The Easton Board of Selectmen should impose a moratorium on the “affordable” housing plan, right?

While there were some good arguments at Thursday’s Affordable Housing Public Hearing to have additional affordable housing as dictated by a state mandate, it just doesn’t make sense to be driven by Easton.

Two meetings were held back-to-back: the public hearing on affordable housing and a special meeting of the selection committee, all to ensure that the June 1 deadline was met.

Compelling testimonies were provided by residents concerned about the global land grab: a few people were inclined to promote a moratorium, to suggest moving this forward, to give more time to look at the land we have and what makes sense for slow, smart planning. , with the size of the city and our watershed restrictions, which we care deeply about as stewards of Easton.

Unfortunately a Channel 12 report provided information that our Chairman of Planning and Zoning Ray Martin, who is also Chairman of the Affordable Housing Committee and Easton RTC, was filmed with solicitor Harold Rosnick, a developer, who had pointed out that Easton needed to change its zoning. Alarming on many levels, in my opinion.

So why push? Where does this push come from? Certainly not from the Resident General of Easton, and even from a gentleman who pointed out his recent move to Easton; he expressed concern about the apparent “railway” of this plan.


We have the right to keep our city as we want and to run the mandates, however unconstitutional they may be, but to run them as the will of the people wants. But this is not the case. The BOS decided to remove the additional 10 acres from the plan. It’s a small step in the right direction, but is it something to appease us, and what other things will happen to our lovely town, it will allow the charm to be railway.

My statement included the point a mandate should be useful to give us time to make good decisions. Points on land, water and school. This mandate is unconstitutional – Connecticut’s 169 cities are obligated to seek to place this affordable housing in their cities; all being measured in the same way. As a member of 169 Strong, I followed General Assembly sessions and witnessed the majority party’s push on every town in Connecticut. Cinderella’s shoe must fit every city, regardless of size, agriculture, or watershed, all in the name of “fairness.”

This is wrong on so many levels. A moratorium would work better; for time for a compelling reflection on all of Easton: land, farms and water and our future. Slow and intelligent growth.

Anne Manusky

Eston