There are two main issues here:

1). Open Government. Anything as important as a new ordinance should be looked at by the broad community before it even comes to town meeting.  There is no question the town of Woodstock supports our farmers and land conservation.  When we voted to spend our tax money to purchase the development rights to the Eddy farm, there was overwhelming support.  The support was there because people knew about it and were comfortable with the ramifications. 

2). Intent of the legislation.  I believe the law was proposed to help the dairy farmer when the milk prices were very low.  To be passed a state law, the law was broadened with the ability for each town to craft an ordinance to fit their needs.  We can specify the types of farms we want to help; for example include food and dairy, exclude tobacco and non-food producing animals.  We can include barns for horses who do the work on food-producing farms.

Is this ordinance well crafted law for the town of Woodstock?  The ordinance, as proposed, would give a great benefit to people with high incomes who have "hobby farms", eg. alpacas, llamas, horses, etc.  I think it is great that people have these farms, but I don't think the people earning the median income of this town ($67,832 per CERC 2007) should have increased property taxes to offset the property tax expense for these farms.

We can make amendments to this ordinance or postpone the vote until we have more information.  But this approach to town legislation, where there is a lack of representation and information, is at the core of what is destructive in our town government.  We need to move beyond that.  It is more work but it is well worth it. 

I am sure our farmer-neighbors want to feel the town supports them. 

I think it is important that we attend the meeting and use our democracy.
_______________________________________________________________________
I agree.

My reaction to the fact that this was sent out to ‘Dear Woodstock Farmer’ on town letterhead by a committee comprised of farmers raises all the red flags.

Why was this done so quietly with a seemingly ‘quickie’ town meeting called in the manner that it was with very little to no information distributed widely? This alone seems to be the problem. The arguments in favor of the proposal may be laudable…but as witnessed here in Woodstock over and over again, it’s not why- it’s how- that creates the unfavorable impression. Poor planning or arrogance? Neither is acceptable.

For Reference: