Beating a Dead Horse with Relish - (Valley News Op-Ed)

To the Editor:

Your March 13th headline story covering the Norwich "Gateway" development reveals a level of journalistic bias and misunderstanding which I find simply lazy.

First the bias. Your reporter summarizes the events of the past three years concerning this parcel as a "drawn-out political fight over the overgrown lot, which lies about 600 feet from the Interstate 91 on-ramp." What political fight?

Simpson Development Corp. purchased an option on this parcel, filed an application, proceeded through a number of public hearings before our Development Review Board marked by very limited public participation, then appealed when the permit was denied. After this drawn-out legal battle over the requisite permits, a group of townspeople began a fund raising campaign to purchase the parcel. That effort failed to raise enough to buy the parcel and construction will commence within weeks. A Valley News columnist derided the fund raising effort, particularly in light of a failed affordable housing project elsewhere in town, but I missed the fight. Simpson, the "Save the Entrance" folks, and the town entities involved in the permit proceedings all acted rationally, deliberately, and without rancor. The fund raising effort faded with the bemused shrugs of many townspeople, not vanquished in any "drawn-out political fight." Norwich certainly has it's share of political fights, but this was, if anything, an honorable exception.

Overgrown lot overshadowed by the interstate? Simpson plunked down a quarter of a million dollars to buy it at a time their permit application was still under appeal. Simpson intends to invest well over a million dollars building five townhouses -- targeted for sale at around $500,000 apiece -- their representative stating later in this same article, that "this is the kind of development that everybody’s pushing for -- to have housing close to the center of town." The "Save the Entrance" group sought to raise nearly $600,000 to purchase and preserve this parcel for town use. Simpson appears willing to risk well in excess of a million dollars to develop this same parcel for townhouses. If successful, their buyers will shell out in excess of $2.5 million to live there. Why scoff at the judgment of the individuals who contributed to the preservation effort when so much more will be paid by others for their own semi-private piece of the parcel?

Finally, your reporter fundamentally misunderstands the legal proceedings in this matter. Judge Durkin's decision granting the Simpson permit never stated "that the [Development Review Board] had exaggerated the land's scenic qualities" because Judge Durkin -- as he notes in his opinion -- never read the DRB's decision. His decision rejected and nullified the value -- exaggerated or otherwise -- the Norwich subdivision regulations and the town's Inventory of Scenic Resources placed upon that parcel.

The difference is substantial. It's one thing to overturn a board because that appointed body misinterpreted the town's regulations or misconstrued the relevant facts. It's quite another to determine that a town's regulations themselves -- the result of hundreds of hours of volunteer effort, duly adopted and expressing the town's legitimate authority to regulate development for the common benefit of all townspeople -- are wrong-minded. Judge Durkin's decision says the people of Norwich, acting through our conservation commission, planning commission, and selectboard; and participating through public hearings which reviewed and ratified these regulations, "exaggerated the land's scenic qualities" and could not regulate the proposed development of this parcel in this instance.

Here we find a political fight with real substance, but sadly, too few reporters interested in chasing the story with the respect and integrity it deserves. It's the constant vital struggle between the individual land owner's right to do with property as he or she sees fit versus the community's right to regulate property for the general welfare. Vermont remains one of the few jurisdictions on Earth where that struggle has been entrusted to the people; to legislate regulations and adjudicate individual development using citizen commissions and boards; to engage one another in a perpetual dialogue about fairness and the common interest, the legacy we've inherited as stewards of these communities and the sense of place we'll confer to those who follow us. When Vermont's laws tilt towards granting judges the authority to supersede the regulatory judgment of these communities; when citizen boards and commissions give way to professional planners and municipal attorneys, we're talking about something much larger, something far more dear, than an overgrown lot and high-end condominiums. Your smug epitaph for the "Gateway to the Village" of Norwich suits the paper, not the story.