Yet another emergency meeting

Special Economic Development Committee Meeting - 6:30 pm, Room b-20 Town Hall

Common Council Meeting, - 7pm Council Chambers

Well it looks like the Planning, Conservation and Development department has yet another late-breaking "emergency" which needs the immediate votes of the Economic Development Committee and the Common Council.

It seems the PCD is proposing an increased tax abatement for the Liberty Square project. There is an abatement already in place . The new abatement will give the developer an additional $70,000 in tax breaks over the next 5 years. To be clear, the city purchased the property for the project at around $460,000 and has already allowed tax abatements which add another $300,000 or so.

Personally, I have nothing against the additional $70,000. It's small change when considered in the effect it will have on individual taxpayers. I also don't fault the developer for pursuing the additional tax break. I would too if I were in his position.

I am incensed about the process, or lack of public transparency in the process.

It certainly is not clear to the public how the original deal was made or structured. And now, the PCD has mounted a PR campaign to convince the Economic Development Committee and the Town Council that the additional tax abatement is a "good investment" of the taxpayers money. And they are doing it at a "Special Meeting" before a vote will be taken 30 minutes later at a Common Council meeting. This is not in the public good.

Let's be clear. The property purchase and the abatement are a giveaway to a developer who declared publically that he was going to do the project with or without the city. The PCD, once again, is using the tactic of a feigned "emergency" to push a proposal through without public scrutiny. And the reason the PCD has stated the developer needs the additional funds? It seems there are gas tanks and oil traces in the soil which need to be remediated. Who could have imagined such problems at an abandoned gas station?

This is yet another example of why the offices of Planning, Conservation and Development should not be in control of one office and one director.

If you care about open government in Middletown, I encourage you to show up to the meetings tonite and voice your misgivings.

Liberty Square to be built as planned

Despite the fact that the Common Council put the onus for negotiating concessions to design plans for Liberty Square, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the design as presented.

The design does feature a slightly longer building than the one originally planned, but three major points of criticism were not addressed by the commission. Critics of the plan, including me, pointed out that the entrance/exit across a Main Street sidewalk was a pedestrian hazard and an accident waiting to happen. We also criticized moving a 150 year old house, with historical significance, to lay blacktop for 10 parking spaces. And we argued that the parking lot built along Main Street would create a gap between buildings which is in direct opposition to all acknowledged design concepts for downtown streetscapes.

With very few questions even raised, the panel voted to accept the design. They even rejected a design modification recommended by the Police Department for a curb bump out at the entrance/exit on Main. Police said the bump out would signal pedestrians and autos that the area was a caution zone. Lawyers for the developer and the P&Z thought it would be too difficult for snowplows to negotiate.

In good news, developer David Nyberg was granted permission to develop apartments in an unused industrial building on Stack Street in the North End. Nyberg is a noted developer whose philosophy is to re-use old buildings, and has done so to great effect in New Haven, Hartford and Worcester. The P&Z almost rejected the plan when a neighboring connected industrial building complained about parking. Nyberg interrupted a motion, promised to make good on parking problems with neighbors, and came out a winner. Ironic that this developer who is creating dense housing, with his own money, and is passionate about Middletown's possibilities, was almost sent packing by a panel that seems to be operating out of a 1960's concept of urban development.

The Rube Goldberg North End public relations machine

It's now obvious that the developer and the town planner are waging a public relations war to get the citizens of Middletown on board with the Liberty Square development, before it comes before the Planning and Zoning Commission.

The public relations is a bit clumsy when we have our town planner saying: "We needed to have an open and well-lit parking lot because of the perception and reality of crime in the area."

Again, I'm totally in favor of commercial/retail on that site. And the proposed plan is good, but as many people have said, it isn't perfect. And from my perspective, it's got some real problems that could easily be corrected.

I'm not looking for perfect, I'm just looking for the city to ask the developer to make some relatively small alterations to make it safe for pedestrians, and the best for Middletown's Main Street streetscape.

