One of our readers writes:I would like to see comments on what development proposal people favor for the Norwich Hospital Property site. If they do not favor either proposal what would they suggest be done with the property? Lets hear what you want our Committee and BOS to do!
14 comments:
I believe that we need to choose one of these two developers---we CANNOT let the state have control of the property in our town. That said, I prefer the Renova proposal for a number of reasons: 1) Renova is not trying to wiggle out of paying ful taxes; 2)the Renova team is the expert in brownfield restoration--that is their speciality with a proven track record; 3)Renova's design flatters Preston where the other design flatters the casinos; 4) Renova's management team is approachable, easy to talk to and, therefore, appears to be easier to work with than the Northland group. Larry G. of Northland frequently states "I'm the decison-maker"...well, that type of ego can be impossible to work with.
I urge Preston to accept either of these developers, but I prefer the Renova developers.
There are far more issues to consider in picking the developer for the Norwich State Hospital than tax revenue generation alone.
If one is to trust Fred Carstensen’s numbers it shows that in the short term Renova would provide Preston with slightly more tax revenue. That’s nice, but one has to ask, “at what cost?”
The Renova plan calls for “doubling the population” of Preston, with 1,349 new residential units. Can you imagine the impact that this would have on town services, our schools and our roads? Renova also plans to build over 700,000 square feet of retail – that’s about the size of Crystal Mall! A new mall with acres and acres of asphalt surface parking? No thanks.
The Northland proposal, “Preston Green”, on the other hand, would provide several benefits to the town without incurring the disastrous impacts of Renova’s plan.
A high-end luxury resort will enhance our region’s draw as an attractive tourism destination. Preston Green will enhance our quality of life by providing welcoming public spaces including waterfront parks and trails, a new Town Hall, an expansive Town Common perfect for public concerts and activities and biking and hiking trails throughout the entire property.
Preston Green will also have far less of an impact on the surrounding environment than the Renova plan. Under Northland’s plan, approximately 250 acres, or 60% of the property, will remain as open space. Furthermore, Preston Green has been designed to minimize traffic, large scale surface parking and impacts on schools, town services and roads.
Preston Green will also provide significant tax revenue to the town and, according to Mr. Carstensen’s report will generate “higher tax revenues in the long run at full buildout.”
Tax revenue is an important consideration for the Preston, but not at the expense of doubling school enrollment and clogging our roads. Before we start passing judgment on these projects, let’s make sure we have all the facts and ask ourselves “What kind of town do we want Preston to be five, ten, or twenty years from now?”
I agree with part of the anonymous posting on January 28th at 12:11pm that, quote "Before we start passing judgement on these projects, lets make sure we have all the facts."
However, after you read the comment it appears that this person has already passed judgement and I have no problem with that. All of us should form judgements, as long as we study the facts and make a reasonable judegement. I guess it comes down to a preference.
No contest. Renova will guarantee 6X the amount in Tax revenue to Preston over Northland. Look closely and the costs for each will be very similar. I'm all for cutting the taxes we pay by a third and finally get some local benefit from a parcel sitting on the edge of town, with highway access, next to the casino and incinerator.
While I agree that one developer must be chosen so that Preston retains control, the differences between the two proposals are significant. Luxury vacation houses/2nd homes will create far fewer permanent residents than traditional housing, thus causing a lesser impact on town services. As far as the individual developers, I was very impressed with the track record and self-confidence shown by Larry G of Northland. The anonymous post of 1/28 at 12:11PM summed things up very nicely. I have faith in the committee to endorse the best plan for Preston, and am hopeful that the consensus of the members will be dramatic enough to send a strong message to the referendum voters.
To the Hospital Committee:
Please vote for the Renova proposal.
Renova specializes in brown field development. Northland sub-contracts it.
Renova promises full reimbursement of soft-costs. Northland sets a limit.
