To the editor:
Last week’s Republican featured a story about the annexation of state-owned property south of the lake to make way for potential redevelopment of the Trush property. The paper's editorial column also addressed the potential for improving the Trush site.
The Cazenovia Preservation Foundation shares the views expressed in the paper that appropriate development with something more befitting Cazenovia holds large potential benefit for the community. Although the news story identifies a range of potential site uses — from a private business, to a municipal building, to a green space — at this time, no firm plan has been proposed. Further, the brownfield status of the site and the associated costs of clean-up may make some potential uses economically unlikely. The bottom line is that it is unknown what might be proposed for the property.
CPF has an access easement across the Trush site to reach its Fairchild Hill property and trails. CPF's mission includes the protection of natural resources for the benefit of the community, which includes enabling public use of its trails. As the owner of trails and property directly behind and accessed from the Trush property, CPF cannot simply rely on the developer's desire to improve the property (which I know is sincere). We need to understand what's being proposed and how it might affect CPF's ability to fulfill its mission before we can support a development proposal.
Although CPF supports appropriate redevelopment of the Trush property, a more firm and transparent plan should be presented to the village before it acts to annex the property.
CARLOS GAVILONDO, PRESIDENT
CAZENOVIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION