To the Editor:
Frankly, I do not understand the logic of this house size restriction proposal. Say there are 27 acres of West Tisbury woodland for sale, located in the Tisbury Great Pond (TGP) watershed.
One potential buyer wants to build an 8,000-square-foot summer retreat for their extended family of 20-plus friends — let’s say 25 people for the three summer months. This would cause roughly 62 pounds of nitrogen pollution to the TGP annually (2.5 lbs N/person/three months) — and would add zero kids to our school system. And most of the 27 acres would remain as a woodland ecosystem.
The other is a developer who wants to subdivide into nine three-acre lots, each with 2,500-square-foot homes for, say, two adults and three kids, plus a guesthouse for two adults. That’s seven people year-round per three acres, which adds up to 63 people year-round on those 27 acres. Their septic systems will each add roughly 70 pounds of nitrogen annually (10 lbs/person/year) to the groundwater that flows into the TGP — that’s 630 additional pounds of nitrogen pollution. In addition, three kids per lot would add 27 kids to our school system (at what cost to us taxpayers?).
And how many trees would need to be cut down, thereby severely impacting the entire woodland ecosystem, and beyond?
Which seems like the wisest choice for West Tisbury? Do the math, dear friends.
Now, regarding energy, I totally agree that whatever is built, it has to be all renewable and zero-carbon. Fortunately, this would result in big savings, and, if combined with batteries, would also provide total security when the grid goes down and no gas or oil is available for fossil-fueled generators. We all know this could happen anytime — and, given the frailty of the grid and its total vulnerability to terrorism, this could last for months.
Anna Edey
Vineyard Haven