The only disappointment in today's article was a quote from Mr. Maynard, one of the principal investors in Chestnut Hill;
"We're not interested in engaging in a fight for 18 months with people who aren't even willing to listen to what we're going to do and give us a fair shot at trying to explain ourselves." (emphasis added)The reason I highlight these two sections of Mr. Maynard's quote is because I have had first hand experience of their attempts to "explain themselves.
On April 16 of this year, the Environmental Control Commission (WECC) sent a letter to Chestnut Hill with 31 questions that we still had about their proposal. Those questions were never answered. In fact, Chestnut Hill considered it "premature" to answer these questions, as they did not have an application before the state boards. It would seem to me that the WECC was more then willing to listen to Chestnut Hill. They didn't want to answer our questions.
Furthermore, on May 26 I was scheduled to meet with Mr. Goodemote to discuss the "misconceptions" that he said were floating around the city regarding the Chestnut Hill proposal. We all know how that meeting turned out.
So, while I agree that the city of Waterbury needs new investment and companies willing to move into town, remediate our brownfields, and provide our citizens with good paying jobs, we cannot afford to have the city take a step back just for the sake of moving.
On a final note, I found it interesting that the article in today's paper closed with a reference to Mr. Maynard's previous comment about a "tyranny of the few" derailing this project. If that was the case, how come the only person to speak out in favor of the plant is the editor of Connecticut magazine, who has one letter to the editor referenced three times? (The original printing on 6/28, the article on 7/5, and today's article.)
Meanwhile, a rally against the plant draws dozens to downtown on a Saturday morning, and three separate letters are published in the newspaper condemning this particular proposal. Additionally,one of the letters even provided some alternative options for the Anamet site. While not all of the options mentioned are viable, at least the letter does not just say no.
In closing I would like to commend Steve Schrag, the Chairman of the WECC for his work in getting the commissioners and the public the facts that were necessary for us to make an informed decision about the Chestnut Hill proposal. Despite what Mr. Maynard would like to believe, this was not the tyranny of the few, but an informed decision by the citizens of Waterbury. Hopefully the future will bring brighter days, and better options for the Anamet site.
1 comment:
I don't think it was necessarily a bad thing, but it seems like there was an immediate political backlash that destroyed any chance of an objective assessment.
Although the greenway sounds like a nice addition, people keep using it to justify their own personal vision for the City and for property uses along the river. The best thing we can do is adopt more realistic goals. The whole area along the river is in bad shape, and we have no plans and no money for construction. Look at the canal trail in New Haven for an idea of how hard it is to create an urban greenway. They already have a defined path for their greenway and probably most of the rights-of-way. They also have a world-famous university to draw in demand. Yet, they're nowhere near completion. You can bet that our's, which seems much more complicated, will encounter a lot more challenges.
If/when this property changes from its current unappealing and dangerous state, the best we could hope for is a paved lot or a big-box retailer. It's too contaminated for residential, so anything else would require us to divert money from much-needed infrastructure upgrades, which is a terrible idea.
By the way, I haven't been able to find any information on Loyola's plans online. Do you know what they're proposing for the South End Redevelopment and where it will go?
Post a Comment