In the rush to be seen as favoring "open space" the local politicians plan to spend $35 million acquiring the Pomerance-Tuchman property in north Cos Cob without first asking what the goal is and whether this is the most cost effective way to reach the goal.

What is the goal? There are several possibilities: (1.) to provide for additional recreational opportunities; (2.) to protect the visual appeal of the town; or (3.) to keep the population in check so as not to overburden the schools and the roads.

In detail:

(1.) Little use expected. The recreational opportunities on this property would be identical to those already available on the Babcock property, the Goodbody property and the North Mianus preserve. On average, on the beautiful days that I've hiked on these properties there has been only one other user. To spin this acquisition as another Tod's Point is ludicrous -- and perhaps a reach for grandeur by the supporting politicians. At Tod's you have swimming, boating, shellfishing, etc, in addition to some of the most stunning vistas in the country. On the Pomerance-Tuchman property you have rocks, dirt and foliage essentially the same as on every other bit of undeveloped land in New England.

(2.) Minimal aesthetic impact. The undeveloped face of the town is damaged by the cramming in of newer, uglier, larger structures, not by more houses on 1-acre or larger lots in the backcountry or mid-country. For example, Greenwich Plaza One and Two, and Two Hundred Greenwich Ave (left of St. Mary's) really damaged the avenue. More recently, the new Richard's monstrosity is going to contribute something fierce to the sense of clutter. In the residential areas, one single house can transform a neighborhood. In fact, the new house recently crammed in next to Ole's Boatyard between OG and Riverside dramatically changes the flavor of both neighborhoods. Contrast these developments with the hypothetical appearance of a number of houses, each on multiple acres, buried in, for example, the Babcock property; and you begin to realize that except for a few neighbors, zone-consistent development of the backcountry has a relatively minor effect on the town's aesthetics. From an aesthetic/town-character perspective, the $35 million would be much better spent on the prevention of some of the developments mentioned above.

(3.) Population control? The $35 million could easily fund the construction of several public schools and firestations just to service the houses that would be built on the property. As for the on-going costs of educating the students and providing other public services to the new residents, can anyone seriously argue that residents of the backcountry and mid-country don't pay more than enough in taxes to cover the services provided to them? One also has to ask if the town, consistent with a population control policy, shouldn't be buying up houses on heavily trafficked streets and simply tearing them down. And of course this approach can't be squared the town's attempt a few years ago to add multiple living units to the former North Mianus Community center, which otherwise would have been allowed to have at most one family in residence. The population-control theory is a natural loser; the money would be better spent directly improving the living standard for all the population -- those here and those yet to come -- such as by constructing a giant indoor swimming complex in place of the Cos Cob power plant.

Alas, the spinmeisters will spin the debate as "pro-open-space" versus "anti-open-space," and the battle will seemingly be lost before it's begun. On the other hand, the RTM -- the people's last line of defense -- has a history of standing firm in the face special interests, political grandstanding and media pressure.