[WILWRadio]

And since that land is currently zoned for residential development, it limits the use of the land unless a variance can be obtained. That being the case, it may not be the best investment at this time for the residents and tax payers of WH.

[Mr_250]

Could see why WH didn't want to buy the UCONN property. They have to implement the largest tax increase in thirty years in order to pay for mandated charges and the anticipated loss of revenue from the state. Mill rate is above 42! What?!

This budget is going to crook every town in CT.

[MikefromCT]

Couple of things to keep in mind here. First off, as others have correctly pointed out, towns such as ours are being penalized for being fiscally sound, and our funds are being redistributed to bail out cities like Hartford (that reek of fiscal incompetence), so we're now having to get by with less (a LOT less). So there's a reluctance to spend public dollars on things like this now that the town is strapped for cash. Secondly, if the town did buy this property, they would be stuck potentially footing the bill for costs further down the road, and in addition to this property abutting wetlands, there's potential asbestos here and this can be expensive to remove. If a private developer were to come in and offer to buy the property with PRIVATE money and remove hazardous materials (as one did with property off Newington Road in Elmwood where a small shopping plaza is thriving), then I'd be all for it. My biggest concern is if it IS bought and the intent is to make it residential that whatever is built concurs with the neighborhood and maintains the integrity of it (in other words, not a crappy, ticky-tacky McMansion subdivision). On a more personal note, this latest tax hike may very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back for me as far as wanting to remain in this state. I have HAD IT with the taxes in this state. There has not been one increase in quality of life for myself or anyone as a result of these (the exception, of course, perhaps being the public sector and those on public assistance), and the leaders of this state are simply too dumb to realize their methods of solving problems (constant tax hikes, shifting tax $ from suburbs to city) aren't working.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by MikefromCT

Couple of things to keep in mind here. First off, as others have correctly pointed out, towns such as ours are being penalized for being fiscally sound, and our funds are being redistributed to bail out cities like Hartford (that reek of fiscal incompetence), so we're now having to get by with less (a LOT less). So there's a reluctance to spend public dollars on things like this now that the town is strapped for cash. Secondly, if the town did buy this property, they would be stuck potentially footing the bill for costs further down the road, and in addition to this property abutting wetlands, there's potential asbestos here and this can be expensive to remove. If a private developer were to come in and offer to buy the property with PRIVATE money and remove hazardous materials (as one did with property off Newington Road in Elmwood where a small shopping plaza is thriving), then I'd be all for it. My biggest concern is if it IS bought and the intent is to make it residential that whatever is built concurs with the neighborhood and maintains the integrity of it (in other words, not a crappy, ticky-tacky McMansion subdivision).

Unfortunately given the price that the land is likely to fetch from a private developer, it is likely that there will either be pricey "McMansions" or higher density (condos or apartments) housing built there. As was noted, even if the town is able to get a good amount of taxes on those homes, it likely would not cover the added burden on schools (as many as 200 new students) and public services (fire, police, etc.). The town leaders really need to think carefully about this and consider their options and their full implications. Jay

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

St Joseph's should buy the campus not the city.

Jay your comments make no sense, have you ever been to West Hartford?

That idea actually did get brought up. Either that or have U. of Hartford expand and use it for classroom lecture halls as UConn currently does. But neither school was interested unfortunately, so it's back to the drawing board.

[MrGompers]

I do not live in West Hartford, but I would think they (West Hartford) should buy the land. If only for the fact that if they have control they can dictate what happens to the land in the future. I.E. prevent any one from building houses there and adding XX numbers of kids to the school systems.

Surely the cost of the land and potential upkeep would be less expensive than adding 100-200 new kids to the school systems. Also, new residents will increase the demand for police, fire, Emt, sewer, and water systems.

Even if West Hartford had to issue bonds for the purchase, we have some of the lowest interest rates in history right now. This is a great time to buy on credit if your credit is good. West Hartford's credit rating is Aaa according to Moody's. I believe this is the second best credit rating they issue with AAA being the best.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I do not live in West Hartford, but I would think they (West Hartford) should buy the land. If only for the fact that if they have control they can dictate what happens to the land in the future. I.E. prevent any one from building houses there and adding XX numbers of kids to the school systems.

Surely the cost of the land and potential upkeep would be less expensive than adding 100-200 new kids to the school systems. Also, new residents will increase the demand for police, fire, Emt, sewer, and water systems.

Even if West Hartford had to issue bonds for the purchase, we have some of the lowest interest rates in history right now. This is a great time to buy on credit if your credit is good. West Hartford's credit rating is Aaa according to Moody's. I believe this is the second best credit rating they issue with AAA being the best.

Not entirely correct when you say they can dictate what can or cannot be done with the land. I believe any zoning change would have to go to a vote of the residents of WH to approve a project that is not currently zoned for the property.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Not entirely correct when you say they can dictate what can or cannot be done with the land. I believe any zoning change would have to go to a vote of the residents of WH to approve a project that is not currently zoned for the property.

West Hartford has a Town Plan & Zoning Commission that makes these decisions. It would not go to the residents. Jay.

[Lincolnian]

Bad move. Bargain land for the town. The town is very crowded as it is. It would be sad to think that they may have to acquire land in the future through eminent domain in order to support foreseeable growth. The pension allocation issue is a DOA issue. I think this issue is more connected to the national narrative of cutting government than the feasibility of this purchase. In many cases the cuts are warranted but in this instance it appears to be short-sighted.

[LINative]

Originally Posted by Lincolnian

Bad move. Bargain land for the town. The town is very crowded as it is. It would be sad to think that they may have to acquire land in the future through eminent domain in order to support foreseeable growth. The pension allocation issue is a DOA issue. I think this issue is more connected to the national narrative of cutting government than the feasibility of this purchase. In many cases the cuts are warranted but in this instance it appears to be short-sighted.

Totally I agree, very short sighted. The exact same argument against this purchase because it is too expensive were the exact same arguments said 50 or 100 years ago about buying land for parks or highways or any public good.

Hammonasset Beach State Park for example, was originally the gun test range area for a gun manufacturer (Winchester Repeating), fortunately the land was bought by the state in 1919 to be a State Park before it was divided for residential plots use so much of the rest of coastline.

An example of what shortsighted opposition can cause is Sherwood Island State Park, fortunately the park was formed anyway but a higher price then it could have been. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwo...e_Park#History

Quote - "In 1923, another 18 acres (73,000*m2) north of the island were acquired for possible use as a parking lot, although they were unconnected to the other 30 acres (120,000*m2). Some access to the park at this time was available through the Town of Westport's Burying Hill Beach. At this point, further development of the park stalled when local landowners, led by local property owner Edward Gair, persuaded a town meeting to oppose further land acquisitions and spending on the park. The state legislature, reluctant to act without local approval, defeated a proposal from the State Parks Commission to spend $500,000 on further park development. Large beachfront properties were acquired by developers. For the next nine years, supporters and opponents in Westport and Fairfield County debated the matter. By 1932, the state leased more land in what became the park (with an option to buy within five years) and opened the park that summer".

You can see the same thing over and over again as these two examples. For most of our larger area parks, there was always opposition to spending and a lot of our parks, not to mention our roadways and bridges would never have been built if we listened to the naysayers.