Here's what I think needs to be done:

1. Delete the entrance and exit driveway which will cross Main Street. Our town planner says correctly that the new driveway (curb cut), will be a single driveway replacing three currently on the property. What he doesn't say is that two of the three on the property now are rarely used, and that in consolidating three down to one, it will actually increase traffic in the one driveway. In addition, a retail store and business offices will further increase the traffic. All of which will cross Main Street, which already has regular foot traffic, and where we hope to encourage more. It's a formula for a car vs. pedestrian accident.

Solution: Make exit and entrances over the less-pedestrian traveled Liberty Street. The affected area of Liberty Street could be widened to make it a two-way street for entrance and exit from the new parking area.

2. Do not place surface parking adjacent to the Main Street sidewalk. Almost universally, progressive urban planners, especially those who value pedestrian traffic on main downtown thoroughfares, indicate that surface parking adjacent to sidewalks is extremely detrimental to luring foot traffic. Such surface parking also interrupts the kind of streetscape where buildings line a steet to draw pedestrians from store front to store front. A 100ft gap will be created on Main Street, and decorative walls and buffer plantings do not solve the problem.

Solution: A simple re-design of the building from a square to a rectangle will solve the problem.

3. Do not replace a historically-significant building with 10 blacktop spaces in a surface parking lot. The building at 9 Liberty is the former Methodist Chapel. It's 150 years old and is fully-inventoried in the National Register of Historic places. The town plans to move the building to Rapallo Avenue to create new residential space. Fine, if the building were not to be replaced with blacktop.

Solution: Leave the building where it is, and rehab it for residence at the location.

The failure of journalism begins at home

When a reporter takes all her cues from City Hall, the ensuing story is likely to read something like the one the Courant published on the Liberty Square development this morning - completely lopsided.

The viewpoints opposing the proposal weren't even given a complete sentence in the story. The clause, representing these other views ("Some had criticized the project, citing the parking plan and the decision to move the former church, among other concerns,") was made a complete sentence by another clause ("but City Planner William Warner said he looks at it differently.") which tells you all you need to know about the story - it was dictated by the city planner and transcribed by the reporter.

The fact that two Council members, one from each party, opposed the development on grounds that the process of selecting the developer was flawed, is ignored. The fact that aside from the developer, four citizens spoke in favor of the development (two who don't live in Middletown), and that five residents opposed the plan as proposed, is given no mention.

My analysis of the Council meeting is covered in a post here. While I support commercial and retail development on that site, I think the proposed plan needs changing to be the best for the site, the city, and for safety.

The Courant missed those points completely.

Final Score: Blacktop 9, History 2; or A Tale of Two Cities

Pardon my bitterness, but yesterday was a disappointing day. On the way to a meeting of Middletown's Common Council (which is the subject of this post), I heard that Bush had commuted Libby's sentence. It saddens me to hear more evidence that American democracy is broken and that the rule of law is a pathetic joke to the rich and powerful.

As for the Common Council meeting, more than two hours was spent debating how to investigate the alleged threat made by an unidentified police officer against council members before a vote on a new police contract. It was not a scintillating debate, and the final resolution was a carefully nuanced dance to avoid potential legal action against the city.

As for the comments, debate and vote on Liberty Square, the proposed development on Liberty and Main Streets, the bad news is that the "insider" deal seems to be alive and well in Middletown.

I will begin by saying, again, that commercial and retail development on that parcel is a good thing. I also think the plan is, in essence, a good plan. But it's not a perfect plan, and several of the speakers last night, both opposing and supporting the development, echoed that sentiment. Members of the North End Action Team spoke in favor of the development, as did Larry McHugh, representing the Middlesex Chamber, who called it a home run for the city. The developer, Peter Harding, an experienced and respected Main Street developer, also spoke about the positive effect it would have on the North End. There's no doubt that it will have a positive effect. But as designed, it will have some negative effects, as well.

