New Plan to Save Penfield Reef Light

[SOUNDBOUNDER]

Town officials have approved a measure that would allow the town to lease the lands beneath the Penfield Reef Lighthouse.

The Representative Town Meeting last week passed a resolution that would allow the Penfield Reef Lighthouse Preservation Committee to see if it can secure approval from the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection giving the town a lease to the lands beneath the historic structure.


New Plan to Save CT

[hellosailor]

Nomrally, even in CT, since the light is built on an island or other land, not on stilts, and the island would belong to the State of CT unless there was an older or other title (such as a Royal Patent)...what's the problem?

Was the light built by CT or the USCG and who thought they owned the island and the light anyhow?

The linked story says they want to save it, but from what or who? Why?

[SOUNDBOUNDER]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Nomrally, even in CT, since the light is built on an island or other land, not on stilts, and the island would belong to the State of CT unless there was an older or other title (such as a Royal Patent)...what's the problem?

Was the light built by CT or the USCG and who thought they owned the island and the light anyhow?

The linked story says they want to save it, but from what or who? Why?

It's built on a reef, not an island......which has complicated it

And the word "save" is used as in preservation and restoration from the effects of Mother Nature and time.

[hellosailor]

A New England "reef" is still just a jumble of partly awash rocks, which would still ordinarily be state-owned bottomland.

This still sounds like a Taco Bell Beef Taco. No beef here.

[SOUNDBOUNDER]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

A New England "reef" is still just a jumble of partly awash rocks, which would still ordinarily be state-owned bottomland.

This still sounds like a Taco Bell Beef Taco. No beef here.

Well, now you are changing your argument. Before you were calling it an island.

So the lighthouse needs to be purchased from the Federal Gov't; the land beneath it will hopefully be leased from the state; and the funds will be raised to restore the light.
A lot of things need to come together during a time of limited funds

[hellosailor]

Bottomland, island, who cares? It is still state land and it would be most odd if the US government just airdropped a lighthouse onto state land without making formal arrangements to take over the property, lease it, or whatever.

None of that is discussed in the article. I'm not changing my argument, my argument is still that there's just no there there. The article doesn't make any points, it just says someone wants something.

The journalistic standards for a fish wrapper would still call for explaining who owned each part and why there was any problem today.

[SOUNDBOUNDER]

Bottomland, island, who cares?

You obviously did in your previous posts.


Happy Arguing!


Take care

[CalebD]

Throwing gasoline on the fire: Penfield Reef Light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It would seem that the US GSA, National Parks Service and other alphabet soup like agencies are involved in the fate of Penfield Reef Lighthouse. At one time the government wanted to own all the lighthouses. Now it seems to be trying to divest itself of the financial burdens of same.
It would seem logical that the town of Fairfield, county or state of CT become the caretakers but:
"On July 29, 2008, Beacon Preservation, Inc. ([Beacon Preservation, Inc.) received notice from Dr. Janet Snyder Matthews, Associate Director of Cultural Resources for National Park Service, informing Beacon that it had submitted a "superior" application for Penfield Reef Light and had been recommended as the new owners of Penfield."
Good luck wresting this one away from these bureaocracies.
Occupy Penfield Lighthouse in 2012!