This speech was delivered to the Board of Aldermen on 2-20-2007
My fellow citizens, the time has come for the posturing to stop and action to begin. Two weeks ago I was here advocating for the complete and proper restoration of City Hall. Judging from what I have seen published in the newspaper since that meeting; most of you share my opinions as to the future of this building. I applaud your dedication to the city, and your talk about respecting the history of Waterbury. Unfortunately that is all that has been done so far, talk. As we all heard in the meeting on the first of February, the cost of construction is not going down, the longer we wait, the more this restoration project is going to cost. The time for action is at hand.
I understand that it is not an easy job, being a member of the Board of Aldermen. You have to weigh what you believe with the beliefs of your constituents. You have to compare what is right for the city with what is right for the residents of the city. These two goals are not always in concert. When there is discord it is your job to decide what is best, in your minds and in your hearts, and hope that everything turns out, as it should.
Tonight I call on you, as my elected representatives in the city government, to move quickly in approving a bond package. I understand from what I have read that there is the necessary two-thirds support for what has become known as “Option 5”, the complete restoration of this building and the moving of the Fire Department to a location next door. As a member of Main Street Waterbury and as a lifelong citizen of this city, I support this decision, and look forward to its passage.
However, respected Aldermen, I still have my concerns. There is such a thing as “paralysis by analysis”, and you cannot let idle chatter needlessly delay this project. Furthermore you need to send a clear message to the residents of this city, and of the central Naugatuck Valley, that this is what you stand for.
I have heard several times in the past that certain members of this board want the issue to go back to the citizens of Waterbury. While this is a noble concept, in this particular case it is fraught with hazards. While people talk about referendum and petition drives, this building, a building that should be the crown jewel of Waterbury, continues to fade. Furthermore, those on this board who push for a referendum are only shirking their elected responsibilities. The citizens choose their leaders, who in turn make the difficult choices. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, we, the citizens of Waterbury, have chosen you. Now is your time to step up and say that this is what we believe. This is what we feel should be done. You are the fifteen that have been chosen by the concerned citizens of Waterbury to make the difficult decisions for us. As one of those concerned citizens I am asking you to act quickly on city hall. Show us all that you are the leaders that we believe you to be.
And finally, to my fellow citizens in the gallery I offer this challenge. Look past your wallets and into your hearts. Look around this room and try to envision what could be before us. Imagine a room that provides inspiration, a room that leaves visitors awe-struck. This is what could be; this is the pride our city could have, if, and only if, you join me in supporting this restoration.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Monday, February 05, 2007
Price vs. Value
This speech was delivered to the Waterbury Board of Aldermen on 2-5-2007
Members of the Board of Aldermen, Mr. Mayor, and my fellow citizens, I am here before you again to urge the proper restoration of our historic City Hall. This week we heard from the Waterbury Development Corporation about five potential options for this building, ranging from mothballing the building, to complete and appropriate restoration. Each option has its own price tag, its own benefits, and its own drawbacks. As a member of the Main Street Waterbury Design Committee, and as a life long resident, I feel that we need to consider the future of this landmark very carefully.
I make no qualms about expressing my support for either of the restoration options that are before you tonight. Regardless of whether or not you decide to keep the Fire Department here in City Hall, or if you move the engines and men next door, this building must be taken care of. It is absolutely disgraceful to even contemplate the mothballing or sale of this historic site. Not only is it a slap in the face to Cass Gilbert, and the members of the Cass Gilbert Society, but it is also a terrible signal for the city of Waterbury to send to its neighbors in the Naugatuck Valley.
