The notion purported in the article, "Sale by Pfizer leaves Stonington with less revenue, industrial land," (Oct. 4) on Stonington's loss of tax revenue of $17,874 per year due to the sale of the Pfizer farm to the Stonington Land Trust is misleading.
Numerous studies can be found supporting the economic value of preserved open space, as fewer services are required than if the land was used for other purposes. Residential housing typically consumes services of greater value than the property tax will ever bring in.
The view that open space is economically unproductive fails to consider the positive effects of open space preservation.
People live in Stonington or buy vacation homes in town because Stonington is perceived as having much open space. Only a small amount (less than 15 percent) is protected. With continued unchecked development, Stonington will become a less desirable place to live and home values, and thus tax revenues, will decrease.
A 2006 Connecticut General Assembly study found that properties abutting or near protected open space commanded significant increased property values with the houses the closest experiencing the most increase (15 percent to 20 percent).
An adjustment to the assessed value of the homes in proximity to the preserved property will more than offset "lost tax revenue."