Opinion

Letter: Selectmen should encourage consensus, not division, on Hamilton's future


Published: July 11, 2009

To the editor:

The letter on Hamilton's economic plight in the Wednesday, July 1, Salem News ("Hamilton desperately in need of new sources of tax revenue"), confuses two issues in an attempt to justify the non-reappointment of the co-chairman of the Conservation Commission.

The fact is that John Hamilton served the commission diligently as a volunteer member for 12 years, becoming broadly conversant in both the legal and natural environment. He put in a lot of time both as a member and as chair, was conscientious in his duties, and never provoked legal action against the commission for its conduct. That is the sort of volunteer service we need in Hamilton to make our form of government work.

Nevertheless, when it came time to reappoint, the selectmen's discussion made no reference to his record of 12 years and instead focused on what they stated to be his unacceptable personal views on "development." There was an insinuation that somehow the ConCom, which operates within strict statutory parameters, was somehow "obstructionist" under his leadership and not supportive of development.

How would being supportive work? Should the ConCom turn a blind eye to the violation of wetlands? "No," said our leaders, but how else are we to interpret this apparent effort to purge the board of someone who may harbor the "wrong" private thoughts. That is one issue.

The other issue concerns development. I can't believe any rational taxpayer in Hamilton would reject a Mullen or New England Biolabs. These sorts of opportunities don't just fall out of the sky, even in the best of times, however. There needs to be a plan and a structure that communicate to a prospective developer the message that a town is interested and has ground rules in place such as the Commercial Overlay District (COD) voted in for the dump site at May's Town Meeting.

Some years ago, there was a Planned Alternative Development bylaw (PAD) on the warrant modeled on Ipswich's Great Estates bylaw. But it was withdrawn at Town Meeting and has never been seen again.

The commonwealth has supportive agencies that can be brought into play. One such is the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) with its MetroFuture program.

John Hamilton and others from the town have been attending their meetings for several years. Their plan calls for concentrating development at public transport hubs such as train stations, while maintaining green space for a better quality of life.

This is the smart-growth approach that has been pushed by the state for over six years.

To discuss how this might work in our area, a seminar was organized by John Hamilton and others jointly with Wenham last year, with presentations by state Sen. Bruce Tarr and Ted Regnante, a real estate development lawyer, who talked about possibilities offered by Chapter 40R.

Implementation of such a strategy doesn't mean flattening Railroad Avenue and building a canyon. For one possibility, the town owns about 10 acres where Winthrop School now sits and the lease is up in 2015. There are others.

So why don't we have a plan and a structure to make the right kind of "development" happen? The same consultant referred to in the July 1 letter who led us through the Master Plan, suggested almost two years ago that we should form an Economic Development and Investment Corporation (EDIC), which would be owned by the town. Its initial capital could be funded by sales of small plots of town-owned land of value only to abutters. It could join with developers in joint ventures to do appropriate projects, ensuring that the town enjoys the maximum benefit.

There are many properties in town now under Chapter 61 on which the town will someday get the right of first refusal to buy. Will we be organized by then?

Here are some examples of positive things we could do rather than engage in "right think" policies that attempt to split us into those who favor development and those others who like "equestrian theme parks."

That sort of commentary isn't constructive. We all need to work together to keep our town the sort of place where we want to live.

Jack Lawrence

Hamilton