to handle the small rocky fields and corporate farms overtook the small family farms. Today, there are many fields in which we used to plant crops and cut hay that are unrecognizable and have reverted back to forest. Some I brush hog to keep them in check. Either way, it is not viable agricultural land anymore. It's no wonder farmers sell off property for development. In many cases, that property is no longer an asset but a liability. So while many of us are nostalgic for the way things were, and hate to see these changes, the fact is change is inevitable.
Getting back to the original point about agriculture and industry in Greenwich, during the discourse in nearly every planning board meeting I attended, it was brought up "Greenwich is only an agricultural town, and it needs to stay that way". Again, not a true statement. While development needs to be well planned and executed, using that argument that Greenwich has always been agricultural, and void of industry, has no validity.
Micheal, you write "While some may see the ruralness of this area as charming, there are features for growth that are desperately needed here- roads with more than two lanes, quality high-speed internet access, mass transportation, and abundant low-cost utilities. " .. Sorry my friend, if I wanted to live where there are 4 lane highways I can move to Wilton, and guess what? No thanks. Mass transit for Greenwich is not something that has a reason for being, and the internet has changed the retail profile of every small town in America. When I came here in 1989 our down town was down trodden and now there are glimpses of life. There is no longer an Agway at the bottom of Main St. The milking machine store, the clothing store, the hardware store, all gone. The changes you propose might increase tax revenue but at what cost? I grew up in a town small in Westchester in a house my Dad bought for 18K. The property tax on that house is now 22K a year. The mantra that I grew up with was we need to GROW....So now, here, why? To increase for the sake of increasing is the mode of a cancer, To grow to meet a current demand is one thing, to change in anticipation of some sort of economic boon as yet to be defined is another. I like our population as it is, I like our rural nature, our two lane roads,
and wonder if the changes you outline would lead to lees tax burden on homeowners. It never seems to work out that way, more populous municipalities have higher tax rates, or am I wrong on this.