NEWSHOUND POST: Is all clear for the state bond for Waypointe infrastructure?

Posted on 01/25/2010

The Common Council will consider Tuesday night a request by the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency to broaden the use of a $5 million state bond for public infrastructure work related to the West Avenue redevelopment project Waypointe.

READ THE FULL POST ON THE NEWS HOUND BY CLICKING HERE

COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in Wilton Villager community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines. Basically, be civil, smart, on-topic and free from profanity. Don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read! And remember: We may miss some, so we need your help to police these comments. Please identify the comment, the story and why you think it's objectionable.
Read the commenting guidelines

Add a new comment

They should use this money for other, much more important projects and forget about Waypointe entirely. Pay attention to what your citizen taxpayers are telling you, Mr. Mayor and Council members! We don't WANT Waypointe, and you'd better start hearing us or we'll make SURE you do at the next election.

Posted by: anonymous | Jan 25, 2010
reply

Money was allocated specifically for infrastructure improvements related to redevelopment project, and therefore cannot be used for other capital or operating budget items.
However, state COULD tell Norwalk that the money cannot be used for site control, but I think they have already approved the new language to include this. BUT! If you read the proposed language, it says NOTHING about proeprty acquisitions and site control.....
Hey Hour, how about a little digging around to get to the bottom of this...

Posted by: Diane C | Jan 25, 2010
reply

I agree the funds should not be used for property acquisitions/eminent domain seizures.

I wasn't in Norwalk back when the properties were seized for 95/7, but we can not allow history to repeat itself here.

The WAYPOINTE plan needs to be re-addressed - and as I inidcated below, no further Norwalk tax dollars should be allocated to this pipe dream.

Norwalk is not West Hartford. The WAYPOINTE plan was wrong from day one - that's why they never signed one lease or received a letter of intent from any tenant.

Posted by: TED IN NORWALK | Jan 25, 2010
reply

Lets talk impeachment of this mayor

Posted by: anonymous | Jan 25, 2010
reply

is there a public hearing Tuesday night or is this another "pre approved" taxpayer shafting?

Posted by: anonymous | Jan 25, 2010
reply

I am out of town on business tomorrow but I urge all like minded taxpayers to attend - I will send my other half

This project does not merit any more of our tax dollars. Nothing has happened in 5 + years but more tax money going down the drain.

Let WAYPOINTE proceed, but NO MORE TAX DOLLARS OR EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS ! LOOK AT THE 95/7 DISASTER DOWN THE STREET.

I am all for development, but it should be 100% financed from the private sector.

Posted by: TED IN NORWALK | Jan 25, 2010
reply

"I am all for development, but it should be 100% financed from the private sector."

Ted, well said. At the very least, no public funds should be expended except as "rebates" following construction and occupancy. This way the developer, and not the taxpayer, fronts ALL the costs and risks! Otherwise ALL of the development projects will be holding our council and us HOSTAGE for more money, more money, more money....

In my humble opinion, these massive projects seldom turn out to be "mutually beneficial", thus warranting the public investment. These are not win/win- I best most are win/lose. Developer makes big bucks. Projected tax revenues never materialize. Drain on city services is enormous if not crippling.
The burden of proof is not on me to illustrate the lack of tax revenue and benefits; it is on the city to prove that they exist. Let's see specific examples....how about Connecticut and Westport Avenues retail development, Main Avenue office development, etc

Posted by: Diane C | Jan 25, 2010
reply

A public information session and hearing on this item was held last week by the council Planning Committee.
However, you can comment on any council agenda item at the beginning of each meeting, so Tuesday night you will have 3 minutes to make comments or ask questions (it is not a dialogue, however, so your questions may or may not get answered).
Having said all that, if 100 folks show up to object to the further expenditure of public funds for private development (property purchases or infrastructure), especially given the status of other similar development projects, then perhaps this item would be sent back to committee yet again.....?

Posted by: Diane C | Jan 25, 2010
reply

Thank you Diane. It is so frustrating that such important decisions only become public after the planning committee has approved them? why doesn't the Hour report on what is upcoming on the planning committee agenda? how does the planning committee publicise these "hearings"?

Posted by: anonymous | Jan 25, 2010
reply

Anonymous, in this case, there was some limited coverage in The Hour. As to publicizing these agenda items, you would have been hardpressed to recognize the agenda item as a $5million grant language change to include site control. In fact, here IS the original agenda item when it passed through planning committee the first time around (December)....
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
1. Authorize the Mayor to request that DECD submit the following language to the State Bond Commission to amend the funding request for the $5,000,000 Urban Act grant approved December 12, 2008 for the City of Norwalk Waypointe mixed-use development project in the West Avenue
Corridor redevelopment area:
These funds are requested to provide a grant-in-aid to the City of Norwalk to assist with the development of public improvements associated with the Waypointe mixed-use development project in the West Avenue Corridor redevelopment area.

This is why you often see me call agenda items cryptic, ambigous, confusing and misleading...

Posted by: Diane C | Jan 25, 2010
reply

Although I think Avalon Bay is a moster it was done with private money. The only thing I know that the city gave to them was the constant traffic problems.
We should not fund any more of these projects let the private sector do it.
There is a glut of apartments in Norwalk and we are adding 300 @ Avalon Bay and 100 with POKO. How many more do we need ?

Posted by: Randomthoughts | Jan 25, 2010
reply

The POKO apartments will end up bring section 8/welfare - that's POKO's specialty. They will not be able to afford cars so traffic is no issue.

The residents can use the Norwalk Transit busses at the nearby pulse point - they just need to use the bathroom at home before they make their trip.

Posted by: LOL NEAR FOX RUN | Jan 25, 2010
reply

whats jACKIE got to say?

Posted by: anonymous | Jan 25, 2010
reply

"Said Sheehan: 'There could be instances in which the redeveloper actually ends up owning a parcel that was purchased by the city using the state grant. However, the redeveloper�s obligation under the master development agreement would be to purchase that property back from the city for what it paid for it. That money would then be returned to the additional public infrastructure account.'"

ahhh, unless the council waives that requirement, right, Tim?

Posted by: Diane C | Jan 26, 2010
reply

Most Read
Most Comments
Most Emails

1. Girls Basketball -- Highs and lows for Warriors

2. Star Trek actor arrested for DUI in Wilton

3. The Candy Bin hopes for sweet success in Wilton

4. Happy birthday Charles Dickens

5. Wilton Police Reports

1. Town officials roll out fiber optic capital plan

2. Wilton Police Reports

3. Wilton schools 'not fully committed' to online textbooks

4. Miller-Driscoll timeline set

5. Man arrested on 9-year-old littering charge

1. Family asks area residents to 'spin' to save a life

2. The Candy Bin hopes for sweet success in Wilton

3. Star Trek actor arrested for DUI in Wilton

4. Wilton schools 'not fully committed' to online textbooks

5. Town officials roll out fiber optic capital plan