In response to Charles Morgan's letter on the conversation he had with Rich Cabral: He wrote that the desire to maintain the rural character of our town is in conflict with its growing nature. I respectfully disagree (and I do respect the opinion of both Charles and Richard). While we do need to concentrate on economic growth, it need not be done at the expense of protecting open space. We are a society of multi-taskers and well able to do both.
The vast majority of available open space in town is located outside of our commercial zones. They are in areas less suitable for business. Therefore protecting that open space does not rob us of the opportunity to increase our tax base. In fact, it does just the opposite. Consider the cost to the town should that available land be developed. The average Killingworth household (1.2 children) COSTS our town money. The average household pays about $6,600, and the cost of education per child comes out to about $9,000 a year. Spending the money to buy open space may hurt now, but in the long run, it SAVES the town money. Land is expensive, and it's painful to write that big check. However, ten to twenty years down the line, no one will be saying "We should have never protected that beautiful piece of land!". At about that time, depending on the cost of the purchase, the town will have come out ahead when compared to the cost to us should it have been developed into family homes.
Bear in mind, too, that there are other less costly methods of protecting land, such as conservation easements, or buying the majority of a piece and allowing a small area to be developed to offset the cost.
I will vote for the candidate who recognizes that a) the people in town want to live in a rural Killingworth, and b) has the foresight to take advantage of the long term benefits, tax-wise, and quality of life-wise, of protecting our natural resources. At this point, I'm not a hundred percent sure of who that will be, but I hope to find out by November.
John Himmelman