Furthermore, neither of these options will save the city any money in the long run. Not only will the city have to spend close to one million dollars a year in rental space and utility fees, but the cost of construction will continue to rise. If we take Mr. OÂ’ConnerÂ’s estimate of 8% inflation a year then a $40,000,000 project in 2007 will cost $50,388,000 in 2010. In addition, the condition of City Hall will deteriorate exponentially the longer that it is left closed.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, there is more to this issue then just dollars and cents. I am fully aware, as are my Main Street friends and constituents that you will hear from those who feel that any expenditure on this building, besides the bare minimum, is too much. These people will continually talk about the price of restoration, and the price of city hall, and the price of a new building. In response to them, I quote Oscar Wilde: “A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
Ladies and gentlemen, this issue is about more then the price of City Hall it is about value. The value that we place on our history, the value that we place on our community, the value that we place on our buildings, and the value that we place on ourselves. Members of the Board of Aldermen we need to look within ourselves and decide just what we value. Do we value the history of Waterbury? Do we value the pride that Waterbury used to feel and can feel again? Do we value our city and ourselves enough to stand up and say that this is the most important issue facing this city tonight? That this is what we believe in and that this is what we are willing to stand up for?
My fellow citizens, I know what I value. I value this city, a city that I have come to call home. The city that holds my past, and my future. This building is something I value, something that I am willing to stand up for. Something that I hope you will stand up for. After all, to paraphrase our motto, what is more lasting then the Brass City?
Members of the Board of Aldermen, Mr. Mayor, and my fellow citizens, I am here before you again to urge the proper restoration of our historic City Hall. This week we heard from the Waterbury Development Corporation about five potential options for this building, ranging from mothballing the building, to complete and appropriate restoration. Each option has its own price tag, its own benefits, and its own drawbacks. As a member of the Main Street Waterbury Design Committee, and as a life long resident, I feel that we need to consider the future of this landmark very carefully.
I make no qualms about expressing my support for either of the restoration options that are before you tonight. Regardless of whether or not you decide to keep the Fire Department here in City Hall, or if you move the engines and men next door, this building must be taken care of. It is absolutely disgraceful to even contemplate the mothballing or sale of this historic site. Not only is it a slap in the face to Cass Gilbert, and the members of the Cass Gilbert Society, but it is also a terrible signal for the city of Waterbury to send to its neighbors in the Naugatuck Valley.
Furthermore, neither of these options will save the city any money in the long run. Not only will the city have to spend close to one million dollars a year in rental space and utility fees, but the cost of construction will continue to rise. If we take Mr. OÂ’ConnerÂ’s estimate of 8% inflation a year then a $40,000,000 project in 2007 will cost $50,388,000 in 2010. In addition, the condition of City Hall will deteriorate exponentially the longer that it is left closed.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, there is more to this issue then just dollars and cents. I am fully aware, as are my Main Street friends and constituents that you will hear from those who feel that any expenditure on this building, besides the bare minimum, is too much. These people will continually talk about the price of restoration, and the price of city hall, and the price of a new building. In response to them, I quote Oscar Wilde: “A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
Ladies and gentlemen, this issue is about more then the price of City Hall it is about value. The value that we place on our history, the value that we place on our community, the value that we place on our buildings, and the value that we place on ourselves. Members of the Board of Aldermen we need to look within ourselves and decide just what we value. Do we value the history of Waterbury? Do we value the pride that Waterbury used to feel and can feel again? Do we value our city and ourselves enough to stand up and say that this is the most important issue facing this city tonight? That this is what we believe in and that this is what we are willing to stand up for?
My fellow citizens, I know what I value. I value this city, a city that I have come to call home. The city that holds my past, and my future. This building is something I value, something that I am willing to stand up for. Something that I hope you will stand up for. After all, to paraphrase our motto, what is more lasting then the Brass City?
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Back From the Drawing Board
Tonight the Board of Aldermen had a special meeting regarding the issue of Waterbury’s historic City Hall. At tonight’s meeting Mike O’Conner from the Waterbury Development Corporation presented the city with five options for dealing with the center of our local government. Each option had its benefits and its detriments, with the quantity of each depending on which side of the political spectrum you sat on. Fortunately for those of us who believe in supporting the cities historic buildings, the options that seemed to garner the most support and interest were those that focused on the appropriate restoration of City Hall.
Anyone involved in last November’s referendum knows that the complaint heard most often by the voters focused on a lack of information. With that in mind I am going to post tonight the notes from the meeting, as I gathered them. The original documents regarding this issue will be available at wdconline.org after 2/2/2007.
