CT and much of New England currently has far more trees and small forests than it did in colonial days. Our ancestors cleared much of the land for farming, lumber and charcoal. The land can recover, if not covered with asphalt.
But sprawl has decimated much of the deep "core forest" areas that are essential habitat for much of our wildlife, especially in CT. The big mammals (moose, bear, cougar, wolf, fisher, beaver) become too close for human comfort when residential development extends into the forest and chops up the intact large forest blocks that provide them food and cover. So their comeback will cause conflicts that can be avoided if core forests are preserved.
Birds are no such threat to humans, but are of major importance to our culture, our love of nature, and our economy. Birdwatching, and the tourism and recreation it inspires, is a multibillion dollar industry. But many of our interior forest birds are in serious jeopardy from loss of "core forest" habitat. They include Cerulean Warblers, Scarlet Tanagers and Wood Thrushes, treasured for their feathered beauty as well as their songs, .
The "American dream" of a house with a big backyard has driven the residential housing market for generations. The impact of this building pattern on the forests has been devastating. Consider that CT has a little over 3 million people and 3 million acres of land, much of it unsuitable for building. Giving everyone their "acre" of space would destroy every forest and farm in the State.
A new paradigm favoring more dense residential development in already-developed locales will revive our urban areas, and not only saves forests but makes for transportation and utility efficiency. Such development lowers the human impact on climate change and the pollution of our air and water. We need healthy cities to prevent the urban flight that puts enormous pressure on the natural resources of rural areas. Acquisition of open space redirects investment into our urban areas to make them more healthy and sustainable.
Significant open space funding for acquisition now comes from the state's Community Investment Act (CIA), dedicated fees levied on land record filings. Some would raid these funds to help balance the State budget, blind to the importance of saving forests and agricultural lands, meadows and fields.
Bonding has provided another major source of open space state funding in the past. Some would stop bonding any new open space projects, failing to see the value in buying now to save this land when it is available at lower cost and while it is still available in large undeveloped parcels that are a key to wildlife diversity.
In general, it seems unfair to borrow today with bonds while making the next generation pay the bill. But in the case of open space, future generations will treasure the land that is saved even more than today's generation. As pressures from population growth and lifestyles continue to expand, our wildlife and air and water quality are increasingly threatened. Over the years, conserved land will gain in real value but also in biological value, protecting these natural resources.
As investments by the State go, bonding for open space provides huge economic and social value for future generations as well as our own, and thus makes sense even in hard economic times. Note that some of the CT's best State Parks were purchased during the Great Depression.
I have been asked to write a one page "Case for Open Space Funding" for our legislators, to encourage them to see the wisdom of maintaining current open space funding by saving the "CIA" and supporting bonds for open space conservation. My case, above, is already too long. I am sure there others out there that can do better.
I invite any of you that can make the case in shorter and more effective terms to edit or replace what I have written above, to make the case in fewer words and with greater impact. We (the birds, the turtles, the spring peepers and I) need your help!
The Comment section is a blank slate, awaiting your wisdom to help us win this round of unmonopoly. The case should be the same whether you live here or abroad, so don't by shy if logic and persuasion are your strength, no matter where you live.
Thanks, David
No comments:
Post a Comment