O'Regan said it is important to separate those two buildings since one is dirty and the other must remain clean for safety, sample testing and for customers who visit the site.
"It is not the best environment for them to go walking into," he said of the current plant, which often smells of the product it treats.
The idea make a lot of sense. The obvious questions are, how will we pay for this? I assume it would be part of any bonding that's done to repair the site. Still, it's a lot of coin.
I also wonder if it's wise to take such a valuable piece of property off the tax rolls. But I suspect the proximity of a wastewater treatment plant diminished the value just a bit.
4 comments:
Tom,
The money to purchase the parcel in question will come from a bond, the repayment to come either from an increase in the sewer rate, or alternatively, by a debt exclusion (taxes). The advantage of the former is that one's real estate tax won't go up. The advantage of the later is that the amount would be part of one's real estate tax, and that is a deduction on one's federal income tax. The voters will need to make this choice.
The parcel has been on the market for a while. Its proximity to the sewerage plant has to have something to do with its not being sold/redeveloped, along with the fact the the City has expressed interest. These two factors have made it a tough sell.
That site has made it to the short list of the New England Aquarium for their future research labs. Gloucester and New Bedford are also potential sites.
My hope is that the obvious cultural advantages and proximity to Boston will make Newburyport their first choice.
James Shanley
Interesting. I didn't know that New England Aquarium angle. So the city's purchase of the site would put a kybosh on that?
Perhaps the NRA would be interested in a more central site? Like one belonging to the NRA?
No, the City's interest wouldn't deep six the deal. The Aquarium would be interested in only some of the parcel, leaving plenty for the City.
Win-win.
James Shanley
I believe I read in the Daily News that the property is assessed at roughly $600k but appraised at $1.5 million - so either the property is under-assessed or city is over-paying. Seems that either way the tax-payer is getting a bad deal.
Post a Comment