|
|
Post by cruzrt on Feb 26, 2009 11:32:17 GMT -5
Town is preparing to spend $3,500,000 to buy farmland on Willow St and Thornbush Rd for open space. Considering the current economic climate, is this an appropriate expenditure? And, why is the assessed value of these lands so much less? Anybody want to weigh-in on this one?
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Feb 27, 2009 7:23:42 GMT -5
Secured green space
Freed of Builders or Babies
A good deal blossoms
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Mar 6, 2009 8:15:43 GMT -5
The Town leaders say that $3.5M is the fair market value and that this is the "opportunity of a lifetime". Because the owners are selling it to the Town with restrictions that it be kept open, the value to the Town is substantially less than that.
In addition, by accepting the state DEP grant for $490K, the town will be prohibited from ever building anything at all - e.g., a parking lot for hikers, a soccer or ball field, or a picnic area, much less a building.
The estimates of what the cost to the town would be if the property were to be developed as residential units is vague and probably vastly overstated. Much of the property is not developable because of wetlands and flood plains. In addition, the amounts of money that it would cost to have houses (including a ludicrous claim that a new school would be required) doesn't take into account the principal and interest on the bonds and the town's obligations to maintain, insure, inspect and oversee these properties. It may very well end up being a wash.
Open space is a rare commodity in town but that doesn't mean we should overpay millions of dollars for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bulldog on Mar 14, 2009 21:49:49 GMT -5
Why should we pay $3.5 million for property that can't be used for anything, but walking trails? If the property is assessed at $1.7 million, why should we overpay and not be able to build athletic fields etc...
Maybe when the Mayor met President Obama, he advised the Mayor how to make this into a crisis and gave him tips on printing money.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Mar 16, 2009 10:48:25 GMT -5
As near as I can tell, we are spending the money because it is there.... The Council believes that the $4M bond authorization from 2006 gives them carte blanche to do what they wish with the remaining sums under that referendum - even if it is wasted. Top it off with the "free money" from the State, which in their minds doesn't cost us anything. Basically, the taxpayers of Wethersfield are subsidizing the campaign promises of the Council majority and throwing away over $1 million to let them create "their legacy". wethersfieldct.com/node/1365 |
|
|
|
Post by cruzrt on Mar 17, 2009 14:54:48 GMT -5
Does anybody know what the Council did last night on the Wilkus purchases? If anybody was really at the Council meeting, were there any interesting comments made by members or public?
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Mar 17, 2009 20:02:25 GMT -5
- Does anybody know what the Council did last night on the Wilkus purchases?
- If anybody was really at the Council meeting, were there any interesting comments made by members or public?
A#1: yes
A#2: yes |
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Mar 18, 2009 8:36:07 GMT -5
I wasn't at the meeting, but this is what the town website shows as a motion and a vote:
Motion: Councilor Walsh moved "TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF THE WILKUS PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF WILLOW STREET AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF THORNBUSH ROAD, AND TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO COMPLETE AN A-2 SURVEY OF THE PROPERTIES TO LUCHS ASSOCIATES" seconded by Councilor Forrest. 6-3-0 (Councilor Cascio, Console and Hemmann - NAY)Vote: Passed
|
|
|
|
Post by JackAss on Mar 19, 2009 21:25:54 GMT -5
So let me understand this. We just spent 3.5 million to buy land that can't be used for anything, but walking trails??? No developer would buy this land for the price in the best of times, because there is not enough bang for the buck.
Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture. If walking trails and being back to nature is the new thing, how come Millwoods and Wintergreen Woods aren't overflowing with people hiking and walking?
