VoyForums

Sunday, November 15, 2009 06:51pm [ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Fri. Nov 17, 2006 10:18 am
Author: Dan Jerram
Subject: Regional #7 Land Deal

The following article was printed in the Waterbury Republican today. Anyone with questions pertaining to the article, or the land deal in general, can send me an email, or give me a call.


Farm contamination halts Region 7 purchase

Friday, November 17, 2006

BY KARI BANACH


Copyright © 2006 Republican-American

WINSTED -- Traces of pesticide contamination uncovered on a farm that the Region 7 Board of Education wants to buy have ground purchase plans to a halt.

One of several ground borings drilled this fall as part of an environmental study commissioned by the school district at the 100-acre Holcomb Farm turned up DDD, a pest-control chemical derivative of DDT.

"We need to determine whether this (contamination) is all there is, or if it's the tip of an iceberg," said School Board Chairman Schuyler Thomson on Thursday. "Everything is in a state of flux right now."

The $1.1 million farm, the only tract of open land abutting Region 7's Northwestern Regional Middle and High School campus on the Barkhamsted town line, has been on the market for a year.

The 1,100-student district's Board of Education is interested in the 112 Old New Hartford Road property, owned by dairy farmer Wesley Strattman, for possible future campus expansion.


The contamination was found near a brook on the land. The School Board in August bought a $3,900-per-month, six-month option on the property to keep it off the market until the district holds a referendum in its member towns -- New Hartford, Barkhamsted, Norfolk and Colebrook -- to approve the purchase.

Thomson on Thursday said it's unclear whether a vote would occur within the six-month stretch, which ends early next year.

"Right now, we have to find out exactly what's there," Thomson said. "If it's not a whole lot (of DDD), then we'll deal with it. If it's a lot, we might not go forward with the deal or we could agree to remediation."

One or two more environmental studies will be done to determine the exact nature of the contamination, Thomson said.

Once that occurs, he noted, the board will continue negotiations with Strattman, who could not be reached on Thursday and in the past has declined to comment on the deal. When the land went on the market last year, Strattman's Realtor, Charlie Hartigan, said the dairy farm was facing financial difficulties. Thomson said the School Board might ask Strattman to help pay for the remediation.

"If we're buying land, we expect it to be clean," he said.

The pesticide, which was sprayed on crops and forests, has been banned in the United States since 1972, according to the U.S. Department of Health Web site.

But DDD can be released into the environment during the breakdown of DDT, which can remain in soil for hundreds of years after being sprayed at a site.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Re: Regional #7 Land Deal -- Christopher Jones, Fri. Nov 17, 2006 11:11 am [1]

Dan...
Please accept a word of public comment.
I am opposed to this deal but it has nothing to do with contamination.
The Reg 7 mission is not to be used as a speculator of far future needs as this project would entail. The primary benefactor of such a purchase would not be the school but probably the Town of Barkhamsted which would effectively pick up 100 acres of open space.
The school campus is funtional and I am doubtful that future growth statistics would indicate that such an expansion of campus or plant would be required in the next 25 years.
If you have data that suggests otherwise, please let us know.
Further, New Hartford as the Region's largest customer is facing a number of infrastructure plans, debatable about the needs, but plans none the less, that will consume a significant portion of our ability to afford major borrowing in the next 10 years. Our own needs with the current campus are being met handily.
Further, should significant contamination be present, which I doubt, the remediation costs for cleanup could make the price tag so staggering as to limit in perpituity the value and use of the land.
...."I can't let my kids play soccer on a field contaminated with DDT!!!"....
I can hear the screams already.
The Board really needs to rethink this kind of project, which would consume huge ammounts of financial and political capitol just to get it to the drawing board.
My friend Mike Fox has been noticably absent in the public debate, but for my thinking if Regional thinks this a wise move you are wrong. You guys need to step back and just let the commitment expire, lick your wounds and get back to the real mission of the Region. Which is not land development.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[Edit]
[> Stop spending other people money -- SRM, Fri. Nov 17, 2006 4:30 pm [1]

Mr. Jerram, get out of it now. You have no business in this business. New Hartford should not have been in the business in the first place of buying open space to protect Barkhamsted from low income cluster housing. Now its poison cancer causing contaminated land. You have spent money never budgeted and money the taxpayers never approved. You are wasting our investment in our children. The region 7 district has no focus, no plan and no supporting data to any such position in spending other people’s money. Take care of the academics. Hopefully in 5-10 years we won’t be a region any more and all can survive on each ones revenue infrastructure and educational demands.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[Edit]
[> [> Re: Stop spending other people money -- Girlfriend, Fri. Nov 17, 2006 4:52 pm [1]