Option 1 – This is the dreaded option of abandonment. Without rehashing the arguments posted before regarding the need to preserve our sense of history and our architectural monuments, there are several financial options that need to be noticed. Firstly, abandoning City Hall would require the following expenditures from the city. $768,000 per year in rental costs for the office space to hold the city employees. It will cost $100,000 to move these employees and the city records to a new location. Lastly, the city will be forced to spend $300,000 per year to keep the utilities on in City Hall to prevent it from decaying any further. Also, according to WDC estimates, the cost of construction is going up at approximately 8% a year. Therefore, a project that would have cost $40,000,000 in 2007 will cost $50,388,000 in 2010. It seems that there is quite an extensive cost to doing nothing.
Option 2 – In this case the WDC entertained the notion of selling City Hall to private development. They were unable, however, to give any idea of just what City Hall would sell for, if it ever sold. The WDC are not magicians after all. Furthermore, the costs detailed above would still be an issue while the building was on the market.
It seems quite clear to anyone reading that these two options have serious flaws. Quite frankly, I believe that the only reason the WDC even mentioned these options was due to a vocal minority who insist on believing that these options are worthwhile.
Option 3 – The Bare Minimum. In this case the city would spend $22.2 million to simply fix the fire code violations on the first floor and in the basement. They would have this work completed in such a way as to allow the city to continue it’s work at a later date (and a higher cost). Major flaws in this particular option are the fact that the city would still have to pay almost $400,000 a year in rental costs, as this plan would leave the city still needing almost 37,000 square feet of office space. Furthermore, this plan makes no attempt to maintain the historic courtyard in front of City Hall, with its majestic marble and fountains from yesteryear.
Option 4 – Restoration While Keeping the Firehouse. This option calls for the city to completely renovate City Hall, while keeping the Fire Company 10 stationed in the building. This option is a decent compromise, as it does not displace the firemen who work there, it honors the history of the building and the city, and it maximizes the space available. This option is not perfect, however, as the city would still need to rent over 12,000 square feet of office space. This particular plan has an estimated price tag of $35.8 million.
Option 5 – Restoration While Moving the Firehouse. If the city moved down this path Engine 10 would be moved out of the historic City Hall and into the maintenance facility that is currently housed next door. This plan has the largest price tag, at $39.1 million, but it seems to be the best compromise between the city and the Fire Department. With the Fire Company only being moved next door there will be no impact on the engines response time to a call. This will obviously alleviate any public safety concerns that had been raised over the original plan. That plan called for Engine 10 to be moved to a West Main Street location. Furthermore, with the space that was being used by the Fire Department now available for office space the city has more then enough room to move all of it’s departments in. This will save the city any future rental costs that were currently being paid for the Sovereign Bank building.
There you have it readers. The options before the Board of Aldermen, with my own personal opinions added in. I have made no secret what I feel should happen to City Hall, and I hope that now you have seen the facts you will share in my convictions. The Board of Aldermen is next meeting on February 5, and I hope you will come and join me in supporting the restoration of City Hall.
Anyone involved in last November’s referendum knows that the complaint heard most often by the voters focused on a lack of information. With that in mind I am going to post tonight the notes from the meeting, as I gathered them. The original documents regarding this issue will be available at wdconline.org after 2/2/2007.
Option 1 – This is the dreaded option of abandonment. Without rehashing the arguments posted before regarding the need to preserve our sense of history and our architectural monuments, there are several financial options that need to be noticed. Firstly, abandoning City Hall would require the following expenditures from the city. $768,000 per year in rental costs for the office space to hold the city employees. It will cost $100,000 to move these employees and the city records to a new location. Lastly, the city will be forced to spend $300,000 per year to keep the utilities on in City Hall to prevent it from decaying any further. Also, according to WDC estimates, the cost of construction is going up at approximately 8% a year. Therefore, a project that would have cost $40,000,000 in 2007 will cost $50,388,000 in 2010. It seems that there is quite an extensive cost to doing nothing.
Option 2 – In this case the WDC entertained the notion of selling City Hall to private development. They were unable, however, to give any idea of just what City Hall would sell for, if it ever sold. The WDC are not magicians after all. Furthermore, the costs detailed above would still be an issue while the building was on the market.
It seems quite clear to anyone reading that these two options have serious flaws. Quite frankly, I believe that the only reason the WDC even mentioned these options was due to a vocal minority who insist on believing that these options are worthwhile.
Option 3 – The Bare Minimum. In this case the city would spend $22.2 million to simply fix the fire code violations on the first floor and in the basement. They would have this work completed in such a way as to allow the city to continue it’s work at a later date (and a higher cost). Major flaws in this particular option are the fact that the city would still have to pay almost $400,000 a year in rental costs, as this plan would leave the city still needing almost 37,000 square feet of office space. Furthermore, this plan makes no attempt to maintain the historic courtyard in front of City Hall, with its majestic marble and fountains from yesteryear.
Option 4 – Restoration While Keeping the Firehouse. This option calls for the city to completely renovate City Hall, while keeping the Fire Company 10 stationed in the building. This option is a decent compromise, as it does not displace the firemen who work there, it honors the history of the building and the city, and it maximizes the space available. This option is not perfect, however, as the city would still need to rent over 12,000 square feet of office space. This particular plan has an estimated price tag of $35.8 million.
Option 5 – Restoration While Moving the Firehouse. If the city moved down this path Engine 10 would be moved out of the historic City Hall and into the maintenance facility that is currently housed next door. This plan has the largest price tag, at $39.1 million, but it seems to be the best compromise between the city and the Fire Department. With the Fire Company only being moved next door there will be no impact on the engines response time to a call. This will obviously alleviate any public safety concerns that had been raised over the original plan. That plan called for Engine 10 to be moved to a West Main Street location. Furthermore, with the space that was being used by the Fire Department now available for office space the city has more then enough room to move all of it’s departments in. This will save the city any future rental costs that were currently being paid for the Sovereign Bank building.
There you have it readers. The options before the Board of Aldermen, with my own personal opinions added in. I have made no secret what I feel should happen to City Hall, and I hope that now you have seen the facts you will share in my convictions. The Board of Aldermen is next meeting on February 5, and I hope you will come and join me in supporting the restoration of City Hall.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Defending Our Neighborhoods
This speech was given to the City Planning Commission on January 16, 2007
I am here tonight to speak in support of the proposed moratorium on high-density developments within the city. I feel that the character of our city is currently at risk. While the city moves forward with the Plan of Conservation and Development, there seems to be a rush of proposals bent on getting as many high-density buildings on every small piece of land before it gets re-zoned. A few months ago I made a similar plea before this commission regarding the proposed addition of over 170 condos on Route 69. In that instance, I felt that the proposed construction would severely damage the character of the East Mountain neighborhood that I have called home for almost 25 years. The arguments that I brought forward in that specific case are just as relevant here.
Waterbury is a town of neighborhoods and communities. Even during Waterbury’s growing days, at most the city allowed three-family houses, which were more often then not occupied by members of the same family. There were never these large condominium complexes until the condo-boom of the 1980’s. Now it seems that people want to put these impersonal, stark developments all over the place. These developments are often devoid of character and personality. They do not foster the sense of community and neighborhood pride that can be found when you drive down Peach Orchard Rd., or Gaylord Dr.
Furthermore, there seems to be no need for all of these new developments. In the city today, according to realtor.com, there are 177 condos or townhouses available for sale within the city limits. These condos range in price from $40,000 to $300,000, and can be found in all parts of the city. With all of these empty, or at least emptying, condos, does the city really need to add up to 1000 more, depending on which rumors you believe?
In conclusion, I feel that this proposed moratorium is in the best interests of the city. Waterbury cannot afford any more scattered high-density complexes. There is a place in the Plan of Conservation and Development for this type of construction, but it is not to be squeezed onto scattered, small, lots. These will only harm the city of Waterbury’s character by straining the neighborhoods that have developed over the years. Furthermore, since there seems to be no rush on the condominiums that are already in existence, I just don’t see the point of adding more. Therefore ladies and gentlemen I am asking you to support this moratorium, and do so quickly, before any one else tries to squeeze another inappropriate complex into town. If they are that determined to bring condos to Waterbury, let them do so in a manner that supports the cities vision for the future.
I am here tonight to speak in support of the proposed moratorium on high-density developments within the city. I feel that the character of our city is currently at risk. While the city moves forward with the Plan of Conservation and Development, there seems to be a rush of proposals bent on getting as many high-density buildings on every small piece of land before it gets re-zoned. A few months ago I made a similar plea before this commission regarding the proposed addition of over 170 condos on Route 69. In that instance, I felt that the proposed construction would severely damage the character of the East Mountain neighborhood that I have called home for almost 25 years. The arguments that I brought forward in that specific case are just as relevant here.
Waterbury is a town of neighborhoods and communities. Even during Waterbury’s growing days, at most the city allowed three-family houses, which were more often then not occupied by members of the same family. There were never these large condominium complexes until the condo-boom of the 1980’s. Now it seems that people want to put these impersonal, stark developments all over the place. These developments are often devoid of character and personality. They do not foster the sense of community and neighborhood pride that can be found when you drive down Peach Orchard Rd., or Gaylord Dr.
Furthermore, there seems to be no need for all of these new developments. In the city today, according to realtor.com, there are 177 condos or townhouses available for sale within the city limits. These condos range in price from $40,000 to $300,000, and can be found in all parts of the city. With all of these empty, or at least emptying, condos, does the city really need to add up to 1000 more, depending on which rumors you believe?
In conclusion, I feel that this proposed moratorium is in the best interests of the city. Waterbury cannot afford any more scattered high-density complexes. There is a place in the Plan of Conservation and Development for this type of construction, but it is not to be squeezed onto scattered, small, lots. These will only harm the city of Waterbury’s character by straining the neighborhoods that have developed over the years. Furthermore, since there seems to be no rush on the condominiums that are already in existence, I just don’t see the point of adding more. Therefore ladies and gentlemen I am asking you to support this moratorium, and do so quickly, before any one else tries to squeeze another inappropriate complex into town. If they are that determined to bring condos to Waterbury, let them do so in a manner that supports the cities vision for the future.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Are We Ready?
In two weeks time the Waterbury Financial Planning and Assistance Board (also known as the State Oversight Board) is expected to return turn control of the city of Waterbury to the city government itself. Many in the city are praising this move as something that is long overdue, as a sign of Waterbury’s new found strength and success. For the most part I agree with these people, the fact that the Oversight Board is leaving is a good thing. It’s good to see Waterbury climb its way out of the troubles that plagued the city back in 2001. I am trying to be optimistic that Waterbury will be able to continue this pattern of growth, development, honesty, and fiscal common sense, and become a beacon for the state of Connecticut.
However, my opinions are far from unqualified. I have many, grave, concerns about just what is going to happen next.
As you have read in the past, I truly want to see the city of Waterbury rise up from the mistakes of the past and move forward in a new direction. I also have shown an understanding that this process will not be easy, and it probably won’t be cheap. There are some, however, who only think of themselves and getting back what they’ve lost over the past five years. This is where I see the first problem.
The Unions in the city of Waterbury have been especially vocal during the tenure of the Oversight Board, and I feel that this is the quarter that will attack the city’s stability first. The Firefighters Union has made it very clear that they are unhappy with the Oversight Boards decisions regarding scheduling, salary, and retirement benefits. They also demonstrated some pretty nasty tactics when this contract was being negotiated. I cannot help but feel that the union is waiting for the 22nd of January to roll around so they can take the city to court and throw out the current contract. If this is indeed the case they the Firefighters Union will have shown its true colors. They will not be the colors of bravery and sacrifice worn by firefighters themselves both city and worldwide. The will, however, be the colors of arrogance, greed, and self-righteousness. The union will show itself to be a disgrace to the city.
