MMA letter to Committee on the Environment opposing “Public Lands Preservation Act”

The Honorable Anne M. Gobi, House Chair
The Honorable Marc R. Pacheco, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
State House, Boston

Dear Representative Gobi, Senator Pacheco, 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, H. 657/S. 361) 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.”

H. 657 and S. 361 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) never 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. H. 657 and S. 361 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 a new and very 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 H. 657 and S. 361 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 in the past to help pass the Environmental Bond Bill and Massachusetts Land Conservation Incentives Act and to update the Community Preservation Act.

In fact, these measures have worked. Since 2007, Massachusetts has protected more than 100,000 acres of land, including 12,953 acres in fiscal 2011. Massachusetts now protects more than 1 million acres of land, which amounts to almost one-fourth of all the land in the Commonwealth. 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 2011 alone, the Commonwealth’s investment in land conservation was matched by $24 million in funding from municipalities, landowners and nonprofit organizations.

The Community Preservation Act has also been an extremely successful local and state partnership, with 155 communities protecting more than 17,000 acres of open space. Further, in the last legislative session, we testified in support of An Act to Sustain Community Preservation, most of which was included in the fiscal 2013 state budget.

As stewards of public lands, local officials discharge their responsibilities with great care, acting in the public interest. H. 657 and S. 361 are completely unnecessary, propose an unprecedented and undue burden on taxpayers and municipalities, and seek to interfere with the local democratic process that is most appropriate to make decisions on municipally owned land.

We strongly urge you to reject H. 657 and S. 361.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA