My compromise proposal on Richmond Glen / Serenity Ranch
As many of you know, the Richmond Glen / Serenity Ranch easement has been portrayed as a tax benefit to the town. But since the Council brought this to a vote on April 14 without doing a sanity check on such a bold assertion, I did my own fiscal impact analysis.
I concluded the most likely scenario* had no tax benefit to the town. But I'm not a real estate expert, so I requested this easement be sent to the budget committee for review - twice.
And now I've gotten unofficial word that the Council leadership refuses to respond to my emails. "Phone calls only, please!" Hmmm... I wonder why? Could it be there's a fear that the internet has suddenly enhanced transparency in local government? Maybe some people are concerned that they'll be held accountable for their words? No, no. I'm sure it's because some people just don't know how to use email. Yeah. I'm sure that's it.
Regardless, despite their denials the Council members do read this blog. Which is fine. At least we can have a one-way communication! Thankfully I won't have to listen to the nonsense protests anymore about "Tim you can't bring this up at a Council meeting. It must go to a committee for review!" What a joke. Where was the process for the Richmond Glen / Serenity Ranch easement?
Anyway, if the Council is willing to consider it... I have a suggestion for a compromise.
Here you see the cover page for the Cheshire's Plan of Conservation & Development:
And here you see the C&D Plan's call for "service roads" :
And here you see a particular service road:
It seems to me that Route 10 traffic, particularly between the light at Calcagni and the light at Old Towne / Cornwall, is a pretty high concern for many Cheshire residents.
Instead of granting an easement for Buckland Drive in exchange for $10, I suggest the Council grant the Buckland Drive easement in exchange for an easement from Calcagni to Old Towne.
What makes more sense to you: $10 or alleviating Route 10 traffic?
Tim White
* This scenario assumes the 41 units remain age-restricted. But around the country, these age-restricted units are having their restrictions eliminated.
5 comments:
"Maybe some people are concerned that they'll be held accountable for their words?"Just more arrogance by our chairman.
We all know that he is too much of a coward to stand up and say that he is for this easement because he and his practice (along with many of his cronies)will benefit financially from it.
I guarantee if you call him and tell him you are recording the conversation he wouldn't say anything either.
Does he forget that many people in this town elected him (thank God I am not one who voted for him)and they have a right to hear what his feelings are on this subject?
Tim, you seem to be the only member of the council who isn't afraid to stand up and tell people your feelings on specific issues. It's too bad we can't get the rest of our elected officials to do the same. If we did, we may have a completely different town council.
The value of the easement to the developer is nowhere near $10. The $10 offer is a joke and an insult to the town and its tax paying residents. The value of the easement to town residents is nowhere near $10. It will wind up costing the town significantly.
Without the easement the builder has a loss. With the easement in place the town will have a loss because the need for more sewer capacity will arrive much sooner.
If the town grants an easement the town should receive a significant up front fee, not the $10 joke, and be an equal partner in ALL profits the builder will derive from this project.
The refusal of the Council majority to consider the fiscal impact to the town, and now their phone-calls-only/ "put nothing in writing" policy, speaks to their blatant arrogance of power, if not to their outright corruption. Nov. 3 can't come soon enough.
That dunkin donuts has been there that long?
haha... I guess so. That's kinda funny though for a planning document. They ought to be using street addresses or quadrants.
Post a Comment