A NIMBY Neighbor with Valid Concerns

In her opinion piece in the Sept. 14 edition of the Times Record, Jackie Sartoris writes about the “purported concern for the former landowner” of 946 Mere Point Road by those who oppose the town’s retention of that property for public use. I am one of those who oppose this option, and it’s not because I’m a NIMBY neighbor of that parcel. I have valid concerns about the possibility of the town reaping a significant profit at the expense of Richard Nudd, the person from whom the land was taken due to non-payment of property taxes. I find the dismissal of my concern for Mr. Nudd to be offensive.

Ms. Sartoris also writes that opponents are “demanding that (Mr. Nudd) be given back the property, despite his demonstrated disinterest in paying his taxes and many opportunities to redeem it.” First, I don’t think that anyone is demanding that Mr. Nudd be simply given the property back. He should be allowed the opportunity to reacquire the property through payment of what he owes to the town, as permitted by town policy. That offer has recently been made to the town, and as far as I know it is still on the table. Second, since when does inability to pay or redeem equal a disinterest in doing so? Mr. Nudd forfeited a piece of land to the Town of Brunswick in which he had hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity. What makes more sense, that he was “disinterested” in paying the property taxes to retain title, or that he didn’t previously have the means to pay those taxes?

I have no argument with what the town did in taking Mr. Nudd’s land through the tax lien foreclosure process. By all indications, town employees use this process reluctantly and correctly, while also exhibiting compassion for those who find themselves in a difficult situation. But why does the town get to take Mr. Nudd’s land, which is valued at anywhere from three to five times more than he owes the town, and not return the excess to Mr. Nudd? I understand that this may be legally permitted, but I don’t for a second believe that it’s either ethical or moral. In any other type of transaction, this would be called theft.

David Carpenter,

Brunswick

Facts About 946 Mere Point Road

Although I have no objection to public use of the property, I believe there are three reasons why the Town Council should accept the prior owner’s offer to repay his back taxes.

Fact: the total 10-year cost to the taxpayers in expenses and lost tax revenues would be $400,000 if the property is kept for public use. This is a real and significant cost to Brunswick taxpayers. How many will benefit?

Fact: Article 7.1 of the Town’s Tax Acquired Real Estate Policy states that: “the party from whom the property was acquired may re-acquire the property by paying all outstanding taxes” and related expenses. The Town Council recognized Mr. Nudd’s right to reacquire the property in June when it imposed a temporary, 60-day ban prohibiting him from repaying his back taxes. That prohibition expired over three weeks ago, which restored his express right to re-acquire the property.

Fact: The property is worth $257,000. I think it would be very unfair for the Council to essentially confiscate the property of anyone who suffered financial and health problems but is now able and willing to fully pay the back taxes.

Bob Healing,

Brunswick

Mere Point Residents Chastised for Speaking

While I agree with much of what Dan Ankeles said in his letter of Sept. 9, I have to take exception to his characterization of Mere Point residents as “the moneyed Brahmin.” I’ve lived in and around Brunswick for many years and know many who live on Mere Point Road, each and all of whom work hard everyday to make a life for themselves that is meaningful, productive, and genuinely concerned with the greater good, regardless of their income.

I was at the council meeting, along with so many others. It was indeed bizarre and unsettling. I went because, as a former selectman, I was interested to hear all the details of this case and to see how it would unfold. As a Brunswick property owner, I wanted to learn about my town councilors and town government, and my neighbors.

I live on Simpsons Point Road. In the summertime the character of the road changes considerably. Although I am near to Mere Point Rd and it is a walk or bike ride for me to get to Simpsons Point, I still feel the effects of the speeding cars, the litter and beer cans, the pet waste that is left in the walking path on the shoulder, and the cars that park at the point with idling engines, blaring radios, cigarette butts, loud disorderly conduct by kids and grownups.

Despite all the downsides of public access (and granted, I do not live next door to the Point), when I have the time to ride my bike to the end of the road after work on a hot day and see people in lawn chairs, looking out at the water or even swimming, introducing themselves to each other, laughing at seagulls dropping shells on the ledge, I am overwhelmed by how lucky I am, not only to live near to publicly accessible water, but to pay taxes that enable others to come and stare at the bay or put in a boat if they want to, even if only for a few minutes.

Having said that, I also feel responsible as a taxpayer to do everything in my power, or the town’s power, to put into place reasonable protections for those living adjacent to publicly accessible property. I would expect that any development plan for 946 Mere Point Rd would include precautionary measures to avoid or abate (as much as possible) the effects of vandalism, excessive noise and other abuses of publicly owned land.

Whenever I go to any public park and become annoyed by inconsiderate visitors, my heart goes out to the abutting property owners, especially if they bought and developed their property before the land became public. The folks who live near to 946 Mere Point built their homes expecting privacy and peace. I don’t believe they deserve to be called names, or publicly chastised for voicing their opinions and concerns, even if we are dismayed by the actions of some individuals.

Patty Olds,

Brunswick

Let Nudd Buy it Back

The Mere Point property has become quite a controversial topic. It really shouldn’t be such a heated topic. A man named Mr. Nudd grew up there, he went into the military, probably had a traumatic experience since the military is not a Sunday afternoon picnic even when an individual doesn’t see combat.

So the story goes Mr. Nudd had difficult experience and he couldn’t afford to pay property taxes on the only home he ever knew. I can relate to Mr. Nudd based on the limited information I have read.

The town takes the home from Mr. Nudd because the town can legally do this. I emphasis legally because it certainly isn’t ethical or morally correct. As you know many laws are not based on ethics or morality. I think most of us over the age of 16 are acutely aware of this.

What will the town do? Some people want this property for recreation since there are very few shore areas in Brunswick. Some people have stated that very few people take advantage of the shore properties that already exist and to enjoy the beautiful coast and what is left of the Natural environment in Brunswick.

Now there are those who want this property for access to the natural world while at the same time other parts of Brunswick are being disgraced by bulldozers and backhoes so to construct ugly commercial buildings. We all know by now climate change is real and the more trees we cut and destroy, the more land we bulldoze, the greater this climate change problem is compounded.

The problem seems to be money. Money that is disproportionately distributed to individuals and money that is being maintained by governmental bodies.

Some people think the Mere Point property should be revenue for the town. Will this really help taxpayers. I doubt it but if you’re not paying attention, keeping it as revenue for the town MIGHT seem like a logical decision.

It also appears this Mere Point property has been the impetus for some people to direct their misunderstood emotions, their anger. We have a divided community and I use the word community only to simplify that point.

I ‘feel’ if Mr. Nudd wants to buy back HIS property and pay back taxes and so on, he should be able to do this. Why? Because it is ethically and morally correct! It saddens me that some people simply do not care about human attributes such as compassion, empathy, Love, sensitivity, and human warmth. In fact, I have learned some people are even afraid of these attributes that are inherent to all human beings. The only reason why people do not recognize and exhibit these qualities in themselves is because they too have had some kind of trauma that has gone unresolved within themselves.

If someone is making a decision that will effect me, I want them to possess and honor the above human and humane characteristics. We say we care about our vulnerable children. We are concerned about the young people’s future. Why don’t we start setting a very good example, be a role model for these children and stop parroting empty cliches about our children’s character development?

Joe Ciarrocca,

Brunswick