I can't believe that I would agree with jones about anything but he has this one nailed. Regional 7 in the land owning business is stupid and off base.
Mr. Jerram i would never ask you to take the advise of Jones, himself a land traitor, but get off this bus and do it fast. We have enough problems at Regional without a trainwreck like this.
Chalk one up for jones. Once every 10 years isn't bad

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[Edit]

[> Re: Regional #7 Land Deal -- confused, Fri. Nov 17, 2006 9:13 pm [1]

I agree with all the above comments. Mr. Jerram I am not sure why we are even talking about this, since when does a school board buy property? Put aside the contamintion, that once uncovered could be a HUGE Pandora's Box, but how can you justify to the taxpayers of New Hartford, for us to pony up our money to buy land in another town? Our tax dollars should be used in New Hartford not Barkhamsted. I am sure Barkhamsted is all for this, having some suckers ready to buy contaminated land, but please Dan, don't let us be those suckers. And from what I am hearing in town, this has no chance in passing, so please put your energies into keeping the school in great shape and fiscally sound.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[Edit]
[> [> Re: Regional #7 Land Deal -- Dan Jerram,, Sat. Nov 18, 2006 2:54 pm [1]

My posting of the previous article was not mean't as an advertisement/promotion of this land deal. I simply wanted to keep our New Hartford voters, parents, and taxpayers alike aware of whats happening on this important issue.

I appreciate all of your feedback and will take those comments to the full Board at our next meeting.

For those of you who have not followed the entirety of this situation, I was on the Board when the concept of purchasing "some" of this land was originally debated. I supported researching the possibility of buying some of this land along the eastern border of the school (in the location of the old R7 sign and the rock) to expand the districts parking lot (what I consider our most pressing need). I actually met with the owner personally, several times.

When I left the R#7 BOE in December 2005, the negotiations had ended, and I thought this deal was dead because his price was too high.

When I returned to the Board a couple of months ago (through a special election to fill Jean LeFave's vacated seat), it's common knowledge that the BOE in my absence had reached an agreement to buy all of the land for $1,100,000.

Since returning to the BOE, I have tried to let common sense prevail...a task that continues to this day.

The BOE expended money on an inital site review (called a Phase I)....which indicated the site has some levels of contamination. The Board requested that the owner fund a study to quantify what is actually on the site. The owner declined.

The article is somewhat misleading in that while the BOE Chair (Thomson) indicates that the BOE needs more information to proceed with this proposal, it implies that the BOE will fund the study (roughly $15,000). This is not the case! At the BOE's prior meeting the BOE agreed that it would provide no more funding...period.

Thanks again for the thoughts and I'll continue to keep you informed on this issue as new information becomes available.

Dan

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[Edit]

[> Re: Regional #7 Land Deal UPDATE -- Citizen, Wed. Nov 29, 2006 12:10 pm [1]

Region 7 drops plan to buy farm because of pesticides

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

BY KARI BANACH

Copyright © 2006 Republican-America

WINSTED — The Region 7 Board of Education voted on Tuesday night to cancel an option to buy a farm for $1.1 million after pesticide contamination was discovered on the property.

The board wanted to buy the 100-acre Holcomb Farm at 112 Old New Hartford Road in Barkhamsted, which abuts the existing campus on the Winsted-Barkhamsted town line, for future campus expansion.

Region 7 serves students in grades 7-12 from the towns of Barkhamsted, Colebrook, New Hartford and Norfolk.

During a school district-commissioned environmental test on the farmland, traces of DDD, a chemical derivative of the pesticide DDT, turned up near a brook.

“(We) cannot justify spending that kind of money, $1.1 million, on land found to have pesticides on it,” said Board of Education Chairman Schuyler Thomson of Norfolk. “We will exercise our option to cancel the current agreement.”

The district spent about $25,000 on the $3,900-per-month option, studies on the property and legal fees since the summer when the deal with property owner Wesley Strattman, a dairy farmer, began.

School officials made their decision to stop negotiations in a closed-door session on Tuesday, and declined to comment on specifics of the reasoning behind the cancellation after the vote.

But at a Nov. 14 meeting, board members had discussed spending $50,000 on further environmental tests on the property, which Strattman did not want to pay for. The school board was unsure whether it wanted to take on the additional expense.

The tests needed to be done before the land could be utilized to determine the extent of the contamination, officials said. Strattman’s representative, Ken Kelly, did say Strattman would pay for any remediation at that meeting.

Thomson on Tuesday said that the board on Monday received correspondence from Strattman’s attorney that pushed school officials to reconsider and cancel the deal. He declined to elaborate.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[Edit]

[ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
 * Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
 * HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:

Choose Message Icon: [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.