Well said, Rhoda. It's unfortunate that the TAB feels the need spread fear and tear down anything positive that develops in this city. Last week's editorial implies that this purchase is somehow tied to our city's finances. The earmarked CPA funds are exactly for this purpose -- to enable such expenditures in tight financial times, when they otherwise could not happen. The city is going to have the same financial problems with or without a 'better lake'. To miss out on such a meaningful way to spend these funds, and the state match, would be irresponsible.
Rhoda Kubrick - 16 years ago
In my 40 years in Newton this is the first opportunity to provide continuous public access to the lakefront from the public beach to Levingston Cove. We mustn't waste this chance. The current proposal adds green space, retains the current home as a private dwelling (almost no property tax loss to the city), uses conservation restrictions to ensure that this lovely home does not get torn down or turned into a "McMansion," requires no funding from the city budget (all funds are CPA funds), and minimizes the required CPA funds because funds realized by selling the house portion of the parcel will return to the Community Preservision Act funds. What reasonable person can oppose it?
Well said, Rhoda. It's unfortunate that the TAB feels the need spread fear and tear down anything positive that develops in this city. Last week's editorial implies that this purchase is somehow tied to our city's finances. The earmarked CPA funds are exactly for this purpose -- to enable such expenditures in tight financial times, when they otherwise could not happen. The city is going to have the same financial problems with or without a 'better lake'. To miss out on such a meaningful way to spend these funds, and the state match, would be irresponsible.
In my 40 years in Newton this is the first opportunity to provide continuous public access to the lakefront from the public beach to Levingston Cove. We mustn't waste this chance. The current proposal adds green space, retains the current home as a private dwelling (almost no property tax loss to the city), uses conservation restrictions to ensure that this lovely home does not get torn down or turned into a "McMansion," requires no funding from the city budget (all funds are CPA funds), and minimizes the required CPA funds because funds realized by selling the house portion of the parcel will return to the Community Preservision Act funds. What reasonable person can oppose it?