Respondents report that the most appropriate use for
this site, if acquired as openspace, would be to use it as a wildlife
preserve with hiking paths. The longitudinal
analysis of residence time found that respondents who have lived
in Charlestown for 20 or more years think that this is the most important
site to have protected as openspace. The longitudinal
analysis of respondent age found that this is the most valued
site by respondents 41-50 years old.
| 2. How
familiar are you with this site? |
|
2
|
Not familiar |
|
| 10
|
Somewhat
familiar |
| 28
|
Very familiar
|
|
| 3. Do
you spend time here? |
|
|
18 |
Yes |
|
| 21 |
No |
|
| 4. Do
you drive past this site often? |
|
36
|
Yes
|
|
| 4 |
No |
|
| 5. Listed
below are two statements about this site. Next to each statement
are five numbers representing different levels of agreement or
disagreement. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with
the statements. |
|
- If I moved
away from Charlestown, I would miss this site.
|
| |
0 |
Strongly
disagree |
|
2 |
Disagree |
|
5 |
Neutral |
|
21 |
Agree |
|
12 |
Strongly
Agree |
|
|
| |
0 |
Strongly
disagree |
|
1 |
Disagree |
|
2 |
Neutral |
|
16 |
Agree |
|
21 |
Strongly
Agree |
|
7. Compared with
other sites in Charlestown, how important is it to have this
land protected as open space?
|
|
Not
important at all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
Very
important
|
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
9
|
7
|
15
|
|
| 8.
Please indicate how much you would either support or oppose efforts
to use this site as a: |
|
Strongly
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Neutral
|
Support
|
Strongly
Support
|
|
| ball
field |
19
|
12
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
| swimming
area-if possible |
6
|
9
|
16
|
4
|
2
|
| hunting/fishing
area |
10
|
6
|
6
|
13
|
3
|
| wildlife
preserve with hiking paths |
2
|
1
|
2
|
17
|
16
|
| wildlife
preserve where people are not allowed |
9
|
6
|
6
|
11
|
5
|
| setting/picnic
area |
3
|
5
|
8
|
16
|
7
|
| camping
area |
9
|
8
|
4
|
5
|
1
|
| |
|
6. What changes,
if any, would you make to improve this landscape?
- The state should improve the look of the bridges. I have
lived there for 23 years and it is a village on the national
register of historic places. The bridges should reflect that
history. I know that the land in question is privately owned
by a strong preservationist. My father-in-law used to swing
on an old tire into the river there, near an old apple orchard.
Housing developments have sprung up all along the river now...
too bad.
- One of my favorite canoeing spots.
- The site is beautiful as it is. But it has a large growth
of Purple Loostrife.
- This area has been preserved as an historical site by a
Mr. Flynn who was once the editor of USA TODAY. The community
does much to keep this area preserved as a 19th century village.
It certainly is a beautiful waterway (Pawcatuck River) and
should be preserved as openspace as long as the community
is not deprived of the opportunity to use it for fishing and
hiking.
- Provide more area for picnicking and fishing.
- Boat ramp, access to river. Historical plaques. Etc.
- Modern Local View of remains of Classic New England Village
somewhat unchanged from early days during Industrial Revolution.
I would support continued rebuilding of Old Carolina Mill
for some sort of Museum devoted to preservation of that historical
viewpoint with assorted picnic areas as open space. Swiftness
of water during 3/4 of year and then stagnation of during
periods of reduced rainfall make site not suitable for swimming
area without major reworking to generate a safe, side facing
swim area off the main river channel. Also, Being downstream
from Kenyon Piece and Dye Industries means that environmentally
safe color dyes exist in water at times during the years which
would cause it's unsuitability as a swim area "at times".
Area enjoys limited use for fishing and pass-through canoeing.
|
