Wallingford Center parking and the Main Street Investment Fund (MSIF)

As published via http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?a=2990&q=505894

This is the grant that Wallingford is going to be applying for with respect to the private parking lot rehabilitation and the funds for that work.

Connecticut Main Street Center (CMSC), in collaboration with the Office of Policy and Management OPM, held a series of workshops around the State in July and August 2012 to provide information on this program, including who may apply and project eligibility requirements. The PowerPoint presentation from the workshops and sample Town Commercial Center Plans can be found using this link.

Authorizing Statutes

PA 11-1, AN ACT PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION IN THE STATE, Sections 78 and 79, (herein after “the Act”)

Program Overview

This act provides grants in the amount not to exceed five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to municipalities with populations of not more than thirty thousand (30,000) or municipalities eligible for the small town economic assistance program (STEAP) pursuant to section 4-66g of the general statutes for eligible projects as defined.

The grant shall be used for improvements to property owned by the municipality, except the municipality may use a portion of the proceeds of the grant to provide a one-time reimbursement to owners of commercial private property for eligible expenditures that directly support and enhance an eligible project. The maximum allowable reimbursement for such eligible expenditures to the owner shall be $50,000 provided at the following rates:

(1) expenditures equal to or less than $50,000 shall be reimbursed at a rate of 50%, and

(2) any additional expenditures greater than $50,000 but less than or equal to $150,000 shall be reimbursed at a rate of 25%.

Supporting Documents:

MSIF Program Factsheet (pdf)

MSIF Program Application and Instructions (.doc)

Contact Information

Dimple Desai
Community Development Director
Office of Policy and Management
Intergovernmental Policy Division
450 Capitol Avenue, MS#54ORG
Hartford , CT 06106-1379
Phone - (860) 418-6412
Fax – (860) 418-6486
Email - dimple.desai@ct.gov  

MY TAKE on Simpson lot owners have ‘skin in the game’

This morning in the Record Journal there was a story titled Simpson lot owners have ‘skin in the game’ and I have it cross posted over on my other blog.

Councilor Craig Fishbein made the following point - "the town should ask for $50,000 from each property owner and $100,000 from Holy Trinity School for the retaining wall determined to be on the school’s property."

I agree and that you could "sell" to the majority of the people that voted against the deal at referendum.

At the same time - if the original deal wasn't correctly honored by the town as Mary Pimentel states (and I can certainly see her argument) I would go further to say "split the difference" - $25,000 from each property owner and cut the contribution from Holy Trinity School to the same - $25,000; $125,000.00 in total from the five (net - after any reimbursements); I would support that.

I don't like the way this was bum-rushed to the Council; I understand the timing situation but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth especially when you consider the will of the people at the last referendum which overturned the similar deal.

If we could go forward with either of these two offers to the property owners (and again - I would favor a softer deal to the town because of the years of not honoring the original maintenance agreements) then I say let's do it this week and then see where it goes from there.

This is supposed to be give and take but all I am seeing is push and shove; let's stop the posturing on all sides (the Council as well as myself personally is guilty of it) and move downtown forward.

And the number of parking spaces in Wallingford Center for PUBLIC parking is…

So before I get to the meat and potatoes of my post I want to remind everyone that I have the agenda posted for the regular Wallingford Town Council Meeting over on Wallingford Patch for Tuesday’s Council meeting on September 11, 2012.

Of special note regarding that I want to make sure to call out the following point; the Simpson Court / Private Downtown Parking Lot issue returns to this upcoming Town Council meeting.

You might not know it from this agenda item but the issue of Wallingford paying for the private parking lot at the rear of the businesses at Simpson Court uptown is going to be discussed.

8. Discussion regarding:

Report from the Town Attorney on the Simpson Parking Lot Wall
Possible options for the Town to pursue

The “Possible options for the Town to pursue” regarding the “Report from the Town Attorney on the Simpson Parking Lot Wall” is to apply for a state grant in the amount of $500,000.00 to “improve the Simpson parking area.”

The above link provides you with some additional details and along with my thoughts on that.

With the recap done – on to this post

I decided to talk a walk Sunday morning with my oldest son and count all the public parking spaces available in Wallingford Center.

By definition, a public parking space is one that is made available for the general public to park their car at will (within the limits posted by any signage) on a first come, first served basis.

I will outline what I counted and where as well as what I left out that I could have otherwise justifiably counted as part of the parking scheme for Wallingford Center.