More feel good politics! Timing is everything, a couple of years ago, Senator Dodd could have gotten the town VIP treatment from Countrywide, with a nice interest rate. Maybe next time.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Mar 20, 2009 6:49:52 GMT -5
Even if you accept the premise that the town should buy open space, there's no justification for paying 2 or 3 times what it's worth with those restrictions. Petitions are being circulated in town to force a referendum on this question. If you believe that there are better uses for the excess money being spent on this acquisition (such as schools, libraries, police, reducing the tax increase), sign and circulate one.
|
|
|
|
Post by cruzrt on Mar 20, 2009 13:13:58 GMT -5
We will now be paying way over fair market value for property, much of which could not ever be used for housing (and the subsequent dreaded school-age children).
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Mar 23, 2009 16:03:05 GMT -5
The "excess money being spent on that acquisition" cannot be used for "(...schools, libraries, police, reducing the tax increase)", as anyone who is aware of the $4 million referendum for open space well knows (and I thought you the wiser, Oldetowne). If the language of the motion as posted here is accurate, Council can renegotiate the purchase price in light of current market conditions and other considerations. However, if the Wilkus heirs do not require a deed restriction, they should not be the ones to bear the cost of a reduced market value as a function of State and Land Trust restrictions. One might assume that any discounted value might be offset by the value added by the Trust's pro bono involvement and the State's financial participation. If not, renegotiate, but don't put the issue to a costly, counter-productive referendum: It is likely to fail, unless misinformation like the above language is employed. By the way, who benefits, and how, by leaving future uses open? Sports fields might be nice for some, but, are commercial uses more likely after the Town warehouses the land for a few seasons or so? Who is pushing hardest for the referendum?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Mar 24, 2009 6:58:03 GMT -5
Thank you for your response. You've identified some areas where I should be clearer in my explanation and, although I don't expect you to end up agreeing with me, I would hope that it would narrow the range of issues upon which we disagree.
You are correct that I understand the limitations on what the $4m bond authorization can be used for. I didn't mean to suggest that the $3.5m balance could be used for schools, libraries, groceries or gasoline. That money may only be used for "open space, municipal and recreational" purposes. Note the breadth of the last two as compared with just "open space" and also note that no residential or commercial uses are contemplated.
The "excess money" to which I was referring would be that portion of the sum of the following that could be avoided either by delaying the purchase or lowering the price: (1) the $180K+ that would be taken from some other town fund to buy the house and barns, (2) the $35K+/- per year in property taxes that are currently being paid on the land and buildings, (3) the $300K per year that would be the principal and interest payments on the bonds (this number is based on the figures contained in the explanatory text from the 2006 referendum), and (4) the unknown and unquantified amount that would be spent each year on insurance, maintenance and management of the property. Given the current budget situation, committing to this stream of expenses is something that should be considered carefully.
Finally, I believe that reasonable people can disagree about whether the town should pay full price for a property that can only be used for limited purposes. If the demand that it not be developed is made by the sellers or a non-profit that is purportedly negotiating on behalf of the town, the sellers should acknowledge that in a price reduction and a comparable tax deduction for the bargain sale aspect. If the requirement is a result of the state's grant, that decision should be made after careful consideration and open public discussion, rather than based on limited information and secret executive session meetings.
Open space acquisition makes sense for the town as a conceptual matter as a way to ensure quality of life and to mitigate expenses due to development pressures. But in 2009 it must also make economic sense and that has yet to be proven.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Mar 24, 2009 7:21:43 GMT -5
Of course we can agree to disagree. Usually, we agree.
The original intent of the fund was largely, but, not limited to, open space. Dialog at the time of its creation included discussion of specific properties, including the Wilkus lands. The goal was to have funds available in a timely fashion, should some of these last, large tracts become available. Thus, the town could act before the opportunity passed.
The difference between intent and outcome is that, sans deed restrictions, land acquired for one purpose is often, at a later date, used for something else.
Renegotiate if the price is too high. If we agree that open space is a desirable outcome, don't go to referendum to stop the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by cruzrt on Mar 24, 2009 16:56:56 GMT -5
Now that the Town Council has voted for this, is there anything the citizens can do to prevent the money from being spent?
|
|
