A recent letter to the editor of the Londonderry Hometown Online News expressed concern that the Londonderry Town Council could adopt the provisions of Senate Bill 381. This law gives Conservation Commissions the ability to contribute to qualified conservation organizations wishing to conserve land in their towns, without the town having to hold a legal interest in the property. The town gets the benefits that come with open space, without the obligation to monitor a conservation easement, which can be held by the conservation organization.
The problem with SB381 is that it takes the Town Council out of the decision process, leaving it solely in the hands of the Conservation Commission, and the state does not give towns any flexibility to alter the language in the statute. The consensus among the Londonderry conservation commissioners is that. SB381 removes a healthy “check and balance.” For this reason, the Commission has not recommended adoption of the SB381 authority. Furthermore, the Town Council has no plans to consider it.
Until a way is found to gain the advantages of SB381, a less costly way for the town to conserve open space, without the disadvantages, leaving the Town Council out of the decision process, I doubt that either the Conservation Commission or the Town Council will consider SB381 for Londonderry.
The same letter also expressed concern about the cost of the recently purchased conservation easement on the Estey property. Two of the three lots that were ultimately conserved were appraised in January 2007. In March 2008 the Commission made a formal offer on those two lots plus a third lot, based on the per-acre values in the appraisal. The additional, third lot likely had a higher per-acre value, since it had a higher percentage of upland and provided better access for development.
From January 2007 to March 2008 the Case Schiller real estate market index for repeat sales of existing single family homes in the Boston area market (which includes Londonderry), declined from 171.1 to 161.3, or 5.6%. Real estate prices in the overall Boston market fell earlier and faster than prices in New Hampshire. In general the value of raw land does not change as much as the value of completed homes, since the cost to hold and pay taxes on raw land is less. Thus, on balance, conserving the additional, higher value land seemed a fair tradeoff in the face of a small decline in overall value. The appraiser offered to do an updated appraisal on all three parcels for $4,000, which would have eaten the potential savings from a potentially reduced price.
From March 2008, when the formal offer was made, until the purchase closed in July 2009, there were extensive negotiations over the terms of the easement and the subsequent ownership arrangements among the family members. We now know that during this time the Case Schiller real estate market index dropped from 161.3 to 152.3, an additional 5.5%. The price of raw land may have dropped as well, but by a lesser amount. The economy had seized up and there were no comparable large land sales by which to estimate a price. By August 2009, the latest month available, the index had recovered to 155.9 and has likely continued to rise.
The town could perhaps have legally reduced the offering price in its March 2008 offer, since the Esteys had not put their acceptance into written form. However, the financial gain from taking advantage of the good faith of the Esteys would have been soon been lost, as other land owners observed that the town may not be a reliable negotiating partner.
A third concern expressed in the same letter to the editor was the purchase agreement between the town and Moose Hill Orchards for a conservation easement on the “U Pick #4” on Pilsbury Road. The agreement calls for a maximum purchase price of $900,000, to be split between the Town and the federal government, thanks to a recently awarded grant. The actual purchase price will be the lesser of $900,000 or the appraised value.
The owner has reserved the right in the purchase agreement to withdraw two house lots from the easement. If the owner incorporates these withdrawal rights into the actual easement, the appraiser will consider them to be already withdrawn, even though that may never be the case. In no event will the sale price be more than the appraised value. If the appraised value falls below $900,000 the owner has the right to withdraw from the purchase agreement. Without this provision it would be foolish to agree to sell something of great value, without knowing the purchase price. We will only know the purchase price once the appraisal is completed. And we will only appraise the property after we have negotiated the exact provisions of the conservation easement.
Mike Speltz
Londonderry
The letter to the editor Mike Speltz is referring to is “Londonderry Cannot Afford SB381” by Tom Freda on November 9th.
Other Stories on this topic.
Does Unelected Conservation Commission Overspend Taxpayer funds?
Town Council to take up order to Preserve 74 Acres on 102
Estey Sawmill may be conserved
Andy Mack Sr. Open Space, In His Own Words
Town Council will Vote to Preserve 24 acres
Mike is a contributor to Londonderry Online news. When you comment on this story, in addition to your comment being displayed Mike will be sent an email.
Loading ...
![[popup]](http://www.londonderrynh.net/wp-content/plugins/shout-stream/popup.png "[popup]")
“And we will only appraise the property after we have negotiated the exact provisions of the conservation easement”
These ‘easements’ go thru a public hearing at the Conservation Commission and are then given the final approval by the Town Council
BUT the ‘exact provisions of the conservation easement’
are negotiated weeks and sometime months later. Shouldn’t the details of the easement be negotiated before the easement are approved?
Clearly, Mr. Speltz has a job, a career, and a passion for “preserving” open space. Unfortunately it remains a tunnel vision that is being done in secret, being done with ethical questions, and worst of all being done without the best interests of the tax payer and the realities of this economy in mind.
When will the TC step up to their responsibilities and duties to ALL the citizens of Londonderry. The TC chairman remains lonely and silent on all of these issues hoping the ‘problems’ will just go away. He forgets he is beholden to ALL the citizens of Londonderry not to the causes of committees. The silence and arrogance of the TC members is shocking. We expect this kind of behavior from the Kings; but we had higher hopes for the others.
Where is the leadership. Silence. What a shame.
Welcome to the 5% Club.
Mr. Speltz often claims that “raw land” does not decline in value as much as residential. Where is the authority for this opinion, which forms the underlying basis for his conclusion that the value of the Estey land did not decline as much as residential land. How much less did “raw land” decline during this time.
Mr. Speltz also states that according to the “Case-Shiller” Index, residential real estate prices from January 2007 thru March 2008 fell 5.6% and declined thru August 2009 by another 5.5%, for a total of about 11.1%. Assuming this to be true, then “raw land” must have declined by something less than 11.1%. Perhaps Mr. Speltz could provide the readers with the index that shows the extent of the decline in “raw land”.