So first – what did I leave out?

I left out the entire Wooding-Caplan site; even though we are presently rebuilding the area and may be using it for the next five to ten years, there has been no effort to fully commit the area permanently for parking. So due to that I skipped all the planned spaces there – all 100 spaces

I also left out the first block of every street off of Center between Route 5 and Main. It would be very easy to justify that area of parking as being available (as it is) but for the sake of discussion I left those spaces out too. I also left out any available spaces on Prince Street and Church Street.

I also did not count the BUSINESS spaces at the rear of Archie Moore’s because if there is any public parking back I didn’t see the signage so I erred on the side of caution and left it out.

The highlighted map below details the specific areas that I left out of my count.

All those yellow highlighted areas I left it out of the count – approximately 200 additional spaces for a total of 300 when combined with what I did not count at Wooding-Caplan (that area is shown below).

Also, beyond the 300 mentioned above I did not count the spaces we currently have use of by way of the year to year agreement on the private property behind the business at Simpson Court (as shown below)

What I did count

The 43 spaces at the Credit Union on South Main (shown below).

The 173 spaces at Town Hall and along South Main

The 69 spaces in Simpson Court and along North Main to Church Street

The north side of the lot, which has public parking space designation, between North Whittlesey and North Orchard which totaled 30 spaces.

The small lot behind that, across the street from the synagogue, which has 15 spaces.

The north sides of the Back of America lot and the lot across Meadow Street (only the areas designated as Public Parking by signage) – total spaces 83.

I also counted all the spaces available on Hall Avenue down to North Cherry and all the spaces at the rear of the Train Station that are available to the public as Public Parking – 108 in all.

The last major area of mention is Center Street itself from Route 5 North to Fair Street which encompasses 107 spaces.

So what’s the bottom line?

When you add all of these areas of available parking together you have a grand total of 628 spaces for the public to park their cars.

And there is even more space if you include the omitted first block areas of the side streets directly off of Center Street.

In the 27 years of driving my car into Wallingford Center for any reason whatsoever on any random day I have never had to walk more than one block to get to the destination of my choosing and that is because there is plenty of parking if you know where to look and are willing to walk about a block’s distance when necessary.

FACEBOOK - Wallingford Parking Lot Referendum - November 14, 2011

Question: Why should Wallingford spend upwards of $500,000.00 to improve private property at your expense? Answer: IT SHOULDN'T! On November 14th, Vote "YES" to Repeal the one-sided deal!

It’s your town – get informed, get involved and VOTE on November 14th

For more information see the Wallingford Parking Lot Referendum Facebook page or go to the 500K Private Parking Deal site.

MY TAKE - Citizens Against Private Parking Deal in Wallingford

There is a new website at http://www.500kparkingdeal.com/ set up by the organizers of the petition drive.

On the site they have a lot of pertinent information, they cross post to the Wallingford Referendum Facts blog (which may or may not be their blog – I am not sure of the identity of the actual owners) and they have PDFs for the four lease proposals.

(I was going to post these myself but now that they are here I will simply cross reference. I will still put up the original lease since it appears to not be online there).

They also have a page there as to how you can help if that is something you wish to do.

I am in favor of overturning the decision of the Council on this and I will be voting “YES” on Monday November 14, 2011.

Bottom line and whatever your thoughts – it’s your town, get informed, get involved and VOTE at the local election on Tuesday November 8, 2011 and at the referendum on Monday November 14, 2011.

For or against the Council’s decision and the parking deal – make sure your voice is heard.

REMINDER–WALLINGFORD TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT

Just a quick reminder that there is a town council meeting this evening.

I have the agenda posted in an earlier blog post.

There are a couple of important agenda items with respect to the downtown parking situation and the referendum:

10. Discussion and Possible Action on the Repeal of the Town Council’s resolution of August 9, 2011, approving Lease Agreements of the parking lots at 2-26 North Main Street, 36-40 North Main Street, 60 North Main Street and 48-50 North Main Street - Councilor Nick Economopoulos

11. Discussion and Possible Action on setting a date for a referendum vote on the repeal of the Town Council’s resolution of August 9, 2011, approving Lease Agreements of the parking lots at 2-26 North Main Street, 36-40 North Main Street, 60 North Main Street and 48-50 North Main Street – Councilor Nick Economopoulos

 

Barbara Thompson, Wallingford Town Clerk, has certified that there are enough signatures for force the referendum if the council doesn’t repeal their decision.

