July 14, 2005

EDITORIAL

Council should investigate effective uses of Glass Farm

Village Council has slowly been designating ways to use the Glass Farm in a piecemeal fashion, without a holistic plan for how to best utilize a valuable Village asset. Before Council votes on a proposal to place a conservation easement on part of the farm, Council members should pause to allow for the creation of a long-term, holistic plan for the farm. During that planning, Council should investigate the idea that the Village “swap” the Glass Farm for the Fogg property.

Postponing a vote on a resolution that would declare as permanent open space about 14 acres of the eastern third of the Glass Farm, located off King Street, would also provide more time for the community to comment on the proposal and weigh the prospects of withholding this land from development forever. Though Council first discussed this idea in May, this action has had only one other airing at a Council meeting, and that discussion took place in public last week after Council held an executive session, which was closed to the public. At the very least, Council members should not vote on the resolution at their meeting on Monday, July 18, and instead just discuss the proposal, so that the community can understand their thinking on this issue.

A delay also gives more time to contemplate the idea of trading the 44-acre Glass Farm, which the Village owns, and the 39-acre Fogg farm, which is owned by Doug Miller, the broker/owner of HRI Commercial Realty, and the Lucy Van Ness Fogg Living Trust. The idea of a swap was discussed during a walk on the Glass Farm that was part of a series of walks sponsored by the Smart Growth Task Force. The task force and others have also discussed the swap with Mr. Miller, though he said in an interview with the News that there are things that “would make the swap difficult,” and that he had not discussed the matter with Council. However, he also implied that he may be interested in trading properties if villagers get behind the effort.

Trading land may be hard, but legitimate interest from Council would add weight to this effort and could influence the outcome. Council should have the Village solicitor, John Chambers, review the idea and discuss it further at a future meeting.

During the Smart Growth Weekend in April, Jim Segedy, a professor of urban planning at Ball State in Muncie, Ind., said that communities have the tools to influence developments. With a concerted effort and well-devised plan, Yellow Springs could dictate the scope of developments on the Fogg farm, the Glass Farm and other projects.

But right now there really is no long-term plan to address development in town, beyond building the Center for Business and Education and generally supporting the concept of growth. Council is now set to sell one acre of the Glass Farm to two developers for a housing project next to the farm (which is a good idea) and has funded the construction of a two-acre retention basin on the farm (which is not). Preserving a portion of the Glass Farm might make sense, but the Village does not have a comprehensive plan to effectively use this resource.

Then there’s the farm swap. It may be a kooky idea. It may not be legal. But it could be the type of innovative, outside-the-box thinking that Yellow Springs prides itself on, the kind of effort that the community could rally behind because it is so bold — and possibly so right for the village. That’s why it’s worth investigating.

—Robert Mihalek