<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CPF Extension on November Ballot</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.saghampton.com/2006/09/cpf-extension-on-november-ballot/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.saghampton.com/2006/09/cpf-extension-on-november-ballot/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 23:43:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.saghampton.com/2006/09/cpf-extension-on-november-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-39</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:48:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saghampton.com/2006/09/28/cpf-extension-on-november-ballot/#comment-39</guid>
		<description>Well, there are a lot of wealthy people out here. You can&#039;t throw a stone without hitting one; so some of the open space preserved by the CPF is likely to preserve their vistas. I truly don&#039;t believe you&#039;re correct in your assuption, though. Having served on the Sag Harbor CAC, which often recommends parcels to the CPF for preservation, I can tell you how difficult a process it is to get any particular piece of land preserved. On the other hand, it is true that if a person wanted to preserve a vista, they could buy the land in question and then sell it, or its development rights to the CPF...assuming the CPF was interested in that particular piece of property. But is this bad? Open space, wherever it is benefits all of us in so many ways. I&#039;m grateful for every bit of it, and not upset if it also provides someone else with a great view from their deck.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, there are a lot of wealthy people out here. You can&#8217;t throw a stone without hitting one; so some of the open space preserved by the CPF is likely to preserve their vistas. I truly don&#8217;t believe you&#8217;re correct in your assuption, though. Having served on the Sag Harbor CAC, which often recommends parcels to the CPF for preservation, I can tell you how difficult a process it is to get any particular piece of land preserved. On the other hand, it is true that if a person wanted to preserve a vista, they could buy the land in question and then sell it, or its development rights to the CPF&#8230;assuming the CPF was interested in that particular piece of property. But is this bad? Open space, wherever it is benefits all of us in so many ways. I&#8217;m grateful for every bit of it, and not upset if it also provides someone else with a great view from their deck.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.saghampton.com/2006/09/cpf-extension-on-november-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-38</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2006 20:38:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saghampton.com/2006/09/28/cpf-extension-on-november-ballot/#comment-38</guid>
		<description>Some people say that all the community preservation money has gone to assist wealthy people in wealthy neighborhoods to preserve their vistas.  I don&#039;t know the facts here, but I do wonder whether that is true, and whether private donations might do the same job.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some people say that all the community preservation money has gone to assist wealthy people in wealthy neighborhoods to preserve their vistas.  I don&#8217;t know the facts here, but I do wonder whether that is true, and whether private donations might do the same job.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