The letter went out to Town Council Chairman Parisi yesterday and can be found via this link.

AGENDA - WALLINGFORD TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING / Item 11 to deal with parking issue

I have the agenda for the next Town Council Meeting over on my Wallingford Politico blog and it should be posted over on the town website as well.

Of special interest with respect to recent news:

11. Discussion and Possible Action on setting a date for a referendum vote on the repeal of the Town Council’s resolution of August 9, 2011, approving Lease Agreements of the parking lots at 2-26 North Main Street, 36-40 North Main Street, 60 North Main Street and 48-50 North Main Street – Councilor Nick Economopoulos

Getting the details on the Simpson Court deal

I am working on getting the details on the Simpson Court deal and I will put them online as soon as I can get them.

As with most things in town, I think I am going to have to request the paper documents and pay for them because I believe they are not readily available on line but be that as it may we need to have this information and the details out there.

There was a story in Wednesday’s Record Journal (August 31, 2011) regarding one of the owners and his decision to pull out of the year to year deal if the referendum is successful and the vote decision is to reject the deal that the Town Council has cut here.

That is Mr. McGuire’s prerogative – it is his property. If I were him and had this better deal in front of me (the one being proposed) I might not (at first) be all that excited about going back to something less. It’ll be up to him to decide if he wants to enforce and restrict his parking to the renters and customers in his building as well to fully maintain and upkeep his own lot, a lot of which right now the town does instead of him under the current deal.

People are going to take the slant of blaming the petitioners for the downfall of this deal if it goes that way just as some did regarding the Wooding-Caplan property.

Let’s be clear, the petitioners stopped nothing; the results of their work allowed the referendum to happen – the voters said no to the deal on the table at the time.

The Town Council could have re-visited one of the other three plans or come up with something new. Instead they’ve taken no action over four plus years.

The blame there is not on the voters or the petitioners.

There are a lot of details in the Simpson Court deal that every tax paying resident should review on their own. That is why I am trying to get that copy and post it online.

I am against the deal as it is presented currently as I don’t believe it is the best deal that Wallingford could make. We could and should do better. There are other options available as far as overall parking is concerned and if an agreement with the tenants at Simpson Court is still desired it can be re-done so that the town gets a little better deal and it could still be fair and somewhat lucrative for the property owners too.

I am not against them getting a little benefit for their sacrifice but the town benefit should be at least equal and presently it is not.

Having said that, I encourage you to get the details and make up your own mind.

Stay tuned.

Simpson Court and Downtown Parking – the ongoing struggle for the truth

Without a doubt, the current earmark of $500,000.00 to expend on private property and the petition drive to stop it is going to be a polarizing issue as we enter into the local elections.

We have a lot of heavy hitting on the support side of the project and the Council decision to move forward with this. (Councilors Fishbein and Economopoulos voted against it).

There is strength in the opposition as well as the petition efforts pick up steam.

Steve Knight, a former Town Councilor and co-writer of the Record Journal’s FROM WALLINGFORD column came out in support of the council’s decision (please see FROM WALLINGFORD - Vision and sophistication)

The Record Journal ran a story this morning titled “Small says Wallingford isn't on hook for $500,000” 

I’d like to review a few things that Steve wrote, and mind you, those are his opinions and like mine are going to differ. As an op-ed piece you don’t need to be objective – the whole point is to offer an opinion.

So I’ll start with:

“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.”

I have said this before and I’ll say it again, there is plenty of parking downtown other than this one lot that is available for public use. The way that this gets outlined it makes it sound like there is no parking at all if we give up or lose the rights to use this lot as public parking that the entire downtown collapses.

I would like to see the study of how many cars use this lot on a daily basis as public parking in that they are not patronizing one of the businesses there.

The thing is, you won’t see it because there hasn’t been one. It is all done on estimation and assumption that there are users in this fashion and there probably are. I would argue they are a very small minority and at such a low use level that it can be equally argued that the spaces available at Town Hall and on the Wooding-Caplan property would suffice.

Next is:

“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”

I agree with Steve on the first part – we would be spending taxpayer money improving a piece of private property, something I don’t support out of the box.

