MMA letter to Environment Committee opposing Public Lands Preservation Act

Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
State House, Boston

Dear Senator Pacheco, Representative Gobi, and Members of the Committee,

On behalf of the cities and towns of Massachusetts, the MMA is writing to express the very strong opposition of the municipal community to the so-called Public Lands Preservation Act (PLPA, S. 350), and to urge your committee to issue an adverse report on the measure.

This legislation proposes a completely unwarranted and unnecessary burden on cities and towns across the state. A clear process already exists to protect public lands, as established by an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution in 1997. The amendment states that “lands and easements taken or acquired for such purposes shall not be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of except by laws enacted by a two thirds vote, taken by yeas and nays, of each branch of the general court.”

S. 350 would go far beyond that strong constitutional standard and undermine local decision-making authority regarding municipally owned land by imposing severe restrictions on cities and towns, by requiring that municipal public land acquired for natural resource purposes (Article 97 land) not ever be disposed of or converted to other uses without a costly demonstration process to prove that there is “no feasible alternative,” and by requiring comparable natural resource land to be provided if land is transferred.

This legislation would place an undue, unnecessary and costly burden on communities and local taxpayers, who already face some of the highest public construction and land acquisition costs in the country. S.350 would unquestionably drive the costs to taxpayers even higher. Requiring communities to engage in and fund a state-mandated feasibility study, and to purchase new land or pay mitigation for land they already own, would impose overwhelming costs, escalating the burden on taxpayers to implement locally voted and approved land-use decisions. This bill would create another large unfunded state mandate on localities.

Under current law, the transfer of these lands requires a number of local votes, including votes by local commissions, legislative bodies and executive officers, before going to the Legislature and finally the governor. We firmly believe that it is important to trust local government, the Legislature and the governor to make these decisions, and we ask that you reject the unnecessary conditions and burdens that S.350 would place on our communities and taxpayers.

Nearly 60 percent of undeveloped land in the Commonwealth is privately owned and unprotected. Many private acres are lost daily due to developments that could be planned more effectively. To ensure the preservation of our most critical natural resources, the state must employ a variety of tools, from improved local zoning and increased capital investments in land protection to enhanced tax incentives for voluntary land donations by private landowners. The municipal community has worked hard over the past few years to help pass both the Environmental Bond Bill and Massachusetts Land Conservation Incentives Act. Last session, local officials testified in favor of the Act to Sustain Community Preservation (introduced this year as S. 90).

In fact, these measures have worked. In the past four years, Massachusetts has protected nearly 75,000 acres of land, including 16,478 acres in fiscal 2010, the equivalent of 54 acres a day. Much of this land would not have been preserved without the efforts of municipal governments and the many volunteers and staff responsible for their conservation efforts, as well as the Commonwealth’s land trusts and environmental organizations and the many landowners across the state who donated property. In fiscal 2010 alone, the Commonwealth’s investment of $46,349,577 was matched by $16,970,408 in funding from municipalities, landowners, and nonprofit organizations.

The Community Preservation Act has been an extremely successful local and state partnership, with 147 communities protecting over 13,000 acres of open space. Further, we are very supportive of S. 90, An Act to Sustain Community Preservation.

As stewards of public lands, local officials discharge their responsibilities with great care, acting in the public interest. S.350 is completely unnecessary, proposes an unprecedented and undue burden on taxpayers and municipalities, and seeks to interfere with the local democratic process that is most appropriate to make decisions on municipally owned land. We strongly urge you to reject S.350.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA