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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)