I believe we need to look at how the information assembled is disseminated. Are we suggesting that everyone in this town is glued to this email venue? Most certainly not.
We must think of how to get a compendium of information to the masses. On Tue, 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. > > -- Rick
-- 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.
