Not sure the purchase of two land parcels

To the Editor:

I have been contemplating an issue which has arisen in the past couple of months, regarding the purchase to two real estate parcels at the South and Main streets intersection. The people voted in favor of an article for $450,000 for the purchase of easements and two parcels of land, which were for the purpose of realigning and reconstructing the layout of the street. At that time, it was thought that state funding for the reconstruction of the intersection was contingent upon buying these parcels and easements, and it was presented to the people with that justification.

Sometime around late January, the DPW Commission advised the Selectmen that the purchase of the properties is no longer deemed necessary. The Selectmen have decided to move ahead with the purchasing process anyway, even though the original justification for the purchase is no longer valid. The question is: Would you have voted to purchase these properties even if they were not required for the reconstruction of the intersection? Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t have voted to spend that amount of money to purchase non essential property, especially in these financially constraining times. Don’t you think that the town government has an obligation to allow the voters to reconsider the purchase, based on the facts as we know them now?

To be certain, there are other considerations including any hardship the town might have caused for the property owners they are negotiating with, the cost of demolition or cleanup required on the parcels, and what is the intended use for these parcels?

It seems to me that the town should explain what has transpired, including any obligations we might have incurred while negotiating in good faith, and explain the new rational for continuing with the purchase process. Let us vote with our eyes wide open as to the reasoning behind spending town money on land which has been deemed to be no longer required.
Keith Harding
Westminster