PDA

View Full Version : Letter of the week, 2/2/09: Desperate, foolish Meriden?



David
02-02-2009, 05:14 PM
Desperate, foolish Meriden?
By Philip T. Ashton

It now appears that Meriden is desperate and insists on being foolish when the Planning Commission voted to preserve only half of the approximately 290 acres surrounding the NRG power plant on Cathole Mountain which was given to the City. One hundred acres is to be dedicated now as open space and another 45 acres to be selected sometime in the future as part of the design of future development.

Development here is being pushed by some to encourage “tax-paying projects” (including housing). Many others see this as foolishness, given the very fragile environment of the parcel, its difficult terrain, the poor access and complete lack of municipal services, the very high cost of providing roads and other municipal services, etc. The idea of more “tax-paying projects” is, in general, worthwhile. However, in this instance we should not be led into temptation.

On Saturday, January 22, I again had the opportunity to visit the site and consider the issues related to it. A small group met at the request of Councilor Brian Daniels (to his credit) also included Councilor Trevor Thorpe. Director of Planning Dominick Caruso brought along a very revealing map which purported to show what land would be preserved and where development should be placed.

It was quickly evident that development here could only be accomplished by massive municipal expenditures to create necessary roads and to provide water and sewer service. (In fairness, these costs might be required to be borne by a developer, but that would make sites excessively expensive.) Also, several of the contemplated industrial sites simply would be impractical because of the rocky terrain. Why would any industry want to locate in such a remote area, lacking public visibility or good access to major highways? (When I went through the real process of selecting locations for a corporate head-quarters and operating facilities, these were major considerations.)

Also proposed is the placement of housing at the north end of the site off Hicks Avenue. One look at the terrain — rocky ridges and deep ravines — shows that this concept is simply ridiculous. Here again, huge expenditures for water and sewer and absolutely essential major improvements to Hicks Avenue will far exceed any conceivable tax revenues, to say nothing of education and other ongoing costs of City government. I’m sure the residents along Hicks Avenue will love losing half of their front yards to improve the road. I’m also sure they will be thrilled with all the added traffic, too.

The tax benefit argument is clearly full of holes. No one has even whispered about the consequences of such development. What is the City going to do with the added burden on the sewage treatment plant? While adequate when the sun shines, when it rains the treatment capacity is exceeded. How about fire protection? This is a remote site and access, especially in the winter, is poor. Schools? The list goes on and on, and so do the problems with this site.

The City has already benefited from a huge tax flow from the NRG site: over $22 million to date with another $10 million or more to come (R-J, January 20). Far better to work hard to ensure the power plant is completed. The claimed tax yield from development set forth by Planning Commission Chairman Enrico Buccilli (R-J, January 13) and others is outright speculation. There is a variety of vacant space and land available now. True, little is available in Meriden, but lots elsewhere — far cheaper to develop and much better situated than is the NRG land. Why on earth would a corporate decision-maker want to locate a facility on an expensive, third-rate site? This is not, and never will be, a second Research Parkway. The contrasts are stark.

Finally, I don’t buy for one second the claim that the City will able to forever control land use on the site by design controls. City administrators and ideas on what is good and acceptable change over time. Permitted development on Research Parkway, to cite but one example, has changed over what was originally allowed. How about the SAAB site? Hundreds of east side residents are very upset about that change.

In summary, development of this site would be a tragedy environmentally and offers no reasonable economic benefits to the City beyond the substantial tax flow from the power plant. Development here poses a substantial risk for steep municipal costs and a nightmare for Hicks Avenue. I strongly urge all local decision-makers to go to the site and carefully inspect it. They will then appreciate just how wrong development would be.

For the sake of Meriden’s and, for that matter, the region’s future, dedicate all this site outside the power plant to be open space, just as the Town of Berlin has done.

Philip T. Ashton, of Meriden, is a Member or the Plan of Conservation and Development Steering Committee.

Snakebite
02-02-2009, 09:12 PM
If Mr. Ashton was on the Plans Developement Committee and previous accounts said it was 2 years in the making and had a unanamous vote to approve..........
Why has he been going on about this now. Where was he for the past 2 years while he was on the committee?
Something doesn't quite add-up.

Man in the Middle
02-02-2009, 10:52 PM
If Mr. Ashton was on the Plans Developement Committee and previous accounts said it was 2 years in the making and had a unanamous vote to approve..........
Why has he been going on about this now. Where was he for the past 2 years while he was on the committee?
Something doesn't quite add-up.

You're right. Mr. Ashton's position would be much more high and mighty if he didn't vote FOR the plan, and then present minority opinions after the fact.

Tag
02-03-2009, 05:50 PM
You're right. Mr. Ashton's position would be much more high and mighty if he didn't vote FOR the plan, and then present minority opinions after the fact.
Mr. Ashton's position has been completely consistent right from the start. He argued for preservation at every opportunity. He also voted for the overall Plan but NOT for development of the NRG land. His statements merely confirm those previous actions.

Eastside Bill
02-03-2009, 07:15 PM
[QUOTE=Tag]Mr. Ashton's position has been completely consistent right from the start. He argued for preservation at every opportunity. He also voted for the overall Plan but NOT for development of the NRG land. His statements merely confirm those previous actions.[/]


I agree. Mr. Ashton has been completely consistent all along. Meriden needs to think of the overall picture of the future of Meriden, not just the hope for a quick fix of a few tax dollars in exchange for losing this open space forever. As Mr. Ashton points out in his well thought-out article, this rocky ridge isn't exactly ideal land to be developing anyway. To quote Mr. Ashton, "For the sake of Meriden's and, for that matter, the region's future, dedicate all this site outside the power plant to be open space, just as the Town of Berlin has done."

As an aside, I would note that there is more than a bit of self-serving interest in Sean Moore's fuzzy response to preserving open space. He is writing this as the head of the Chamber of Commerce and is focused solely on potential taxes at the price of eliminating open space! While Moore says it is not the time to politic for change about the about the Plan of Development, his article is politicking itself. It is a shame that the Chamber of Commerce speaks only for those who would profit from development, and not the whole community.

Snakebite
02-03-2009, 08:52 PM
Mr. Ashton's position has been completely consistent right from the start. He argued for preservation at every opportunity. He also voted for the overall Plan but NOT for development of the NRG land. His statements merely confirm those previous actions.

He must have compromised, and got the half being open space, or the whole thing may have gone.
I dont understand, this huge ugly monument is sitting up there, in the most prominant location. What is the big deal with some more activity. You act like it is some untouched land.
They are selling Hall and Bilger and you guys obsess about the land around a monumentrousity. We have the most parkland of any city in the state. Enough.

factsonly06450
02-04-2009, 11:31 AM
Mr. Ashton's position has been completely consistent right from the start. He argued for preservation at every opportunity. He also voted for the overall Plan but NOT for development of the NRG land. His statements merely confirm those previous actions.

In 1979, as a member of the Planning Commission, when the property was owned by Carabetta, Mr. Ashton voted in favor of a proposal knows as Summitwood, which included the construction of over 2800 residential units: over 2200 in nine buildings that were nine, ten or twelve stories high with first floor elevations of 400 feet, over 500 townhouse apartments, and 75 single family homes. The proposal also included the creation of a 15 acre lake, presumably to be created by diverting Sodom Brook, complete with a motor boat launch area. It was estimated that the proposed development would add 15,000 residents to the City's population. The development was never constructed because of the Carabetta bankruptcy.

Snakebite
02-04-2009, 03:49 PM
1979?? That is a long time ago. Ashton must have only been 60 back then.
Meriden must have been pretty corrupted back then. He was probably part of the problem, and now trying to make up for his guilt ridden past.
I have a difficult time imagining Meriden 30 years ago.
Who were the Einsteins, who's idea it was to have High Rise Public Housing and better yet put more throughout the city.
If anything is named after them it should be renamed.
Was that part of the POCD of the 60's.

factsonly06450
02-04-2009, 04:01 PM
1979?? That is a long time ago. Ashton must have only been 60 back then.
Meriden must have been pretty corrupted back then. He was probably part of the problem, and now trying to make up for his guilt ridden past.
I have a difficult time imagining Meriden 30 years ago.
Who were the Einsteins, who's idea it was to have High Rise Public Housing and better yet put more throughout the city.
If anything is named after them it should be renamed.
Was that part of the POCD of the 60's.

High rise public housing dates back to the very early 1950's, originally designed to provide housing after World War II.

Snakebite
02-04-2009, 04:46 PM
High rise public housing dates back to the very early 1950's, originally designed to provide housing after World War II.

Meriden's were built in the Mid to Late 60"s, hence who were the Einsteins that had such forethought. Whoever built them must have made major contributions to politicians, and got their people on Commissions.

I can't imagine anyone coming forward with the idea, " Lets built High-rise Public housing in the middle of downtown"
Then I can hear everyone -yeah, what a great idea-

factsonly06450
02-04-2009, 05:34 PM
Meriden's were built in the Mid to Late 60"s, hence who were the Einsteins that had such forethought. Whoever built them must have made major contributions to politicians, and got their people on Commissions.

I can't imagine anyone coming forward with the idea, " Lets built High-rise Public housing in the middle of downtown"
Then I can hear everyone -yeah, what a great idea-

The Mills Memorial public housing complex was approved back in 1951. The complex was federally funded and built by the Meriden Housing Authority (not the City per se). High rise public housing was very much the recomended solution to the housing shortage in those years and that type of housing was built in many cities across the country, so whoever approved it was not alone. Many of those projects have since been demolished and replaced by mixed income, low density housing, with some success.

RC12L4
02-04-2009, 07:27 PM
The Mills Memorial public housing complex was approved back in 1951. The complex was federally funded and built by the Meriden Housing Authority (not the City per se). High rise public housing was very much the recomended solution to the housing shortage in those years and that type of housing was built in many cities across the country, so whoever approved it was not alone. Many of those projects have since been demolished and replaced by mixed income, low density housing, with some success.

When will we be bulldozing the mills?

iwantwallingfordbetter
02-06-2009, 11:46 AM
When will we be bulldozing the mills?

yea they need more space for that transportation hub........

Snakebite
02-06-2009, 01:44 PM
Has anyone noticed that lack of flooding downtown? We have had deluges of record porportion, nothing.
Simple, the drainage is cleaned out. Just one shopping cart or any other debris causes a mathematical exponentiation of CF's.

When was the last major flood, 1992, for the leaders to buy the Ashton flood nonsense for 20-30 millions dollars, when you only need matienence.