NRA-Not Right Away

Gillian Swart had an interesting tidbit on her blog....well, one of many. Apparently, Mayor Moak has put forth a nominee to replace Nat Norton on the NRA. Details here.

It's been a few months since Nat Norton announced he'd like to step down, and last I heard he was hanging on until the mayor could name a replacment.

Since that time, however, the mayor applied for and failed to secure the city manager job in Winthrop and announced his plans not to run for re-election.

I mistakenly assumed the mayor might hold off on appointing a replacement, leaving the responsibility for either Donna Holaday or James Shanley, our two capable candidates to replace him.

But apparently he's not going to wait.

It's certainly within his right to put forth a name after all the new mayor won't be in place for six months. On the other hand, the new mayor will be in place in six months....can't this wait?

I think so.

For the record, this has nothing to do with his nominee, that's why I'm not identifying him here. This is more of a question of process and fairness.

I anticipate the waterfront will be a crucial campaign issue in the upcoming election. The newest member should reflect that outcome.

A Jim Roy Response

Jim Roy shot me an email asking if I was calling him out in this passage.

I'm still not sure how we'll pay for this. I see some inconsistences in the position of people who rail against the city for building senior centers or maintaining the Kelley School while simulataneosly insisting we just insert a big green patch of grass along the waterfront.

As I told him, I was but I wasn't. I was trying to state some general inconsistencies in the positions of waterfront park proponents. Jim was among the folks on my mind, but he wasn't the only one. Still, Jim has come out recently both against the senior center adn the Kelley School plans in the recent Liberator, I can see why he felt singled out.

Anyway, I welcome his perspective and he agreed to let me publish his email here.

Hi Tom: I assume (perhaps presumptuously) that you had me in mind when you talked about people "railing" re. the Kelley, Senior Center etc. My my, I'm offended.

I don't know how long you've lived around here (and it doesn't matter really, except in terms of institutional memory, so I'm not being a snob here in this respect), but for over twenty-five years I served (and was the chair for several years), on the Mayor's Traffic & Parking Committee. The closest we've come to getting a municipal downtown parking garage was during Lavendar's term, and we came within one cc vote to getting it (thank-you Erford Fowler et al). The whole point of the garage was the revenue it would have generated (it would have been almost completely pd for by the state, thus a revenue flow pretty quickly; now, of course, the construction cost of such a facility has more than doubled, and Moak has, in all probability, allowed our grant to expire).

A significant % of that revenue was to be earmarked for the NRA and to be used solely for park development. If you think the figure too meagre, ck out what Portsmouth NH nets from parking. My position is therefore not inconsistent in the least, as you claimed. We provided a funding mechanism that supported the waterfront, whereas in the current situation we're being delusional to say the least. I have never been an advocate of building things we can't or shouldn't maintain. Perhaps you'd like to "correct the record" in your next blog.

The two brick buildings in both Cecil renditions are there, pretty obviously, to generate income. That couldn't be clearer. For the record, I'm not opposed to them in the least.

The entire parking and traffic flow situation in Newburyport is black comedy. I could go on forever.

I will be "railing" in the next Liberator re. the NRA scheme, which is grossly flawed, uneconomical, and unrealistic. I appreciate their effort and work, but not the result. Something far more modest might, in fact, work.

Jim Roy

I'm not sure if this corrects the record, but it's delivers some institutional knowledge as well as another valid viewpoint.

I offered this in my reply to him:

I do know and appreciate the time you've spent on the parking issue. I wasn't here during the past few admnistrations so I missed the battles that have been fought and lost. I'll take your word on the revenues from the Portsmouth garage. That plan might have worked.

Unfortunately, as you note, it seems as if the opportunity is lost. It seems as if we're dealing with a new reality regarding the waterfront. Even if we were to implement a comprehensive paid parking program downtown--and I hope we do--I can't see the revenue being committed soley to park development at the NRA. Frankly, I'm not convinced that would be the best investment of those dollars.

I think the new reality demands that the NRA lots support themselves, at least partially. I'm glad to hear you're not opposed to the buildings along Merrimac Street. I took your KISS comments to suggest you only wanted to see greenspace on those parcels.

So there you go.

The Big Question

Katie Farrell has a nice summation of last night's NRA meeting in this morning's news.

But she didn't mention the most poignant moment.

Following the presentation of the two potential scenarios, which you can read about here, the consultant from the Cecil Group (I came late so I missed his name. Just got it from the article David O'Connor.) was taking questions. Things rolled pretty much as the article laid out.

Then came this question:

Audience member: Where would the money come from to maintain this [park]?

Consultant: Um….

Audience: Snicker

Consultant, after getting little input from the NRA: That remains to be seen.

Indeed it does.

I'm still not sure how we'll pay for this. I see some inconsistences in the position of people who rail against the city for building senior centers or maintaining the Kelley School while simulataneosly insisting we just insert a big green patch of grass along the waterfront.

I don't see how we'll keep the park in good order. We couldn't even afford to build most the parks we currently have.

Furthermore, I don't see how a wide open space would generate enough traffic to the local economy to offset the loss of parking.

Overall, I liked the plans presented. (BTW, I couldn't grab a copy of them. If anyone can send me an electronic version I'll post them up here.) I'd probably scale down on the elements within the green space (garden, sculpture park, etc) but stick with the bike path, tot lot and a smaller cafe.

But I could also support erecting some buildings on the Merrimac Street side of the east lot. I agree with the Cecil Group. While presenting a pleasant view of the river, the street lacks cohesion with the rest of the downtown. Take a look at some historical photos of the street and you'll see buildings lining Merrimac Street, injecting some vitality to what's currently an empty walking space.

Furthermore, the proceeds from selling the lots or working with a developer could help maintain the rest of the park.

Finally, I counted about 60 people there, with a lot of familiar faces. This matter isn't resonating with the public. It should be.

But The crowd correctly gave a nice bit of credit to the NRA for moving this forward.

Friendly Reminder

Ward 4 Friend and Councilor Ed Cameron posts an important reminder on his blog. The NRA is giving a public update to its plans for the waterfront.

Need reasons to go? Here are some:

1. Be interesting to see what the plans are for this vital piece of public property that could, but likely will not, provide some much needed new growth to the tax rolls.
2. See how far the NRA and Cecil Group have progressed from these hearings in February.
3. Watch newest NRA member James Shanley in action. He, of course, has quite a different vision for the waterfront than some. No guarantees this thoughts will be offered on Wednesday, but who knows.
4. You might see a blogger.
5. It's important.

Any questions?

Worth Noting

Stephen Tait's notebook also offered a little more detail on Patrick's visit to Newburyport, which we discussed below.

Patrick's visit was in part to meet with supporters in a closed-door meeting at the Plum Island Roasters and to meet with Costello at his Green Street office.

It also came with a few laughs.

At one point during a tour of downtown when crossing Merrimack Street, Patrick's State Police security detail went into the road to stop busy afternoon traffic and allow the governor and his group — which included Mayor John Moak and Council President James Shanley — to cross unfettered.

"I could get used to this," Moak said. "Usually I have to check four times before crossing

I'm not trying to read too much into this grouping. But it's worth noting that Mayor Moak may nominate James Shanley to an opening seat on the NRA. Gov. Patrick needs to accept the appointment.(I think I have that right. I can't find the original article in the News.)

So it's agreat that Shanley--an unenrolled voter who therefore isn't on any of the "Nice" lists in the Democratic party machine--got some decent face time with the Governor.

Not that I'm complaining

I was sort of surprised that a Tot Lot made it onto the latest version of the NRA's plans--or not plans--for the Waterfront.

I recalled during the October meeting the idea for a playground got very little support.

The power of Newburyport Posts could be felt as only one person--that would be me--voted for a playgrounds. Meanwhile, a farmer's market didn't even make it onto the ballot. (My fault there, I didn't offer it up during the meeting.)

The drawings looking attractive enough. I'm not at all sold on the notion that an ice skating rink will draw people down to the Waterfront. I'm still holding out for the Shanley Plan. But I acknowledge the odds of that happening are bleak.

For once, Erford Fowler summed up our thoughts pretty succinctly.

First with this...

"I think it looks great on paper," said Erford Fowler, a member of the NRA.

And then with this...

"You know what I'm starting to get really nervous about," he said at the meeting, "is how the hell are we going to pay for this?"

Am I nuts?

Or is this a really big deal?

NEWBURYPORT - The state has ordered the Newburyport Redevelopment Authority to clean up lead found in 1997 on its downtown waterfront land, or risk paying hefty fines.

The NRA, a five-member public board that for 39 years has owned the waterfront land known as the "dirt lots," is currently working on a plan to redevelop the land into a park and parking lots. There's about 420 parking spaces on the land now; a conceptual plan shows 240 spaces with an expanded park.

Tests performed on the land in 1997 found high levels of lead, and state regulations require additional soil testing and cleanup to be performed within one to three years. Those dates came and went with no action taken, leaving past and present NRA board members to explain how such an oversight could have occurred and to ponder how they will pay for the costly cleanup.

This strikes me as potentially high hurdle for any work being done on the waterfront. I know a great deal depends on the severity of the contamination, but I'd have to think that the contamination is pretty extensive giving the history of the water front.

To quote childhood hero Han Solo, "I've got a bad feeling about this."

Why a referendum wouldn't really work

Mary Lou Supple, former chairperson of the NRA, is kind enough to submit some guidance about why a binding referendum on the waterfront wouldn't work. It's simple really and one I should have noted immediately given my earlier questions about what role the mayor play's in Waterfront development.

The reason why there can be no binding referendum on the final disposition of the NRA waterfront property is because the City does not own the property; the NRA owns it.

The rationale for creating redevelopment authorities was to take the development out of the political process. And this worked fairly well when the NRA was selling off lots for redevelopment. It had a large cash flow, paid director and staff. Right now, there would be a hotel, and the city would be subsidizing the hotel's parking had the 1990 LDA with Roger Foster not been challenged by a new NRA board after 3 members resigned.

That contract, declared null in 1999 by Judge Richard Welch because its benefits to the developer were not in the public's best interest, and that HUD had said it would not approve it. Despite HUD's disinterest in the matter later, their approval was necessary at the time the contract was signed. The LDA would allow Foster to purchase the property at a 70% discount on the appraised value and require the NRA, at its own cost to build and maintain a parking lot for the hotel on the West Lot.
Foster would pay the NRA (and subsequently, the City after the NRA disbanded), $35,000 a year for parking. The debt service on the cost of building that parking lot would be many times the payments Foster would make. The City would be required to maintain it, and yet the public could not use it. (Unless the hotel did not need it.? I think that meant when it was empty and no one worked there. I admit I never fully understood what was called "flex" parking.)

After the land was again unencumbered, the NRA sent out the 2000 survey in order to find out what the will of the people was and attempt to carry it out. Anything other than selling the lots to a developer, which is still an an option for the NRA, would require a partnership with the City. That's where the idea that the City owned this property arose. It does not, and a referendum on use of a property it does not own is unenforceable. The City might as well attempt a binding resolution on the use of Karp's land.

What the City COULD do is a binding resolution on what it would be willing to give the NRA to fund a Park or another use of the waterfront. The problem there is that, if the public voted to fund a park, the City would be obligated to fund it. If the public voted to fund another use, the NRA could simply refuse to accept the funds, because it owns the land.

Now, here's an interesting idea. What if at some point the concept of a park went forward and the city holds an Proposition 2 1/2 override vote to see if people want to pay for the costs associated with maintaining the park.

That would be the ultimate binding referendum.

Oh No He Didn't, II

So there I was, sitting with James Shanley at Plum Island Roasters. A first, he reminded me a bit like a World War II Japanese soldier who'd been holed up on a remote island with no idea the war was over. After all, many wars had been fought over the right to develop those parcels, and by all measures those opposing development have won.

Victor Tine presents a Ken Burnsian chronicling of these various battles as part of the Daily News' Port in Progress series. Here is Part One. Here is Part Two.

Coming back to Newburyport after a decade away, it appeared to me that the front-line has shifted away from developing the waterfront. Now the trenches had been dug on either side of the question, "How much Park. How much Parking?"

The idea of developing the parcels, to me, was dead. It's clear that lawyers were the only ones making money on development proposals.

But Shanley doesn't see it that way, and he says he's not alone. (Judging by the initial comments and emails generated by my first introductory post, I'd say he's correct.)

In our talk, Shanley noted that the NRA didn't seize those lots through eminent domain to be park or parking lots. Indeed, they were suppose to be part of the larger redevelopment going on downtown, a commercial connection between the river and Market Square.

I could go on recalling the meeting, but Shanley, in response to an email that Bruce Menin sent to both of us after the first post, lays out his position nicely. Why don't I just let him take it from there.

I was a very vocal advocate for the City spending CPA funds to purchase open space on the outskirts of town. This makes sense for many reasons, ecological and quality of life being the most prominent. But to save what must be saved, you need to build what must be built. Density is the other side of the open space coin. We have been kidding ourselves into believing otherwise.

Bruce is correct in his assertion that historically the waterfront was heavily developed. Its spelled out nicely in the study of Newburyport called Port and Marketplace (sic. I later learned its called Port and Market). Even though we are not shipping goods out of the waterfront, it still is a major economic driver for Newburyport. The trouble is that we have been viewing it through the lens of July and August. The rest of the year, much of what could be generating tax revenue, economic activity, and equally important, daily human interaction lies fallow. Car and dock storage is a very poor use of land that could be helping us meet our challenges.

What challenges? Well, money. The city is strapped for cash. Shanley says the city must maximize the value of the holdings we have, and the waterfront property is extremely valuable. A parking lot certainly doesn't do this, even if we ever did adopt a paid parking system.

As for creating a larger park, Shanley says the city doesn't have the cash on hand to maintain a park of this size. We have enough trouble maintaining the parks and playgrounds we do have. (I was surprised to learn that most of the playgrounds in town were built with private funds. Yet another reason to love this community.)

Shanley makes a great deal of sense. Yet, I was surprised this opinion still exists in our polarized political landscape, a rare third point-of-view in a city where you're either progressive or conservative; pro- or anti-override, or favor putting parking or park along the waterfront.

Shanley says many in town want a third option. He may be right. Perhaps that's why the city has had trouble reaching a consensus all these years. "There are many others (who support this idea,)" he wrote. "But they have been worn down by the issue. I intend to keep speaking out, so that maybe those who are at least willing to have a conversation about the waterfront being something other than a park or parking will feel safe to do so."

Next post: Is he right?

Also, you know we're going to have to have a poll on this thing. Warm up the browsers and dust off the mouse pad. Check in on Monday.

Oh No He Didn't

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I enjoy hearing James Shanley speak at meetings.

First, he speaks well. Second, he makes sense. Third, his positions typically mirror my own. (Yes, two and three are inextricably linked.)

So imagine my surprise when, a few weeks ago at the NRA's public hearing on the waterfront, I found myself having no idea what the hell he was talking about.

To set the scene, the NRA had just rolled through its Powerpoint presentation and opened the floor to comments. Not surprisingly, a slight majority of the comments (like 99.99 to .01) denounced the plan as having too much parking. The collection of politicians and candidates--the only folks wearing jackets and ties--had to rush to get their words in. They they were due to attend the Newburyport Mothers Club's candidates forum at another location.

Shanley was among the well-dressed fast talkers.

But, unlike the others, Shanley didn't talk about park space. Instead, he talked about economic engines. Instead of crediting or criticizing the NRA for its King Solomon-inspired proposal, Shanley said the NRA good intentions were being misspent, that this wasn't the right time for this project. That the land was too valuable to the city.

To be clear, he was using complete sentences that expressed lucid thoughts. But without some further context I couldn't believe what I was hearing. The NRA lots as a economic rather than aesthetic engine?

A few days later I emailed Shanley asking him to expand on his thoughts because I couldn't quite grasp his point. He graciously offered to do so, admitting he had rushed through his comments at the NRA meeting. He said he'd given similar testimony to the the NRA members before so he didn't feel the need to go into great detail in that setting.

So we met at Plum Island roasters, sort of Ground Zero for the Waterfront, and he explained his position further.

Shanley isn't in favor of park or parking. Nope. He'd like to see some commercial and mixed use development somewhere along the waterfront lots.

Interesting, more in the next post.

Last Day To Vote

Don't forget to participate in the Park or Parking Poll in the column to the right. NRA Chairman Nat Norton, in a lapse of reason, admitted he actually has this blog bookmarked. So he will see the results.

Polls close at Midnight.

Safe and Happy Halloween.

Ta Da! Your Newburyport Waterfront (maybe)

I don't have a lot of time this morning to discuss. My real job beckons, but the NRA unveiled a conceptual drawing last night.

It is NOT a plan. Repeat, Not a plan. But it does give one an idea what the lots would look like with 43% fewer parking spaces, 240 vs. 320. Park accounts for 64% of the land in this drawing.

No new structures are depicted on these plans. But the NRA--which I think did a nice enough job of running a very difficult meeting--solicited ideas for possible features on the Waterfront. Those attending even got to vote for their favorite ideas, which was nice.

The power of Newburyport Posts could be felt as only one person--that would be me--voted for a playgrounds. Meanwhile, a farmer's market didn't even make it onto the ballot. (My fault there, I didn't offer it up during the meeting.)

But NRA members say this is just the beginning. Again, more on the meeting later. Read the News today. I know it's all over the front page. What I don't know is why they didn't run this drawing bigger, and the picture--which includes the back of this intrepid blogger's head--a bit smaller. (No offense meant to old colleague Bryan Eaton, an NRA meeting doesn't exactly present any "Flag Raising over Iwo Jima" moment.)

And please take time to cast a vote in the first ever Newburyport Posts poll. Polls close when midnight strikes on Halloween night.

BTW, if anyone wants to send me a JPG file of the entire proposal I'd appreciate it.

East Lot
Custom House far right

West Lot
Firehouse bottom right

Answer To A Question

So I asked a stupid question last week and an emailer followed up with quickly with a wise reply.

What the hell does the mayor have to do with developing the NRA lots anyway?

The friendly email directed me to an article in The Daily News that I should have recalled. Within the article I found an answer, but I can't say I liked it. (You can also read a bit more on this in today's Daily News, which gave a nice preview to the NRA meeting tomorrow. I always appreciate when previews are run the day before, rather than the day of, an event.)

So, what influence does the mayor and city have on the lots since they waterfront seems to be tightly controlled by the NRA and the Waterfront Trust?

As far as the mayor's impact on the future of the central waterfront, [NRA Chairman Nat] Norton said the city does play an important role. He said there is a standing invitation to the mayor and the city's planning office to weigh in on the future of the waterfront.

"We welcome that contribution and insight the city's planning office can contribute," Norton said. "We are hoping for that to happen with whoever is mayor."

One important aspect for the waterfront is for action on parking in the downtown district, Norton said. He said "there hasn't been any activity in that area" even though it is "something that will influence" what the NRA can do on the waterfront.

"The one component of this that the city - the mayor, the Planning Office, the City Council - can influence is some sort of parking management plan for the city and replacing the parking that is going to be displaced on the waterfront," Norton said. "If that parking is truly needed in the downtown, the NRA doesn't have other property to move that displaced parking to, and that is something the city government can do: move some initiative forward."

"That is a very important component to the park," Norton said.

So that's it. I knew parking was an issue, but I always assumed that was just part of the puzzle, and that the city had more pull over what goes on along the waterfront. But I didn't realize--and I should have--that parking was THE crucial tie between the city and, what the News affectionately calls, the "dirt lots."

Nat Norton makes a valid point about parking. If the NRA is going to remove spaces--and we actually need the same number of spots (see letter in Monday's paper)--then those spots need to go somewhere. But is that really the NRA's problem?

If it wants to be a good neighbor, yes. But if it wants to fulfill the potential of the lots it now possesses then perhaps not. The idea that a portion of the waterfront space needs to be sacrificed for parking doesn't seen logical.

It's difficult to get a lock on what percentage of the waterfront would go toward parking. Tomorrow's hearing might give some ballpark estimates but unfortunately I don't think it will present anything firm.

The NRA sits on a piece of property that--if developed properly--could attract more visitors and business to the downtown. But some want to use some of that very same property to accomodate the parking those visitors would require.

I've been trying to come up with an apt analogy but I really can't. I guess it would be akin to Disney World tearing down Space Mountain to build a parking lot for the visitors looking to go on rides.

