More Should Be Asked

East Hampton Town’s planned purchase of the development rights on the 35-acre Whitmores landscaping nursery on Long Lane presents a dilemma. On the one hand, the $3.2 million deal would prevent the site’s ever being turned into a housing development. On the other, it does not appear to do much for the town as a whole, provide public access, or assure the land’s return to crop growing. A hearing on the purchase is scheduled for tonight at 6:30 in Town Hall.

When development rights programs were first created on the East End decades ago, advocates envisioned them as a way to protect farming and scenic vistas. What they did not foresee was the value of the sites for other purposes, be they raising nursery stock, stabling horses, or as annexes to extensive private lawns. What is unarguable is that development rights purchases have kept houses off the land; what is less clear is whether the town and county programs worked as intended. Groups like the Peconic Land Trust have for some time said these programs needed updating — even going back to property owners in some cases to negotiate food-friendlier arrangements.

From what we can tell, Whitmores would continue to use the fenced-in East Hampton site for a retail and wholesale business that puts heavy demands on the soil. After years of use as a nursery, it is likely that major rehabilitation would be needed before food growing might be efficient there. Drawing down the community preservation fund, the source of the $3.2 million, to continue the site’s intensive, commercial use seems shortsighted, and officials should press for additional rights.

Indeed, the wording of the town resolution on the proposed purchase describes it as for agriculture and open space. As things stand, it does not appear that the money would further either goal, even though the state considers tree farming to be agriculture, which would make the purchase legal. Before the town board makes the deal, it might seek some concessions from the sellers to improve the land’s value to the public, perhaps tying it to the nearby trail systems or obtaining assurances that crops might grow there again. The pending purchase becomes even more questionable when you consider that the town’s zoning rules would require an agricultural set-aside of about 70 percent of the land if it were to be subdivided for houses.

In general terms, the development rights approach has to be refigured to ensure that preservation fund money is spent in places of true ecological value or to assure that food production continues. Handouts so that businesses and landowners can pursue non-farming-related activities with the help of public funding should not be tolerated, even if it takes changing state law.