WRA on northend
This WRA article does a good job explaining much of the debate on northend development. And while the views of Councilman David Schrumm and the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce and former Councilman, Sheldon Dill, may not be new to any readers of this blog... Mike Puffer adds views from some CT-based economists to the debate, including an economist opposing new retail in CT:Fred Carstensen, director of the Center for Economic Analysis at the University of Connecticut, believes the state has spawned as much retail as it can absorb. The jobs and property taxes created by new shopping centers will cannibalize the jobs and property value lost at the stores that succumb to competition or move into the new plazas, he said. "I defy anybody who promotes retail development to show me how this can possibly create new jobs," Carstensen said. "Are people going to borrow on their houses to buy more food? Are people going to start wearing more clothes?"
And here's an economist supporting new retail in CT: Steven Lanza, another UConn economics professor, isn't so certain the state is overwhelmed with retail. With the decline of manufacturing, hanging onto industrial zones established decades ago may be a "pipe dream," he said. "I don't think that means we will become a state of shopkeepers," he said. "It means we are going to be seeing jobs in lots of other sectors of the economy."
Today's WRA also has this article about some Watertown P&Z Commission members who are recusing themselves from the vote on their proposed retail development because of the appearance of potential conflicts.
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
20 comments:
Fred Carsenson said “I defy anybody who promotes retail development to show me how this can possibly create new jobs” And he says “Connecticut has been enormously disciplined in its spending for the past 15 years."
Euphoria? Delusion sounds better.
I am not sure anyone said that this was going to bring a lot of new jobs. It will bring $1,500,000 in tax revenue and a location for people in town to shop, meet and socialize. We are developing property that for 20+ years nothing has happened on and is basically in Southington I am not sure what the issue is.
Someone forgot to mention the other part of the article which says
Tom Hill III, of Coldwell Banker Commercial Scalzo-Tom Hill Group, said retail developers typically have deeper pockets and are willing to pay more for land than industrial companies. Combine that with the cost of doing business in Connecticut, and retailers have a strong leg up, he said.
Norman Drubner, a Waterbury-based commercial and industrial property broker, said communities should snap up the retail development knocking on their doors. He isn't seeing any demand for industrial space. Warehousing, sure, and even more for retail. But not industrial.
"If the issue is whether (cities and towns) should be holding off for industry, the answer is no," Drubner said. "I know every town around Waterbury over the past few years has jealously guarded their industrially zoned property. It's a good tax base. You can tax the equipment and there are higher quality jobs. But they're not there. Retail use and commercial use is the next best thing."
Recuse. Cheshire could learn something from Watertown.
A town that has bad education, poor services and no facilities? You must be the same person that would loved the zero budget and wants to keep Cheshire in the 1950's.
For how retail can really make a place nice just check out Milford and Norwalk along the Post Road.
I find it amazing that comparisons between rt ten in southing. and milford are even attempted. This project will not even be close to that and saying it again and again wont make it true.
Wolves and tangarines-I like to shop and take my grandkids with me
Let us build this and stop the fussin!
Dave your really are nuts. Do really think that we will have retail from the Southington line to Hamden? Come on, one small section of the North End will not look like Rt. 1. Also you may hate to shop, but not everyone does and I think it is wrong that you are forcing your values on everyone. You may kill it with your lies and scare tatics, but if people knew the real truth you would not stand a chance.
The lair should resign now.
Carstenders thinks more government spending is the ticket. Evidently he thinks we can max out our credit card to pay taxes
Tim, You asked for specific offensive comments to be brought to your attention so here are two: anon 5:05 and 5:06, which may be from the same people. I think you should delete them as they make reference to that certain councilman that seems to be under direct attack from who knows who (they don't seem to have the guts to identify themselves). I think this is totally uncalled for and disrepectful...and no, this isn't from David, but just from someone who is sick of the remarks flying around your blog.
sz
Hi Sue, you may not realize this but david is not a good guy. He will do or say anything to win. That includes lying and cheating. Read his letter with an open mind. You can be against the project but you should not lie to make your points. But that seems to be all he can do.
attn 9:50. Please identify the lies you are referring to. Any differences in opinion are not lies. But I'm certian your passions are justified by facts so please itemize some of the lies for us.
One lie would be that "for five decades the town has kept retail out of the north end".(#3 point) This is not true as the Banker and Banker project was retail. This is one of several things that he said that were not true in the Herald. There are more that one could call 'stretching the truth" and some that are predictions that have no one of coming true unless P and Z does some really odd things that are not even in the plan that was laid out by the devloper. There you go you wanted to know.
This project is pulling the community apart. I am not sure if it should by built or not. I would just like a debate without lies, name calling, back stabbing, etc. We in the community deserve better than we are getting. Please keep it clean and honest.
9:50 hi pt
10:00 How is it that you can say for sure that Cheshire will get $1,500,000 in tax revenue from this proposed project?
The 20+acres of land at the North End has not cost the Town any money. Infact the Town receives tax revenue from it. Once the land is developed it will cost the Town money to maintain the property. Even with higher tax reveune from the developed land the costs will be more than the tax collected. All of the developments like this have the same financial history to them. If the supporters want to stand up and say they are willing to pay more taxes for this than fine. Some of these people are the same that do not want to have their sewer taxes equal to the water they use. Does not make sense.
All we need to know, who are the landowners of the Northe End property?
Calcagni, Bowman, Dinnatali. Where does their money flow to in Town?
Who saw to it that Sheldon Dill became Director of the Chamber of Commerce?
Post a Comment