MRJ on ND
On the RFQ for a consultant (by Leslie Hutchison)...
One firm has been chosen from eight engineering companies to provide an independent peer review of the proposed 110-acre shopping center by W/S Development in the town's north end.... The Town Council will be asked Tuesday night to approve the hiring of the firm and review the cost requirements for the work.... "The critics of the project won't be convinced by the consultants hired by the developer," Milone said.
On last night's proposal (by Leslie Hutchison)...
The presentation also included more specifics about the type of retail stores that would be included in the project. They include an outdoor recreation store, a large-scale bookstore and a variety of restaurants. "There will be no fast-food operators," Massiello said.The residential portion of the development, planned for the western half of the 110-acre site, could contain garden-style apartments or two-level town homes, Massiello said.An area near the pedestrian bridge over the Ten Mile River would have a terraced, bowl-shaped site with a fieldstone embankment to serve as a stage for community productions, Massiello said.
Tim White
17 comments:
From Hutchinson's of MRJ "The study shows the proposed development would result in a cumulative mill rate decrease of 3.9 mills from 2009 to 2014."
What bull %$(*. First of all there will not be any savings. They said that the cost to the town would be $500,000, what a lowball figure. They will have at least 100 more kids going to our schools and that alone will be over a million. Educational cost alone amount to a lot of taxpayer money.
Hutchinson again continues to report everything that the developer spoon feeds her. Exactly what does cumulative mill decrease of 3.9 mills mean? I'm sure they are adding their incorrect mill increase of each year to get a sum of 3.9. This presentation of 3.9 cumulative mills fits the constant manipulation of facts and figures that W/S has demonstrated from the start, and should serve as a warning that you can't trust them.
MRJ is still a staunch supporter of W/S and the local developers and consider this reporter and the paper as not serving the public.
According to the Waterbury paper on Tuesday the W/S person stated the tax revenue would be 1.6 to 2 million per year to the Town. This is gross tax receipts from property tax. The question is, what will be the costs to the taxpayers to provide infrastructure support and services to the development? The 2 mil represents less than 2% of the total Town budget now. We should ask the question, why do we need to have this built if all we to gain is 1.6 to 2 mil per year? That just about covers one year increase for the BOE.
Bill, the number given is net not gross. You should know the difference.
Record Journal says:
One firm has been chosen. Council will be asked Tuesday night to approve the hiring of the firm
should say:
Council will be told Tuesday night to approve the hiring of the firm
no need for an election.the good ole bosy know what we need.
"cumulative mill rate decrease of 3.9 mills from 2009 to 2014."
What they are saying is the the 3.9 mill decrease over 5 years is 3.9 divided by 5 or .78 mills average decrease for each of the 5 years. Even if true, it's not worth it. But, if you believe them, then you should believe the pool is puttin money into the general fund.
W/S announces take over of the commuter lot.
W/S's Lou explained that the commuter lot across from the proposed sprawling development is called by some people a Commuter Lot and by others a Parking Lot. Well, whatever it is, W/S plans to have a walkway on their property to make it convenient for people who park in the Commuter/Parking lot to just walk across to the development. So maybe this should be renamed to the W/S Annex Lot.
This way, they don't need as much parking and the saved space could be used for another store to better serve the shopper. Another good idea from W/S. They are always thinking of us.
We don't have to worry about somebody getting injured or killed crossing through the heavy traffic, they can sue the state for failing to provide sufficient safety, and we all know the state has plenty of money.
Anon 11:56
Guess I misread or understood the article incorrectly. Thanks.
It was also mentioned that they will likely be a fitness center and tennis/pool area. Sounded like there could be a couple of pools. Why would we want more pools? We can't get enough people to the community pool now to turn a profit. Makes no sense!
