REBUTTAL OF SLCS’s FAQs

Even if SLCS’s charitable narrative were accurate, it has no bearing on the merits of SLCS’s plans for demolition, public parking, and recreation or on the merits of the neighbors’ plans for historic restoration of the 1830s farmhouse and to protect the land from public overuse.

Though irrelevant, to correct the record, there was in fact a fair amount of buyer interest at prices less than the Michael’s descendants were asking — and there was one other proposal submitted to the Michael family for the full asking price.

SLCS’s answer is self-contradicting. To paraphrase SLCS’s own words: “Originally, we thought it would be desirable to have some parking….[then] we decided against parking…[then] SLCS will…create…future…parking”. SLCS is saying the original plans for parking were cancelled at neighbor’s request, but parking may in fact be created at any time in the future.

If they reserve the right at any time to create spaces, then how is it they can say they “decided against formal spaces” or that they are “hearing the neighbor’s concerns?” The bottom line is the SLCS wants to build public parking spaces at some point, but in an effort to appear to be sensitive the neighbors’ concerns, they give the false assurance they ‘decided against parking.’ This is duplicitous.

SLCS says it no longer plans a “formal” public parking area but has repeatedly stated it will allow [or ‘create’] a public parking area. What’s the point of this distinction but to give false assurances?

SLCS has not defined and will not define what “limited” means — except they have ‘assured’ the neighbors that they don’t want to allow parking for more than “30 cars.” By comparison, the parking lot at Rattlesnake Mountain has approximately 20-25 spaces and, as noted on the SLCS website, had over 70,000 visitors last year. Just 10-15 spaces would enable 20,000+ visitors per year and there is no way to control demand once the public parking lot is on social media.

Also note SLCS’s desire to create parking spaces “in the future if parking is restricted on the pull-offs that have been used historically.” First, the pull-offs are NOT intended to be [and have never been intended to be] parking spaces as they were built to facilitate the passing of cars on a very narrow, curvy, one-lane driveway so the neighboring residents may access their homes. Second, even if the pull-offs referenced were public, there are not enough to accommodate thousands of annual visitors. Third, the pull-offs referenced are NOT on SLCS’ property but rather are on private property. The public has no access to the pull-offs or to any of the driveways/roads/lands on private property beyond the Michael Property, as recently confirmed by the SLCS. So why would SLCS state that their right to create public parking depends on the availability of parking spaces in areas (i) not intended for parking, (ii) not sufficient in number to handle future demand, and (iii) on other people’s private property?

It clearly does not “matter” much to SLCS that the farmhouse is historic – the proof is in the Board’s unanimous vote to demolish it (i) despite no valid conservation or preservation reason to demolish the farmhouse and (ii) despite offers by neighbors to pay 100% of the cost to restore the farmhouse [and endow the added maintenance/costs in the future].

The justifications to destroy the historic farmhouse are circular. In a nutshell, SLCS is saying it isn’t worthy of preservation because it needs preservation. Yes it needs a new roof and mold removal and some very minor structural work etc – these are routine repairs that most houses need as some point. And since the neighbors are taking all the financial risk, why do the SLCS Staff and Board care about the current condition of the house?

As SLCS touts on its website: The “goal of protecting the cultural heritage of the watershed was a natural complement to SLCS’s ongoing efforts to conserve land and water quality.” https://www.squamslandtrust.org/national-register-of-historic-places/. If historic preservation is a “natural complement” with SLCS’s mission, isn’t the intentional and willful demolition of an important historic farmhouse hypocritical and antithetical to SLCS’s mission?

Again, as stated above, the logic is circular. SLCS is in effect saying the house is not worthy of preservation because it needs preservation. And with an offer from a neighbor to pay for the cost of restoration and take all the risk, why is SLCS citing the cost as “not at all practicable”? The SLCS ‘working group’ included no impacted neighbors and no experts on historic preservation. SLCS did no in-depth historic research on the farmhouse and the ‘working group’ came to a preordained conclusion that meshed with SLCS’s initial plans to demolish the farmhouse and create parking for recreation.

The location of the brook near the septic system is an example of the one of the fabricated reasons for demolition. At the SLCS’s insistence that the septic was too close to the stream, the neighbors suggested that the house does not need to be lived in and thus does not need a septic system, but that the shell could be restored and remain an historic artifact for the public to enjoy. Under this plan, the proximity to the stream to a [nonexistent] septic system does not stand up as a justification for demolition. After tailoring our proposal to meet SLCS’s concerns about the septic, our proposal was then criticized by SLCS as a “Potemkin house” because it did not have septic and therefore did not allow someone to live in it.

In response to this new criticism, the neighbors also offered another option, at SLCS’s choosing, to fully restore the interior and exterior of the farmhouse for someone to live in it and to relocate the septic a safe distance from the stream. This too was rejected as not meeting SLCS’s standards for preservation – as though SLCS’s demolition does meet that standard. In short, the neighbors have addressed every stated concern related to conservation, preservation, and cost put forth by the SLCS.

Lastly, the property can be preserved and the property can be returned to a natural condition – these are not mutually exclusive concepts. Interestingly, SLCS proposes demolishing the house and keeping the open cellar. How is an open cellar and a new public parking lot a better ‘natural condition’ versus the neighbors’ plans for historic restoration (on the same footprint as the cellar) with no public parking lots? How does a parking lot to facilitate thousands of visitors advance conservation of the land and help restore the “natural condition”?

The explanation for turning down the neighbors’ proposal to renovate the house is misrepresented here. In fact, what the neighbors propose would BETTER protect the Michael Property, by limiting public overuse, and would enable the SLCS to acquire MORE conservation easements and MORE (fee simple) land for conservation. This would allow for more long-term “natural areas for responsible enjoyment by members of the community.” As evidence, one neighbor has withdrawn his donation of a large conservation easement as a result of SLCS’s plans. If SLCS is allowed to proceed, will have an overall net result of less land under conservation, less overall land for the public to enjoy, and a lower quality of conservation on existing lands. How is this result “consistent with our (SLCS’s) mission?”

Simply put, the neighbors don’t want to see up to 70,000 (or even 1,000) annual visitors traversing their private property as they do Rattlesnake Mountain – that is not conservation, it’s recreation.

The statement that “there are a majority of neighbors who support our decision and understand that our approach is consistent with our mission” is patently false. The 9-page petition letter was initially signed by 30 neighbors (now 33) and by families now representing 16 different parcels. This represents well over 70% of the impacted nearby property owners.

SLCS’s website represents that its lone letter of support is from “a local” and thus implies it is representative of the broader neighbors’ support for SLCS’s plans – it is not. https://www.squamslandtrust.org/featured-properties/. It is only one letter from a member of SLCS’s own Land Committee. In addition to signing the petition letter, approximately six neighbors have written individual letters/emails of concern with SLCS plans and sent them directly to SLCS staff.

The staff of SLCS did attend the annual meeting of the Intervale Pond Road Association, but this too is misleading as it represents only about a third of the total abutting neighbors. The road-association meeting did not include property owners on Coolidge Farm Road, Jimmy Point Road, and Long Point Road – all of whom are equal stakeholders impacted by the SLCS’s plans.

There is no evidence the SLCS is taking the neighbors “concerns seriously” despite promises to do so.