The Oct. 7 issue of The Lyme Times contains Elizabeth Regan’s report about the Sept. 30 meeting devoted to purchasing the Hathaway property for the East Lyme Land Trust. I believe that while it is a very attractive proposition, there are issues that have to be discussed and hopefully addressed if this proposal goes through. Those issues are related to the removal of the estimated 70 building lots from the bank of potential construction sites for housing, and those issues are not as benign and non-consequential as many consider them to be. 

I am definitely in support of making this property an open space. The question of how much open space we really need is a valid one and there are sound arguments on both sides, that the more the better, and that Connecticut and its towns already have a lot of parks that provide meaningful habitat for the wildlife and allow nature to rejuvenate itself. Purchasing the Hathaway property is not really a good battlefield for those camps; so many factors suggest that if anything is to be turned into an open space, the Hathaway property may be one of the top candidates.

It is large, it will connect other open space areas, it will offer a spacious freshwater public beach (that the town does not have), it has a stream running through it, which is an important factor in preserving water resources, etc. I absolutely would like to see the Hathaway property become an open space.

However, it is estimated that if bought by a developer, the Hathaway property will produce about 70 building lots. Making it an open space will take those lots away from the market. If we believe in the law of supply and demand, and I do, reduced inventory means higher prices. So I asked at the meeting whether we are really trying to benefit nature and create valuable recreational opportunities for the town residents or if we are trying to manipulate the market and artificially increase the value of our housing.

Boy, my remark touched an open nerve. 

Immediately some guy jumped up to say that there are plenty of listings on Zillow and that he needs no other people because he needs to breathe. The irony of the fact that he was not willing to pay money to solve his acute breathing problem (by buying the property himself) and wanted the town to do it, benefitting him personally both ways, financially and recreationally, escaped him.

Truth hurts. A fair discussion of turning a property into an open space should contain a provision of compensating for the lost opportunities to build by reducing zoning requirements, making it easier to subdivide lots, or using alternative mechanisms. Otherwise, it is never possible to exclude the argument that the real goal of this action is to choke the supply of the available lots in the town.

East Lyme is not Manhattan, of course, but is not South Dakota either; withdrawal of 70 potential building lots will matter.

A counterargument to my concerns may be that while there may be truth to what I say, in reality it would have two different but positive outcomes. Purchasing the Hathaway property will benefit the town residents by making East Lyme a better, more attractive place to live, and the increase of individual property value  will result in lower tax rates (which, unfortunately, does not happen) and offer a better financial situation to all of us. 

I agree with the first point, I clearly expressed my support to make this property an open space, and I also agree that indirectly, though on a small scale, bigger open space will increase our property values. However, I reject an attempt to manipulate the market by meaningfully reducing supply of availability of new building lots, and will provide two arguments to support my position.

First, from the economics point of view, I believe that the market always overpowers attempts to manipulate it, and the consequences are usually painful. It is true that this year one of my neighbors moved into a small house and sold their previous house for $600,000, when it found no interest two years ago at $500,000. He is a very smart businessman but I feel he is an exception, not the rule.

Majority of my neighbors that have moved before COVID sold their houses either with great difficulty, often at a reduced price, and even not sold but lost them through foreclosures. We, personally, bought our house at such a discount that the previous owners refused to meet us when they visited the area.

One can charge a premium at good times but when things are not good, properties with artificially inflated prices cannot compete with other areas. 

Second, and more important, there is a moral problem with artificially increasing prices of town properties, because one of its goals is to prevent people from inner city slums from being able to move to the suburbs. I already hear voices, “Ow no, no critical race theory please.” So before going forward, let me say that I know benefits of having well-to-do people living among us: they support many businesses, they are often requiring less services by sending their kids to private schools and even often staying significant parts of the year somewhere else, they invest in the projects that make the town more attractive, and, very important, they often do donate to charitable causes that help everyone around. War on the rich is a stupid idea.

Luckily we live near the ocean, and the market will naturally adjust home values to reflect location, location, and again, location. But there is a but (one “t”). I cannot destroy a dream that all Elon Musks of this world will suddenly descend on our towns, swap away all of the available properties, and will be happily sipping cocktails on their porches, wearing white shorts, and donating money to cover all the misguided endeavors of town governments.

We live in a democracy, and everyone is entitled to have a dream. But their dreams should not deny other people opportunities to have a decent life.

It is quite self-evident that high home prices are a mechanism of racial segregation. Limiting available building lots through designating them as open space is only one mechanism; zoning is another. The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities issued a report on May 24, 2021, on exactly this topic: zoning and segregation. The word “segregation” comes from lack of housing that lower income people can afford. I am not going to use the words “affordable housing” because in real life it often means overpriced apartment complexes (of suspicious quality, as a side note).

Some readers will find it to be a stretch to use a government report as a basis for analysis of the town’s proceedings. Nowadays, many people do not trust the government in the first place. Why do I even bring this up? At the meeting about the potential purchase of the Hathaway’s property nobody said that turning it into open space will keep the inner city at bay. Or did they?

Maybe they did. Not through an open statement that we need to keep our town clean (thank God we have not fallen so low yet), but through a subtle distinction between us (town residents) and them.

Who are those covered by the word “them” is unclear but remember that guy who had a breathing problem if new people come to town unless those new people can buy overpriced houses still listed on Zillow?

Or the topic that came up several times (so that it was even reflected in The Lyme Times report) that houses mean families, and families mean expenses, first of all, expenses for education, and expenses are a burden. Somehow, families that live in town are not a burden but new houses will be. Elon Musk in white shorts is, of course, an exception.

I realize that the issues I talked about may cause an emotional reaction. Portraying modern America as a racist society is very unfair. Everybody but rotten apples will try their best to eliminate all forms of discrimination from our lives and will do their best to correct the situation as soon as they realize the problem.

My goal is to outline the problem. People who came to the meeting about the Hathaway property had the best intentions, no doubt about it. They wanted to make our town better, and I will repeat, that the Hathaway property is an ideal candidate to be turned into an open space. Unfortunately, removing 70 building lots from the market is a serious issue, and it can and should be addressed through zoning leniency.

Dr. Matvey Sokolovsky lives in East Lyme. To write to the Times, email times@theday.com.