We would be leasing the property but to say the owners are giving up control is more than a stretch. They are still able to pretty much do anything they currently are allowed to do but about the only things they will not be able to do is back out of the agreement on short notice as this would be a 30-year agreement and not a short term one. The other thing that they are effectively giving up is the ability to say “this is parking for my business only and all others will be towed.”

Now I am not sure what Steve was referring to with his next statement of “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” – Is he suggesting that the town could potentially take the property by eminent domain? I wouldn’t support that either and it is completely unnecessary as we have Wooding-Caplan and all the parking we should need if we would just fix that lot. I haven’t had the chance to speak with him so I am not entirely sure of his point here.

Someone else commented somewhere and I forget if it was a letter to the editor or someone I spoke with but they inferred that if we are leasing that property and it is in disrepair and if that someone was injured the town could be sued and if found liable, we might be on the hook for medical bills, pain and suffering and all that.

Could be the town and the property owners both in a situation like that.

So what do you think happens when someone sustains the same injury on the Wooding-Caplan parcel? We own that outright and it is in equal or worse disrepair right now. That’s right, the town, and only the town gets sued. The point here is we are at risk of being sued in both places and that is always a matter of risk but if we have this money I argue that we use it to repair our own property that is being used currently in the same manner (public parking).

Steve’s next point was:

“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.”

So I am not sure how this is a direct benefit to every single merchant downtown; if people won’t park at town hall and walk one block to eat or go shopping why can anyone assume they’ll park there and walk down the hill? Be that as it may, then I could apply the same argument to the Wooding-Caplan property – if you fix it, a property that we already own – then you are providing a direct benefit to every single merchant downtown two fold; you have fixed a dilapidated public property and added net new parking to downtown.

Tomorrow I will write some additional comments with respect to the story in the Record Journal - “Small says Wallingford isn't on hook for $500,000”

More opinions on the Wallingford Parking controversy and the petition drive

As published in the Record Journal, Sunday August 21, 2011

900 sign petition against Simpson Court plans

As posted online at MyRecordJournal.com and as published in the Record Journal, Tuesday August 16, 2011

Robert Cyr
rcyr@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

WALLINGFORD - Town Councilor Nicholas Economopoulos was out on a rainy Monday afternoon, talking to voters in front of Stop & Shop on Route 5, but he wasn't campaigning to retain his seat on the council.

Economopoulos was collecting signatures, as were others circulating the petition to force a referendum on a council decision last week that entered the town into a 30-year, $500,000 agreement with four North Main Street businesses to pave and maintain their collective parking lot in return for free municipal use.

The intent is to create a safer, more attractive municipal parking lot that will continue to provide an alternative to the often crowded parking area in front of the Simpson Court businesses. Economopoulos, a Democrat, voted against it, saying the town should not pay to upgrade private property.

Robert Gross, a local man who has run for council, started the petition drive Wednesday and has until Sept. 8 to collect 2,491 signatures, or 10 percent of the town's registered voters. That's the amount needed, by town law, to force the council to reverse its decision within 30 days or go to a town-wide vote on the matter.

Economopoulos was in good spirits and said he's gotten a positive response so far. A small group of people had collected about 900 signatures over the weekend. In his hand were three full pages of official signature pages, with 50 signatures on each page.

"People have been great and they really want to find out what's going on," he said.

Holding more pages at the store's other entrance, local resident Robert Hogan said he was confident the signatures would come and a referendum would take place.

"Everyone I talk to has been unbelievably responsive to what we're doing," he said. "When we tell them what has happened, they are awestruck - they can't believe it."

Petition supporters, who have called it an example of "democracy in action," included 24-year-old Troy Livingston. While he works in New Haven, he was born and lives in town, he said.

"I don't think it's really necessary for the town's money to go to something like a parking lot," he said. "We could be using that money for something more important in town."

Scott McLean, professor of political science at Quinnipiac University, said Wallingford's case of petitioning for referendum has a rich tradition in American history and is an example of a government process that once astounded foreign visitors who were accustomed to turmoil in Europe.

Among visiting dignitaries was 19th century French historian Alexis de Tocqueville, whose book "Democracy in America" is still read today.

"He thought it was remarkable that Americans were so involved in their municipalities," McLean said. "It was very different in Europe at the time, when revolutions were sweeping across Europe, but Americans put their political interests very close to home."

Whenever a community petitions for a referendum to overturn a government decision, they are evoking the spirit of early America, he said.

