Warner rejects sale of 5.5‑acre Town Forest parcel; petition articles fall short or are tabled

A proposal to sell a 5.5‑acre piece of Warner’s Town Forest and place deed restrictions limiting future use to forestry or agriculture failed after extended debate on March 14. Conservation Commission member James McLaughlin explained the commission recommended selling this remote parcel because it receives little public use; the parcel's assessed value was reported as $63,750.

Opponents argued the Town should not sell conservation land, that a sale could reduce public access and break ecological linkages to surrounding conserved tracts, and that a conservation easement would better protect public interests than a deed restriction. Multiple amendments were proposed to alter the restriction language or require conservation easements; the amendments failed and the original article was defeated by voice vote.

Two petitioned warrant articles also drew attention. Article 34, an advisory resolution urging amendments to the federal and state constitutions to reject corporate personhood and limit corporate political spending (referencing Citizens United), was called "advisory only" by the Moderator and defeated by voice vote after some attendees argued that the small meeting turnout made such a statement unrepresentative. Article 35, a petitioned "Food Bill of Rights and Community Self‑Government Ordinance," was read but Town counsel advised it was "void, illegal and unenforceable." Voters then chose by show‑of‑hands (45 yes, 30 no) to table Article 35, meaning it may be considered at a future meeting rather than discussed that night.

Why it matters: The decision preserves the contested 5.5‑acre parcel as town property and avoids creating a precedent for selling small parcels of conservation land without broader public buy‑in. The petition items show civic engagement on national (campaign finance) and local (food policy) themes but did not advance to binding action.

What was said: Residents warned that selling municipal forest parcels undermines the town’s conservation record and public access; others argued the parcel was remote and best managed through restricted sale proceeds deposited to the Conservation Fund. "If we own it, why sell it?" Martha Bodnarick asked, reflecting a common objection. Town counsel’s written advice on Article 35’s legality was read aloud at the meeting before voters chose to table the petition.

Next steps: The Town retains the parcel in the Town Forest; the Conservation Commission and Selectmen may revisit land management priorities. Petitioners for Article 35 may bring the ordinance to another meeting or seek legal pathways to redraft enforceable language.

Sources: Transcript of Warner Annual Town Meeting, March 14, 2012; remarks by Conservation Commission member James McLaughlin and multiple residents.