Also on my mind are the issues regarding the city and its historical buildings. I have written several times about the need to protect and restore City Hall, and my opinions on the issue have not changed. Far from it. I am more convinced that the city is going to need to spend some time (and money) cleaning up its image and maintaining the gains that have already been made. This means the restoration of City Hall. This means addressing any issues that may exist with the Chase Building as has been reported. This means ensuring that the new schools that are in the works, as well as the ones being considered, are done right. No half-measures, no cutting corners, no trying to make a quick buck off the back of our city’s future. Waterbury deserves better then that.
Lastly, I have concerns about the Mayor. This may seem like a bit of a potshot, but in all honesty Mayor Jarjura has not shown the city that he has the determination and the will to make difficult decisions. So far the Mayor has been a caretaker, and a good one at that. The Oversight Board, though, made any difficult decisions that had to be made. Mayor Jarjura didn’t have to make the unpopular moves on his own, so he did not have to take the blame for them on his own. Maybe in the next 11 months the Mayor will show the determination and fortitude that has not been visible during the past five years.
Basically, I am optimistic, but nervous. I look at the future of Waterbury and get a sense of excitement, and fear that is commonly heard from actors about to take the stage. Waterbury is standing on the edge of a cliff. Make the right moves, and the city will prosper. Make the wrong moves, and it’s a long drop now that the safety net is gone.
As I mentioned though, I am trying to be optimistic. Here’s to the new year, the new possibilities, and (hopefully) the new successes.
However, my opinions are far from unqualified. I have many, grave, concerns about just what is going to happen next.
As you have read in the past, I truly want to see the city of Waterbury rise up from the mistakes of the past and move forward in a new direction. I also have shown an understanding that this process will not be easy, and it probably won’t be cheap. There are some, however, who only think of themselves and getting back what they’ve lost over the past five years. This is where I see the first problem.
The Unions in the city of Waterbury have been especially vocal during the tenure of the Oversight Board, and I feel that this is the quarter that will attack the city’s stability first. The Firefighters Union has made it very clear that they are unhappy with the Oversight Boards decisions regarding scheduling, salary, and retirement benefits. They also demonstrated some pretty nasty tactics when this contract was being negotiated. I cannot help but feel that the union is waiting for the 22nd of January to roll around so they can take the city to court and throw out the current contract. If this is indeed the case they the Firefighters Union will have shown its true colors. They will not be the colors of bravery and sacrifice worn by firefighters themselves both city and worldwide. The will, however, be the colors of arrogance, greed, and self-righteousness. The union will show itself to be a disgrace to the city.
Also on my mind are the issues regarding the city and its historical buildings. I have written several times about the need to protect and restore City Hall, and my opinions on the issue have not changed. Far from it. I am more convinced that the city is going to need to spend some time (and money) cleaning up its image and maintaining the gains that have already been made. This means the restoration of City Hall. This means addressing any issues that may exist with the Chase Building as has been reported. This means ensuring that the new schools that are in the works, as well as the ones being considered, are done right. No half-measures, no cutting corners, no trying to make a quick buck off the back of our city’s future. Waterbury deserves better then that.
Lastly, I have concerns about the Mayor. This may seem like a bit of a potshot, but in all honesty Mayor Jarjura has not shown the city that he has the determination and the will to make difficult decisions. So far the Mayor has been a caretaker, and a good one at that. The Oversight Board, though, made any difficult decisions that had to be made. Mayor Jarjura didn’t have to make the unpopular moves on his own, so he did not have to take the blame for them on his own. Maybe in the next 11 months the Mayor will show the determination and fortitude that has not been visible during the past five years.
Basically, I am optimistic, but nervous. I look at the future of Waterbury and get a sense of excitement, and fear that is commonly heard from actors about to take the stage. Waterbury is standing on the edge of a cliff. Make the right moves, and the city will prosper. Make the wrong moves, and it’s a long drop now that the safety net is gone.
As I mentioned though, I am trying to be optimistic. Here’s to the new year, the new possibilities, and (hopefully) the new successes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)