To the editor:
I read with interest the iBerkshires,com report of the July 24th meeting of the Williamstown Conservation Commission. Guess I march to a different drummer than several in the audience who urged developing the Lowry and Burbank properties! Here's why:
How many open spaces are left in town that are not privately owned, that could replace the Lowry and Burbank properties as open space and agricultural conservation land? Don't tell me the Spruces is one of them, because that property could never ever replace Burbank and Lowry. The Spruces property lies along busy Route 2, has many large culverts buried underneath it, and long years of toxic chemicals leaking into the ground from the vehicles and buildings placed there. And plans are already being discussed as to how it's going to be developed.
There was also a comment that we don't need this conservation land to view the mountains because there are other places in town where we can see the same mountains. Yes, I can see the mountains from my apartment window on Adams Road, but while I'm enjoying the view, someone is liable to phone me about "my current credit card account." (Would you believe that before I finished this letter, someone did?) Yes, we can also see the mountains from Route 2 or the Wal-Mart Parking Lot. Are you telling me it makes no difference whether I'm looking at mountains from a grassy, open field or a cement parking lot?
Lowry and Burbank are untouched quiet getaways, with no "planned" nature activities. A Girl or Boy Scout Troop could go there, and the children could choose their own nature activity like running to the bottom of the natural bowl at Lowry, watching a rabbit or a deer and her fawn, identifying the trees, or just sitting in a quiet place to look around at the miracles of nature.
I'm really concerned that our children will indeed view from a parking lot what's left of the beauty that now surrounds us. I'm sure the Williamstown Conservation Commission will not let this happen.
Priscilla M. Northup