tahawus84 wrote:I dont get the issue about the pine barrens. I tracked the old line on google earth and the new line retraces where the old one was. So basically they just fixed something that was already there.
OK, I see the old link to the Pine Barren Credit article is now kaput, so to summarize:
It is not that the ROW and Calverton are undisturbed, native land (unlike, for example, that pristine Pilgrim State siding forest
), its that when the Pine Barrens (PB) were first protected by the State in the mid-1990s, not all land in the 'Core' undeveloped area was purchased by the state - apparently 200+ acres were still owned by private owners. To compensate these owners for loss of development rights to their land (and eventually buy them out), a 'Pine Barren Credits' system was implemented, where developers of land outside of the core PB area could buy these credits to increase the density of development on their property (much like Air-Rights in dense urban areas) - the money from the PB credits would go into a fund to compensate the owners of the undevelopable PB land.
However, the Suffolk towns involved in this PB commission were apparently just granting increased density zoning rights while waiving the need to buy the Credits - which defeated the whole purpose of the PB Credit system.
Now, to compensate, they want to force developers to use PB credits, and also in in-effect increase the price of the credits by 15% - this especially affects the Calverton (EPCAL) property, as it will make purchasing land more expensive, just the opposite of what is needed to attract industry and commerce (and rail-freight customers) to EPCAL. Hence the problem.
I did not find any follow up articles - did this PBC revision plan get shelved?