To the Editor:

Tom Smith's letter attempts to discredit our town's commitment to preserve Open Space by referring to the strategy as "our town's least pressing need". In fact, the preservation of the rural nature of our community is the single most important goal of Killingworth residents as determined by the Town Plan Questionnaire incorporated in our Plan of Conservation and Development.

It is true that Killingworth has not been heavily developed. That is why most of us choose to live here.

Mr. Smith is a major developer in Killingworth and Haddam, has been involved in several large subdivisions in town, and has approached members of the Wettish family in an effort to purchase their property. It is obvious that a builder and developer would want to be able to build homes on land which the majority of residents would like to see remain undeveloped. But many of the statements in the letter are incorrect and collectively lead to an incorrect conclusion.

The statement "a town so frightened of children" is inflammatory and incorrect. Our town fully supports the needs of our children and continues to approve and fund over $14 Million in education expense, 77.6% of town expenditures, in addition to recreation and other costs. We voted to build a new $52 Million Middle School. No one I am aware of complains about funding programs to support our children and the children of our fellow residents. But except for those who would profit by development, not many of us are anxious to increase the expense for schools, education and recreation by increasing the population of the town.

Our Land Trust, which is clearly land preservation oriented, recently worked with the town to build a Little League practice field on former Land Trust property because we, like our neighbors, are interested in supporting the needs of our children.

Incorrect statements in the letter include:

(1) No appraisal on the Wettish property - no idea what the market value of the property is. There is most definitely an appraisal. It estimates the value of the property at $2.3 Million. A respected local developer determined that 28 homes could be built on the 143 acre property with two loop roads, which would easily support a value of $2.8 Million ($150K per lot less the cost of roads). Another approach at valuation is 14 (4) acre lots without a road (based on frontage), at $150K per lot or $2.1 Million, plus $5K per acre for 87 acres of back land for a total of $2.535 Million. And another approach is 143 acres at $20K per acre for $2.86 Million. Marty Klein and our Selectmen fully understand the value of land, as do the people they asked to testify in regards to this property.

(2) "Deconstructing the Myths: Housing Development versus School Costs" by the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority. NH is not CT. NH has no income tax or sales tax, and is known to have an exceptionally high real estate tax base as the primary way to fund schools. My family owns property in NH and I know that a $600K home in CT would be likely to pay $15K or more in real estate tax in NH, which would obviously cover the cost of one student.

(3) A new home...$600,000...$11,000 in taxes...1.35 [students] per unit...near neutral [cost per home]. This simplistic analysis fails to recognize the difference between selling price and assessed value, and the fact that school costs represent only 77.6% of a home's full cost to the town. Homes are assessed based on structural features (size, number of bedrooms, baths, type of construction, basement, fireplaces, etc.), and the valuation is structured to be fair and equitable but may not reflect what someone may be talked into paying. Very few of us would be willing to sell our homes for the assessed full market value. A home may sell for $600K but have an assessed full market value of $500K and be taxed at $350K (70% of assessed full market value). That would result in $9,321 in taxes at our current 26.62 mil rate.

Of the $9,321 in taxes, 22.4% or $2,088 would go towards the cost of town government (highway department, town employees, insurance, etc.), leaving $7,233 for school costs. That would result in a $2,227 shortfall for one student. Each additional student adds the full cost of $9,460 per student to the shortfall. Therefore, a family with six children (described by one father at a recent town meeting), living in the same home, would cost the town $58,848 annually, $49,527 over and above the $9,321 in taxes collected by the town, if all six children attend public school at the same time.

However, these numbers are not presented in the belief that the town should buy Open Space for the sole purpose of avoiding future school costs. The town should buy Open Space "to preserve the rural nature of our community", to try to slow the urban sprawl which is coming house by house, development by development, a concern of forward thinking land planners throughout the region. The numbers are of interest because they show that purchasing Open Space is justifiable from an economic standpoint, and that in most cases money spent on Open Space will reduce future costs by as much or more.

Cheap shots at our new First Selectman are made throughout the letter. "Roaring start", "least pressing need", "no idea what the market value of the property is", "foisting off on the citizens of Killingworth", "buying dirt". I've been in two meetings with Marty Klein since he became First Selectman and have been impressed with his integrity, common sense and determination to pursue the issues he believes to be important to the people of Killingworth.

Bruce Dodson is the former President of the Killingworth Land Conservation Trust.