"Of course the right to petition the government is in the First Amendment and it's a very fundamental idea, a right that goes back to Colonial days," he said. "There's a long tradition of seeing petitions as vital to the health of democracy in America."

Simpson Court project may go to referendum

As published in the Record Journal Sunday August 14, 2011

By Robert Cyr
Record-Journal staff

WALLINGFORD — Business owners are expressing support for the Town Council’s decision to make a half million dollars’ worth of improvements to the parking lot behind Simpson Court, while opponents of the project planned to spend the weekend collecting signatures in hopes of sending it to referendum.

The Town Council approved an agreement with four property owners last Tuesday night, giving the town the authority to make $500,000 in improvements to the lot while extending public use for the next 30 years. Under the agreement, the town will also provide maintenance, including snow plowing.

The intent is to create a safer, more attractive municipal parking lot that will continue to provide an alternative to the often crowded parking area in front of the Simpson Court businesses.

Debbie Pacileo, owner of Gaetano’s Tavern at 36 N. Main St., spoke to customers on the restaurant’s sunny sidewalk patio Friday afternoon, saying she had heard of the drive to reverse the council’s decision.

“I think anything they do uptown is good for the town, and everyone knows how bad the lot looks,” she said. “People tell me all the time they want to come here but don’t have the time to look for a place to park. Businesses are hurt in this town for a lack of good parking.”

The improvements, first planned more than a decade ago, will include paving, installing lights, marking off 130 parking spaces, and reconstructing a concrete wall that borders the lot and Holy Trinity School on Center Street. The project has stalled over the years because the building’s owners have not always agreed with the use agreement.

Next door to Gaetano’s, at 48 N. Main St., was a busy Half Moon Cafe, where tables were packed with local lunch-goers.

Amy Lipper, a Guilford resident who owns wholesaler Lipper International on Washington Street, said the improved parking would benefit not just the businesses abutting the lot, but would make it easier to access shops across the street as well.

“There isn’t a whole lot of parking in town, and that one gets a lot of use,” she said. “I realize it’s private, but it really services the whole town. If it wasn’t free to park there, I would expect who­ ever charged to park there to pay for the paving.”

The cost of the project, which has more than doubled since the inception of a plan a decade ago due to material and added labor costs, will be covered by annual contributions the Electric Division makes to the town for capital improvements. The Public Works Department, which was once slated to perform the work, will be replaced by a private company that will be able to work on sections of the lot while businesses remain open. Ernest Frattini, treasurer of the Masonic Temple Corp., is one of three principal owners of the building that houses the Half Moon. He said the lot has been a municipal space since 1961 and the recent agreement is a continuation of that arrangement, which has so far benefitted the town.

“I believe it’s going to bring people in and give them a safe place to park,” he said. “I know the price went up, but my concern is our tenants. To shut the whole place down and repave it, they would be hurt. I think it will improve the town. If people see it, they might start redoing their own parking lots.”

Some who lived in Wallingford in the early 1960s remember the lot and its usefulness in accessing the shops along North Main Street.

Bart Bramby, 63, sat talking with a friend at a cafe table, lunching while visiting from Dallas, Texas to see his mother, Jean Bramby.
Bart Bramby said he left town for college in 1965 and returns often to visit family.

“My perception is that helping the businesses right here — this is a wonderful location — helps the town as a whole,” he said.

The deal was met with opposition a day after the council’s decision.

Two town councilors voted against it, and one who supported it, Jerry Farrell Jr., was accused by a local man, William Comerford, of a conflict of interest because his recently opened business is in one of the four buildings. Farrell said he has no relationship with John McGuire, the building’s owner.

“I’m there as a guest of the tenants, David and Jane Smith,” he said. “I don’t believe that my presence or absence has any effect on what gets paid to Mr. McGuire by the Smiths.”

Robert Gross, a local Democrat who ran unsuccessfully for the council, started a petition Wednesday to get the issue sent to referendum to overturn the council’s decision. The argument against the project is that the town should not use its money to improve private property.

Gross has until Sept. 8 to gather signatures from 10 percent of the town’s registered voters, which works out to 2,491. He said Friday that he and others who circulated the petition had collected more than 100 signatures per day since Wednesday, and would be collecting more Saturday morning at various locations throughout town.

“It’s a tough battle,” he said. “We have to get a lot of signatures really quickly.”

