The recent proposals for development portend a disaster for the character of Bristol along with an increase in taxes. Bristol is fortunate in having many intelligent and thoughtful citizens who have spent time and effort in crafting plans and laws to preserve and enhance the historic beauty of the town. Yet these are being ignored for the proposals for the Belvedere on Thames Street, Longfield and Old Orchard Farm, as they have for others. 

Rules for historic preservation, building heights, sizes and setbacks, lot sizes, apartment density and wetlands are being tossed aside to please developers at the expense of our residents.

The great number of exemptions requested for the Belvedere proposal reflects the harm it will do.  The lot would be much better left as an open-air museum to the New England rum distillery that once graced the site, something that could draw visitors, not drive them away.

Longfield is one of our historic buildings and ways could be found to restore it and its grounds as an asset to the town rather than cutting it up and packing in houses.

The Old Orchard Farm proposal would violate zoning to greatly increase the density of houses bordering and crossing wetlands that, as pointed out, would affect school costs. Such costs would be shouldered by a developer in California, but here it is left to be covered by the townspeople. The wetland issues would be expected to cause an increase in ground water levels and cause flooding in the neighboring houses, if not the roads.

The proposed development of Robin Rug, which was given the right to greatly increase the number of units, also threatens.  This, for a building that should be torn down to show off the harbor and attract visitors.

The piecemeal approvals of building along the “crudscape” of Metacom keeps growing to slowly strangle the town with traffic without sensible groups of the businesses to a few sites or moving them into a cluster in the town.

Injudicious decisions on building affect everyone. The flooding problems around Bristol are not inevitable, but are almost all the result of allowing building in the stream courses. This has cost the town millions in trying to rectify it, let alone the expense to nearby homeowners to repair basement water problems. In my neighborhood the town approved yet another house in a stream channel a few years ago that was fortunately stopped by the state, which had a better review process.

Bristol had more interesting stores 20 years ago that attracted foot traffic to downtown businesses that have a harder time now. We need to concentrate on making Bristol more attractive and aiding businesses with such things as historic restoration, more parking and easing of traffic. The unqualified support for any building does the opposite. 

The idea that more building will bring in taxes is false. Taxes are much lower in towns with little development, such as Little Compton and Jamestown. Ugly buildings and high taxes are not desirable goals for a town.

Remember, the town once tried to cut up Colt State Park into house lots. This only was stopped by a fight from the family that donated the land for public use to avert the disaster. We need to stick to our laws and planning.

Patrick J. Barosh, Ph.D.

Bristol