Town Meeting should vote no on article 17 – the land bank proposal – on October 19. It is set up to funnel town-owned land that should be used for the public good into the hands of private developers. The land bank bears a troubling resemblance to the shadowy Plymouth Foundation that Town Hall uses to funnel public land and money to developers. It is unlike any land bank in the state and is not anything like the Nantucket or Martha’s Vineyard land bank as the proponents claim.
The land bank’s nine appointed members are all selected by Town Hall insiders except for two appointed by the Town Meeting Committee of Precinct Chairs. What have the Select Board and these Town Hall insiders done to stop the reckless development in Town – from Redbrook to Colony Place?
The land bank is promoted loudly by the Planning Board. Why should we trust the board that has presided over the wanton destruction of the town, rubber stamping permit after permit for reckless projects? Look no further than the massive sand and gravel mine operating on Route 3 South. The Planning Board enthusiastically approved the [project] in 2021.
The land bank votes without Town Meeting approval. The land bank will generate income by taxing real estate transactions at 1 to 2 percent, with some exemptions.
The reasons for the land bank do not hold up. First, the proponents claim the money will be used for “open space.” Really? Plymouth has the Community Preservation Act funded by Plymouth taxpayers. The town already has mechanisms, state and federal government partnerships, and funding sources such as grants to save open space. Why isn’t this enough?
Second, they say the land bank needs to acquire land for “affordable housing.” Who builds and sells the houses? Developers, of course. The town already has an affordable housing trust. The Community Preservation Committee already funnels taxpayer money to developers for affordable housing, such as $4 million to A.D. Makepeace Company and millions of dollars to developer Rick Vayo (also a director of the Plymouth Foundation). Taxpayers should not be required, via the land bank, to supply the developers with town-owned land for their projects – as well as millions of dollars to build them.
Third, the town officials claim the town should buy land now for future “municipal use” before prices rise higher. In the meantime, who controls the land’s use? Is this the fox guarding the henhouse?
Vote no on Town Meeting article 17. Stand up for the good of the community, not private developers and the town officials who promote their projects and give them permits.
– Meg Sheehan
Meg Sheehan is a lawyer and environmental advocate.