Renova has been upfront about the housing portion. Northland envisions luxury second and third-home owners. This is touted as "unique to New England." Hmmm, where have we heard THAT refrain before? I love Preston, but we aren't Hawaii, folks. And we aren't Aspen, folks. So, what would make Preston a luxury destination? And if the housing doesn't draw luxury-purchasers it becomes...guess what?? regular housing !
Some people have said that taxes are not everything. And that is true---but if the land is to be developed, anyway, then we might as well accept the taxes and use them for our community. Renova promises full taxes. Northland asks for "a break".
And, oh, yes, to those who object to school children moving to town. Hmmm. Did YOU go to a public school? Did your children go to Preston schools? How embarrassing. What gives us the right to pick, choose, and judge...in fact, to discriminate? That is like saying, "no women" or "no minorities" or "no Irish need apply" or "no handicapped." Hmm...our future generation is not welcome. I know, let's erect a new sign. Montville has one that says something like, "Welcome to Montville. Proud of our Schools." Preston's can say, "Welcome to Preston...as long as you aren't a child."
Folks, we all love Preston or we wouldn't be living here.....but many of us moved to Town; we weren't born here. We were welcomed by our neighbors. Yes, we want to preserve the Town's beauty, but the property must be developed, so let us not look like snobs with no retail, no housing, no children. Let us be a welcoming community.
In as much as the local goobers have not been able to cobble together some kind of scheme in these last few years the property should be returned to the State.
How does not wanting our schools to overcrowded equal discrimination? Give me a break. Lets not be so quick to drop the "D" word.
norwich has been going back and forth with this hospital project for years. you have some people that dont have a clue about business that are making comments let project begin norwich ur town is not that great to be picky. get on with allredy.
June 21st
Today I went to the Preston Transfer station and found someone passing out flyers. They are indicating that a Vote NO on July 1st means NO HOUSING built on the site. I cannot understand why anyone would possibly think that but everyone is entitled to there opinion. I just want the people of Preston to think about this for a minute. If we in fact vote NO then the State gets the property back and can do anything they want with it no matter what Preston wants. Does anyone really believe that the State will act in Preston's best interest and not build not only housing but more than either developer is proposing. I say a vote YES at least leaves Preston in CONTROL and we can at least limit how much housing is built on the site. I have a preferred Developer in mind myself but its not what's really important for Preston. What's really important is that Voters realize that in order to control their own destiny they must vote YES on July 1st otherwise the State takes control and anyone should realize they have never held Preston as their main concern just review funding from casino revenue too know that. Preston residents must remain in control otherwise we will be at the mercy of whatever the State comes up with.
Bill Legler
Preston Resident
June 21st
I agree with Mr. Legler 100%. Voting NO to question #1 on the July 1st referendum would be an unwise choice for Preston. I am sure most of us have formed an opinion on which development agreement we favor and I am sure I would disagree with some of you. However I hope we all agree to vote YES for question #1 on the referendum. Mike Clancy
It is a shame that the "procedure" was changed and we are now voting between both proposals. This is only going to add to the confusion. The selectmen should have trusted the decision of the Hospital Advisory Committee, and the town should trust the decision of our elected officials, that is why we elected them. Everyone wants "guarantees" but guess what there are no guarantees in life (except death and taxes of course).
It is reckless and ill advised to allow the citizens to decide between the two developers. The advisory committee has spent months pouring over financial and economic impact data and listening to the results of months of study on the economic impact of the two proposals. They have traveled to development sites and have seen first hand the work of both developers. I am betting there are only a handful of Preston residents that have followed all the information as closely as the advisory committee therefore most residents will be making an uninformed decision. I urge Preston Voters to support the advisory committee choice.
The environmental clean up portion of this development is crucial here. It needs to be on the forefront of peoples concerns. Personally I do not beleive the this part of the picture has been stressed enough. The possible reprocussions of this could be devistating. It needs to be a priority. It is huge.
Post a Comment