FROM WALLINGFORD - Vision and sophistication

This week’s from Wallingford is written by Stephen Knight and is presented as published in the Record Journal on Sunday August 21, 2011

Halleluiah! An agreement to extend the lease of the parking lot behind Simpson Court has been reached. Not only that, but the Town Council has very wisely voted to invest (more on that word later) almost $500K in improvements to the property.

But almost instantly, a group of people, all of whom cut their teeth on the Wooding- Caplan referendum of yore, took to the streets denouncing the agreement as contrary to the public interest because the money is to be spent on improvements to private property. I want to analyze their contention in three ways: the maintenance of a healthy downtown, the investment to the property and the use of public funds.

First of all, who benefits from the improvements? Opponents would have us believe that only the four property owners do. Nonsense. We all do, because a viable town center benefits each and every one of us, whether it’s in the property values of our homes or the quality of life we all wish to have. And that viability only exists because people want to come downtown. And they will only drive downtown if they know to a certainty that safe, convenient parking is available for their car. No parking? No people. No people? No successful downtown.

Secondly, let’s look at this investment. Yes, the Town of Wallingford is spending taxpayer money improving a piece of private property. But we are leasing this property. The owners are giving up control of the property. For thirty years.

Frankly, I think it took a real leap of faith on the part of the four owners to make this deal. Without the parking behind their buildings, their property is worth zilch. It is a credit to them, and to the town government, that there is enough trust between the parties to enter into such a sweeping and lengthy arrangement.

Lastly, let’s put two public investments announced in the same week side by side: the $500,000 for downtown parking, and the $323,000 for solar panels at Gaylord Hospital. Now before I go any further, let me just state that I think the world of Gaylord, its work and its management. This isn’t about them. It’s about comparing public benefits.

Okay, so the Town of Wallingford spends money on the parking lot. It directly benefits every single merchant downtown, and it indirectly benefits every single property owner in town because the downtown remains vibrant. You don’t need to be a professional urban planner to see the bright line connecting this investment with the benefits to the entire community. It’s obvious.

And yet, the same people of the same political persuasion that find this project such a breach of public protocol will hail handing a check for $323,000 of taxpayer funds to a private entity where the direct public benefit is virtually nonexistent, and even the indirect benefit of supposedly helping to save the planet is, putting it as kindly as I can, tenuous. With all due respect to Gaylord Hospital, all the benefits that will accrue from this government largesse will only benefit them. They will save $25,000 a year in heating oil cost, and this government handout will enable them to recoup their $550K investment in a reasonable nine years rather than the twenty-two years it would take if they had to pay for the entire project themselves.

When municipal governments turn their back on their downtown centers, the result is more than the sight of boarded up storefronts, empty streets, decaying buildings and economic loss. The real loss is in the sense of community that a strong, pleasant and inviting downtown brings to a town. Keeping that from happening takes both vision and sophistication: the vision to see the totality of the benefits and the sophistication to see that those benefits are accruing to all the citizens and not just a few. Surely the citizens of our town have both in abundance.

Small says Wallingford isn't on hook for $500,000

As published in the Record Journal, Tuesday August 23, 2011
By Robert Cyr
Record-Journal staff
rcyr@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

WALLINGFORD - A petition drive seeking to stop the town from spending a half-million dollars on improvements to a privately owned parking lot could harm the town's ability to use the space for municipal parking while still leaving it responsible for maintenance, officials say.    
The Town Council recently approved a 30-year agreement with three property owners allowing the town to make repairs as needed to the group lot behind four uptown businesses on Simpson Court and North Main Street in exchange for the lot remaining open for free public parking.

The agreement, written by former Corporation Counsel Adam Mantzaris, updates a three-decade-long version of a year-to-year lease the town has had with varying configurations of property owners since 1961, said Town Attorney Janis Small.

If the petition is successful and the new lease is defeated at referendum, the town and property owners would revert back to the year-to-year lease, leaving the town responsible for maintenance, but without the same guarantees. Any party can back out of the year-to-year agreement at any time.

The council approved the updated lease agreement, but with dissent from two of its members, who said using public money to fix private property was a bad decision. A day later, Robert Gross began a petition drive to overturn the council's decision at referendum. As of Friday, Gross had collected 1,400 signatures, more than half the 2,491 he needs by Sept. 8.

"The whole purpose of getting the lease is so the town could justify making an investment," Small said. "It would be up to the property owners to decide if they want to continue with the status quo."

The council approved spending up to $500,000 on improvements to the lot, including paving and lighting, as part of Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.'s 2011-12 budget, passed earlier this year. The money would come out of the capital non-recurring fund made up of revenue from the Electric Division.

Small said the lease agreement contains no dollar amounts or spending stipulations and that it simply gives the town the option to make improvements as needed. The capital earmark and the agreement are two separate issues, she said.

"It was drafted in that manner so we wouldn't be in a position where the property owners dictate each and every thing the town did," she said. "There's this idea that the town is committed to spend that amount of money, but there's no such thing."

Councilor Nicholas Economopoulos, a Democrat, voted against the lease and has been helping Gross and others collect signatures around town. He said his decision wasn't made along party lines and that the money could be better spent elsewhere.

"I wanted to be my own person on this one and I feel very strongly about this," he said.

Councilor John Sullivan, also a Democrat, was not present at the council meeting when the vote took place. He said he would have supported the lease, however, because there's no contractual language forcing the town to spend all of the money it has already voted to put aside for lot repairs.

"The jury's out as to how much we're going to put into the property," he said. "The key to this lease is the language that states the town may make improvements. I understand some people feel we are making an improvement on property we don't own. But 30 years is a long time. But if that referendum changes the decision, this could cripple the downtown area."

Like Economopoulos, Town Councilor Craig Fishbein voted against the lease, but worried that a referendum could have negative consequences.

"Let's say there's no lease because the referendum is successful, but it doesn't challenge the expenditure," said Fishbein, a Republican. "Does the referendum address that at all? They're just challenging the lease. We'd still have that money we voted to spend on the lot."

Comptroller James Bowes was not available for comment.

Gross, who has set up an email address for his petition drive at parking500k@aol.com, said the money approved for the lot could be reassigned to other projects in town, such as fixing school buildings and the Parks and Recreation Department building.

"In this economy," he said, "it's just too much to spend on private property."