wilkus farm -figure a price

[analyzer]

Re: Wethersfield---Wilkus Farm Referendum



John Miller presents good reasons for voting “NO” in his discussion of the proposed project on YouTube.com ( Search –Wilkus Farm.).



However if the Referendum is approved by voting “Yes”, at least we’ll have abided by the Town Charter, and a majority in the town will have felt that the open space gained is worth the $3.5 million price, the increased taxes, and the future hassles with the State, regarding maintenance of the open space or the farm buildings.



If the referendum is rejected, by voting “No”, what is the outlook? I suggest that:



A rational developer, or a bank lending to him, will only price the land based on the number of lots that he can be reasonably assured of developing. If he can later sell more lots by obtaining approval from DEP, Army Corps of Eng., FEMA, and Wethersfield Inland Wetlands, and Town Planning and Zoning, and if the engineering, presentation, and construction costs for those extra lots don’t outweigh the additional sales revenue, he might increase his profit. But it would be too risky to buy the land at a price that was based on the assumption that all those obstacles could be overcome, particularly in view of the Town’s desire for the land to remain open space. He could be reasonably sure to sell or build on:



WILLOW ST.--EAST: 10 lots…2 fronting on Willow, and 8 more on a 600 ft .legal access road and cul-de-sac. (The appraisal report justifying the $3.5 million shows 16 lots with 1 isolated by wetlands, and 5 beyond the 600 ft. legal length of access road.)



WILLOW ST.--WEST: 9 lots…4 on Willow, and 5 on Goff. (The report shows 23 lots, 3 on Willow, 4 on Goff, and 16 on an access road that crosses a wetland and has 1400 ft. length.)



THORNBUSH: 11 lots … all directly on Thornbush. (The proposal shows 26 lots, 8 on Thornbush and 18 along a 1000 ft. access road to a cul-de-sac. Even if the access road were shortened to the allowable 600 ft. there would be problems involving pumping stations or long sewer lines elsewhere than the access road. The safe assumption is that all the space along Thornbush could be used for lots.)



That’s 30 developable lots instead of the 65 claimed to justify the $3.5 million price, so a reasonable offer to the Wilkus Estate would be about half the proposed amount plus a small premium to exceed what a cautious developer would offer. The State would not have to be involved. Remember that even if a developer outbids us, and develops 30 to 65 lots averaging say .4 acre each, 65 - 85% of the land will still be open space, just not owned by the Town.



William H. Smyers Jr. 4/18/09

[Wethersfield.com]

STRONG ARGUMENTS FOR
DECIDING TO BUY THE LAND
"Or is there?"

 This is a fleeting, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to preserve a finite resource of 81 acres of currently open space valued for its aesthetics, wildlife, agriculture and recreation for generations to come. Response: this is 3 parcels of land scattered around town and 60% is wetlands. You mentioned agriculture; Like the Morris Turf farm we lease out and have no access to. I don't think passive recreation (Walking around) justifies $3.5 Million. I'm all for open space, but why pay way over market value? Why take money from the State if our hands will always be tied with this land. If we take one dime from the State, we can't even put in a soccer field, baseball field or anything to do with kids enjoying themselves.]

 Purchase will help maintain a balanced tax base of residential vs. commercial. Response: This is absolutely false; first we lose the taxes on the land now so we have to make that up by higher taxes plus the additional tax on a new bond.

 Developers are in active competition for this property.
Response: Maybe you haven't heard but the building business is in a giant slump and no builder will pay that price. The land would require pump stations and without borehole test, we don't know what is underneath the land; Like peat moss which is very prevalent in Wetlands and would cost a fortune to take out for road contruction.

 Residential development will increase taxes. More costly services and education would be required. Response: This is absolutely false, after I crunched my numbers, we come out in the positive for the town.

 Wethersfield will wholly own the land: Day-to-day management regarding the property will remain with the Town. State will only hold a conservation easement ensuring that there will be public access to the properties for passive activities like hiking, birdwatching, wildlife viewing, sliding, skiing, tobogganing, etc.
The land will never be developed with structures or for commercial, industrial or residential uses. The land can also remain as active farmland. Response: Still a lot of money to walk around and look at birds. It is not like we don't have some other parks in town.

 Town will use the $490,000 in state grants to offset costs, reducing bonding costs to under $ 3.0M. Response: Once we take that money the land becomes worthless for any future use. My suggestion would be renegotiate the land for a fair price and take no money from the State.

 January 2009 appraisal validates fair market price. Response: Appraisals are very subjective and the details I saw skew the economies of scale.


 Trust For Public Land, the highly respected, independent, non-profit conservation group negotiated the transaction, at no cost to the town, to assist in conserving land to ensure liveable communities. Response: So, is Wethersfield unlivable now?



 Acquisition is consistent with Wethersfield's Plan of Conservation and Development. Response: Please explain how and why that is good for us.

 The impact of the bonding will be less than $16 a year per household. Response: If it is only an additional $16 a year, why are we taking State money then? We don't need it.


 Voter referendum in 2006 already approved up to $4M to acquire such land as soon as available. Response: In 2006 the economy was booming, today it's a bust. Moody's has down graded all towns so the price of issuing bonds is now rising. Basically Moddyfs is saying that all towns are becoming bad risks because of our fledging economy.


With all this said; I think it would be great if we can procure this land and have open space. But:

1) Why over pay for something especially when we are getting 60% anyway for nothing.
2) Why take State money? Now they own us and we can never have future plans to this land.
3) Keep in mind this is not the only project that will be bonded, we already have plenty on the books and much more to come.
4) We need to be fiscally responsible now and not burden future generation on a bad decision that will effect us forever.