Vijay Pinch, Jennifer Saines, Catherine Johnson and I spoke against the details of the development, and against the nature of a deal that was formulated without open bidding. We suggested that the 100 ft gap to be created on Main Street by the proposed parking lot runs against all principles of urban design which favor pedestrian-friendly development. We also argued that the driveway entrance/exit which crosses the Main Street sidewalk creates a car vs. pedestrian safety hazard. We argued the value of retaining the historically significant structure at 9 Liberty Street, as opposed to the 10 blacktop surface parking spaces which will front Liberty Street in its place. We argued that there were alternative, attractive, practical design alternatives. And we argued that this deal, like others the city has made in the past, is driven by a deadline imposed by the developer, and as a result, the city feels it's not in a position to pursue alternative options. Finally, I argued that after the announced sale of the Middletown Press building for $4 million, the city was in a good position to ask for concessions on a Main Street parcel that it will be deeding or leasing to the developer at a bargain price.

Town Planner Bill Warner affirmed that the city's stake in the deal, with tax abatements, amounted to approximately $720,000 and that the developer would be spending $3 million. Under questioning he revealed that while this public/private real estate deal had not gone through an open bidding process, that a regulation was being drawn up so that all future such deals would be forced to adhere to an RFP (request for bid) process. That's good news, except that it has no bearing on this project.

Vijay Pinch details the Council member's debate in a great summary email he sent this morning to members of the Village District and Aware. Some of what I say here is redundant if you've read that.

David Bauer spoke passionately and strongly against the proposal and against the process followed by the planning office. He suggested that the development plan only seemed to appear before the first city commission after it navigated City Hall departments, and was essentially designed. In fact, as it was presented by the developer to the Economic Development Committee, the Redevelopment Commission and the Design Review Board, it was complete enough in design and layout for the parcel, that the developer insisted, it could not be altered without the potential loss of the proposed tenant, It's Only Natural.

Vinnie Loffredo refused to support the development on the principled stand that he would oppose any plan which did not go through an open bidding process.

The rest of the Council members supported the development while some, including Earle Roberts and Elizabeth Nocera, felt design alterations suggested by the public could be pursued before the Zoning Board. And Gerry Daley thanked those of us who pursued our objections by attending meetings. While some of the members conceded that the plan was not perfect, none suggested a single friendly amendment to request changes in design for safety or streetscape.

Interestingly, Bob Santangelo, in praising the development as the "best thing since sliced bread" (I, in fact, don't like sliced bread), revealed that the new parking lot would solve a problem created by the the Richman Group (Wharfside Commons) development on Ferry St. The flaw in that development is that there is not enough parking for the number of units, and that this new parking lot is needed for offstreet parking for Wharfside Commons. So, it appears, this latest development is a band aid for the last development brought to the table by the planning department.

In general, I found the meeting, and its outcome, dissatisfying for a few reasons.

It's discouraging that the Common Council approved the development of surface parking directly on Main Street, causing a safety hazard, and a streetscape flaw.

It's discouraging that the Common Council, while recognizing that the plan was not perfect, asked for no concessions or alterations from the developer. With minor alterations I think it would be a fine plan.

It's discouraging that while the Council is concerned with economic development, the grand list and jobs, it seems to have little or no concern for streetscape, urban design, pedestrian throughflow, or the negative effects of surface parking lots.

It's discouraging that the mayor, whom I respect, and who campaigned on a platform against insider deals and preferred developer contracts (particularly in the cases of the Richman Group and Landmark Development), now supports a similar deal because he seems to like the details of this particular plan, which was not put out for bid, and entails taking a property through eminent domain.

It's discouraging that city leaders continue to have little respect for Middletown's historical and architectural heritage.

And frankly it's discouraging that aside from "the usual suspects" as Dave Bauer characterized us, so few other citizens seem to care enough about these issues to participate.

Overall the meeting points to the need for a masterplan for downtown development, complete with rigorous design specifications. It points to the need for a design review committee with real authority to prevent bad design. And it points to the need for the suggested regulation to prevent development without open bidding.

Barring a devastating natural disaster, it's unlikely that Middletown's historic character and architectural heritage will disappear in one fell swoop. Instead it vanishes a building at a time - a chapel on Liberty Street, a few house on Ferry Street, an old mill on Washington Street, a stately convent at the end of Main, a couple of houses on Lawn Avenue. And when we look back, we'll wonder where Middletown has gone.