More pools to compete with our money losing town pool
More students from quickly depreciating "garden apartments" AKA Section 8 housing in 2015
Time to start over, W/S
1:12 I believe W/S referred to the commuter lot as a "park and ride" lot. Maybe rather than walking across route 10 and risking getting hit - maybe this is where that "trolley" idea comes into play.
lol
"trolley" idea comes into play"
Now that Visconti is not running for council, she might have the time to establish the trolley service.
re: the fast food quote in the post... It's a small thing, but they're pretty slick, so it's worth mentioning. Their salesman, Massiello, said there's no fast-food and it's 'not likely' that there will be a drive-thru on site. That’s probably doublespeak for, ‘we don’t have one lined up yet.’
---------
On a far more disturbing note, did anyone notice how many times he referred to the shopping ‘experience' last night? It's up in the hundreds. They want to build a mall and everything else is icing. What's the phrase... lipstick on a pig? It's a trip to the mall across hot parking lots and through crowded stores and back home through the side-streets to avoid the traffic.
If it's an 'experience,' it's a virtual one. We don't need them to build an artificial town to host community performances and pay lip-service to our bedding plant industry with some plantings out front (actual feature pointed out by mr. m to pay tribute to the town's title).
The shoppes aren’t going to sell community.
Even if the reality did come near the artist renderings or the staged photos, are you willing to stroll down their walk enchanted by the facade of a picture perfect ‘lifestyle center’ while a real community worth saving atrophies a couple of miles to the south?
This development is not for us. It's for them.
Why not rediscover Cheshire? Ditch the Whole Foods idea and visit a farm stand. Put down the B&N membership and find your library card. Look past the detention ponds W/S will pass off as wetlands and hike Roaring Brook. Are the malls to the east and west too far to drive? Have you tried the joe at Greenwich Coffee? Starbucks doesn’t deserve their dollars.
I keep thinking about the experience that we’ve been peddled. A two-hundred dollar afternoon at W/S will provide an experience, but it’s more like a casino binge that never pays out. Then again, at least a casino would bring in real cash for the town.
Craig Houghton
The Cheshire Town Post
p.s. bagelicious is way better than bruegger's, but why slow down your day with a stop off in the south end when you can do it all at the new community center, knee-deep in the w/s ‘experience.’
There was a lot of talk about the peer review consultant that has been chosen for $37,000 and possibly more. Most council people are for W/S to pay for the review, but Milone was concerned that W/S would not be willing to go much above $37,000 if more consulting time is needed. He didn't indicate that they even willing to go the $37,000. It doesn't make sense to publicly worry about whether they will pay for it or not, or if they would be willing to go over the $37,000. All Cheshire's card were put on the table and W/S had none showing, what a great bargaining chip. Regardless, W/S should pay for all that is needed. If they have done all the engineering properly and if they cooperate, then the cost may not go over the $37,000.
But, from what we have seen to date, W/S is not forthcoming with information. For the peer review to work, W/S has to cooperate in full and provide rapid response to questions and data requests by the reviewing contractor. Remember there is a timetable for making a decision. What does the Inland Wetlands and P&Z do if W/S drags their feet and does not respond quickly.
It works to W/S's advantage to drag their feet and even to accuse the reviewing contractor. Someone has to monitor W/S's cooperation and the town engineer should report weekly progress to the council, and whether they are fully cooperating. Time is flying.
It should be made perfectly clear that if the peer reviewers don't get all the critical information they need before the approval vote then the application will be rejected. This is a mega development with lots of possiblities for big engineering errors.
And remember, Cheshire paid $25,000 for the pool consultant. Compare the amount of work the pool consultant had to do with what is required for this review.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:37:00 PM
Thank you Mr.Schrumm
8:37PM Thank you! Finally someone is making sense.
$37,000 is cheap. We are going to get what we pay for. $37,000 worth of BS. The time frames that are in place are crazy. What state agency passed that law? This should be looked at and changed. No Town can possibly look at everything within this time frame. Mr Fazzone knows this and keeps reminding the P&Z all the time. We should take our time and reject the application if we have not completed our review. The applicant can apply again if he wants. The P&Z people should not be forced to make a quick decision. Where are the legal people when you nned them?
Is it too early to make dinner reservations? I would like to eat over looking the pond!
Post a Comment