RECORD JOURNAL FORUMS - Aug. 11, 2011: Residents petition parking lot agreement

There is a thread over on the Forums pages of the Record Journal website titled Aug. 11, 2011: Residents petition parking lot agreement where there is some very sharp but engaged opinion and viewpoint on the current subject and I recommend people take a look at the thoughts that are being expressed there. (In case people are unfamiliar with my screen name I am GUNDERSTONE on the board.)

The news story itself can be found via Wallingford residents petition parking lot agreement

I have stated my thoughts on this; I still do not believe it is in the best interest for the town to leverage $500,000.00 in tax money to improve private property for the use of municipal parking.

We have had an agreement in place for years there that never involved a major investment like this and I believe we could come to a new agreement along similar terms – I don’t believe the deal needs to be sweetened.

If we are interested in using $500,000.00 in tax money to further augment and improve available municipal parking downtown we have the entire Wooding-Caplan lot that could use some serious maintenance and upkeep. Investing the money there, on our own property, would go a long way towards making sure there are more available spaces to use for patrons of the businesses there.

I am open to a better argument as to why using the money on the private parking area behind Simpson Court makes sense and has benefits down the road but I haven’t heard it.

Simpson Court parking deal and why it really isn’t a deal

Recently the Town Council approved an agreement with four private property owners giving the town the authority to make improvements worth $500,000 to the rear parking lots behind Simpson Court businesses. The agreement also requires the town to provide maintenance for 30 years at taxpayer cost.

There have been two articles in the Record Journal about it recently:

Some object to Simpson parking deal - Petition campaign seeks to force referendum

Nothing new about parking plan - Simpson scheme has been around more than decade

If we really wanted to do this we should have executed on it ten years ago when times were better and the project cost half as much. In true Wallingford fashion we waited and we’re trying to do it now when it costs much more.

In either situation I wouldn’t agree this is the best use for this money.

The Mayor is fond of saying when it comes to ball fields for Little League that if we build it for them, other sports teams would want facilities of their own too.

This has been one of his key points to the argument all these years which is one of the reasons why to this day there still is no single facility.

So if we spend tax dollars that benefit (even if it is a shared benefit) private property owners, wouldn’t we expect other private property owners to want the same benefits in the future?

I patronize many of the businesses in the Simpson Court area and this is nothing against them at all; I simply feel that it is a mistake to commit taxpayer dollars in this fashion.

We already consume tax dollars annually with the small degree of maintenance and support to the parking area already. This comes in the form of snow plowing in the winter and so on. This is in exchange for the use of the area for the businesses as well as “municipal parking.”

Obviously, people that patronize the businesses will use the rear parking – that would be expected. The agreement for the “municipal parking” use comes into play, as an example, when people park their cars there and go to the Twilight Tunes on the Parade Ground.

So in that effect the give and take is arguable, it’s been something we’ve been doing for a long time and as long as the overall and ongoing maintenance and support to the parking area stays manageable I don’t see any reason why the mutually beneficial agreement couldn’t continue.

I can’t support the use of funds to upgrade / improve their property however. At a bare minimum, after the improvements are made it could potentially make the respective properties more valuable. That’s great for the tax base I suppose but if the property owner, for example, sold the property and profiteered additionally as a direct result of tax dollars being used to upgrade and improve their parking area I don’t think I would be happy with that even knowing that the town still gets to use the area for parking out of the new owners. 

If $500,000.00 is available to address parking downtown then we should commit that to the Wooding-Caplan property. The town already owns that and it would be spending the dollars on the upgrading / upkeep of its own property rather than the private property of four business owners.

I support the petition that is being circulated which is calling for a public referendum on the item. If enough signatures are collected then it would go on the ballot for people to vote on. Additionally, it would be wise to put it on the general ballot in November as it would make it so there is no additional cost to the town anyway since there is a general election taking place.

At referendum, if the majority of the voters approve the measure to spend the money on the private property of four business owners, then the council would be realized to have made the correct vote on behalf of the citizens in the first place with respect to the project. Nothing will change and the effort can go forward – case closed.

If the citizens vote it down then they will have NOT agreed with the council’s vote and they will have had their say. The project will not occur and something else will have to be voted upon.

Democracy in action.

You’ve heard my thoughts on this - take some time to read through the articles in the newspaper and get the information for yourself.

Consider signing the petition which only sets up the referendum and allows it to happen.

Then, make your choice – yes or no – do we, as a town, want to spend $500,000 in this manner.

It’s your town – get informed and get involved.