Richmond Glen easement - What benefit accrues to the town?
Yesterday I mentioned that the Council agenda includes a vote that would exchange an easement on Town property for $10.* The easement would initially lead to an age-restricted development of 41 units.
It seems to me that this easement has more than $10 in value. In fact, it seems to me that the Council is poised to give something for nothing. But that makes no sense.
In other news, I noticed that Cheshire's Democratic Town Committee receives campaign contributions from the same residents every year.
In October 2008:
In October 2007:
In October 2006:
For total clarity though... contributions may very well have been received every year by the Cheshire Republican Town Committee from the same contributors. That's not my point because I don't care about party here. I just want to know why it appears that something is being given for nothing.
My question today is the same question I had yesterday - In providing the easement, what benefit accrues to the town?
How / why this got on the agenda is a puzzle to me. Don't misunderstand me here though. If you own land, then you can develop it. But I don't see why the townspeople should be providing benefits when it appears they receive no benefit.
And one more question... does this increase or decrease the value of housing in Cheshire? It seems to me that additional housing would only decrease property values... at least of age-restricted housing. And I seem to recall a few people bandying about property values as a raison d'etre last Thursday... but then why expect politicians to be consistent in their logic?
Tim White
* There's also a $70,000 payment, but that's for reconstruction of Wiese Road. And since Wiese Road is near perfect condition at present, I don't see this as any sort of benefit. There is one section with a bridge that could use rebuilding. But I doubt $70,000 would cover the reconstruction of that bridge.
5 comments:
Anyone who thinks that we are going to be seeing a housing sale boom in town in the near future probably believes in the tooth fairy too.
There are plenty of current, tax paying residents, having trouble unloading their current houses. Any additional development of new housing units will only serve to further reduce sales on existing units already on the market.
And for this increase in available housing units the builder is now asking the town to basically fork over special authorizations which save the developer large sums for a payment of just $10.
This does not benefit current town residents except those few who might be employed for a short while in construction of it.
5 to 4 it will pased. Nobody cares about the Town. Why the $10? Is this for some legal thing to be satisfied?
Richmond Glenn,
The fact that there are objections to this development is misconstrued. The town management and planning department is the problem; and should be held accountable. They allowed the developer to spend thousands of dollars on legal and engineering fees.
1. Receive Inland wetlands Approval.
2. Receive Planning and Zoning approval
3. Receive Water pollution Control Authority Approval
Guess what, after all the money was spent by the developer for approvals; the town was notified by the state that Cheshire was violating the states map of conservation development. Why did the town allow these applications to begin with???
Answer: The town management did not do their job; as a matter of fact adjacent to the proposed development is a sewer line that the town put in, that is in violation (and still is) of the States Map of Conservation & Development. This sewer line is adjacent to the proposed development and is in violation of the States Map of Conservation & Development. Is the town going to remove the illegal sewer line and force the homeowners that are hooked up to put in sewer lines? Let’s be fair the developer should get the easement; if the town had done its job to begin with, we would not be in the situation we are in, The town management screwed up and now residents are asking the developer to take the hit, for the town management mistakes. What we should be doing, is replacing the people in management that created this fiasco.
Richmond Glenn
Correction
force the homeowners that are hooked up to put in sewer lines? (should read)
force the homeowners that are hooked up to put in Septic systems ?
1029 am says... Let’s be fair the developer should get the easement; if the town had done its job to begin with...
I just don't get it. The town didn't do its job so the builder should be allowed to proceed with something which the state of CT won't allow.
You more or less indicate town workers did some things incorrectly and so the poor gullible builder who was only scratching the surface a bit about requirements should not only be let off the hook but should be given the red-carpet treatment by the town now.
I guess I'd have to agree the town didn't handle this right from the beginning. Unfortunately it also would appear the builder was maybe even more inept then the town.
Oh, almost forgot, the builder actually lives here too, maybe the builder and town workers are all drinking the same water?
The builder took a risk but didn't really dot all the i's and cross all the t's. No doubt the builders and the subcontractors are insured for such situations. The town should not provide for this ill conceived venture to go forward as is.
Post a Comment