To be sure, the mayor and the planning office should have some advisory role in what ultimately happens. But the NRA should really make this decision based on the merits of the project.

More on parking in a future post.

My second point (read below item first)

Can someone tell me what role the Mayor will have in the development of the waterfront. I know he appoints a number of members to the NRA (not sure what number to be honest but I'll try to look it up.) But once the appointments are finished, what say does the Mayor/City/City Council have over development of the two lots?

I get the sense from the Port in Progress series that the NRA can act independently. So I'm left with the understanding that the NRA members can determine the future of the waterfront.

Moreover, Fred Hufnagel raises a very good point about the Waterfront Trust in his letter to the Daily News. This was in response to Jim Stiles' suggestion to hold weddings on the Waterfront as a means to raise fees:

The problem for the city is that it doesn't own waterfront park or most of the boardwalk. Ownership of these parcels (apart from the two NRA parking lots) was transferred to the Newburyport Waterfront Trust, a public charity, in 1991. The Trust, not the city, owns the land and receives any income from what goes on there. The Trust is not a city body; its only relationship to the city is in the appointment of its members by the mayor and City Council. Fees from events held on Trust lands are used by the Trust to help cover the costs of mowing the grass, trimming the trees and for other maintenance and improvements. So far this year the cost of park maintenance has been over $22,000, plus another $6,000 spent on repairs and improvements. Not all this money comes from fees; there are also a number of very generous donations made to the Trust. But fees from waterfront events are part of the whole package and are definitely needed by the Trust to help maintain this area.

So if the NRA controls the lots, and the Waterfront Trust manages the rest. What is left for the city and the mayor to do?

I'd love an answer that I can publish here.

Well I’m glad someone asked.

Thanks to the Newburyport Redevelopment Authority for outright asking for some ideas about what to do with the Central Waterfront.

I’ve got some ideas but rather than offer them right now I’d rather comment on some of the ideas suggested in the Daily News.

Expanded Sculpture Park
Please no. I like sculptures, I really do. And I particulary enjoy the sculptures on the boardwalk over by the Black Cow. They are a nice little surprise as one walks toward the water, and I appreciate that. Would a few more hurt? Quite the contrary, but an entire area dedicated to sculptures seems like it would be widely seen but hardly used. I'd probably lump the Garden suggestion in here as well. A small one would be a nice feature, but gardens too often seem less inviting than less delicate uses.

Sitting area with benches
Benches should be part of everything, but is this really an idea?

Lecture space
Absolutely not. Go to the Firehouse or the high school if you want to lecture. This is the outdoors. Let's move around.

Historic recognition
If it's mixed in with larger uses, sure. But this should not be the primary focus of the Waterfront. Looking back is great--and necessary--and we do a lot of it in this town. And we should. But let's move forward (if I may borrow a line from friend and neighbor Ed Cameron.)

educational exhibit based on fishing/boat building heritage
Some pictures and posters might be nice. But let's not make this a history lesson. And if we want to honor our fishing heritage, let's keep the fishing boats and establish a fish market.

Memorialize location of historically significant waterfront buildings
We've got plenty of historical buildings that serve as such memorial. Let's not make the waterfront the Theme Park of What Was.

Delineation of historic shoreline
I like this idea. Could be done well with tiles, brick or some other surface. I think it would be an eye opener and a neat feature.

Pavilion
Nah, let's not try to recreate Revere Beach here (and I mean that in a good "in it's hey day" sort of way. I don't like creating "gathering places." Boston City Hall Plaza was supposed to be a gathering place. Other than the occassional questionable Pep Rally does it serve this purpose at all. As for it's providing protection against inclement weather, that's what our stores, restaurants and homes are for.

Harbormaster building
Hmmmm, probably not. Perhaps by Cashman.

Child playground
Full disclosure, I have a child. But nothing adds vitality and visitors like a playground. Ever go to Cashman on a nice sunny day. Great energy. But this would be part of a bigger puzzle.

Public rest-rooms
Sure.

Unprogrammed active recreation area
What does this mean?

Informal sports play area
Does this mean grass?

I'm getting winded. Let's wrap some of these up...

Yankee Homecoming events
Seems like there’s enough space now.

Visitor's/Information center, Kiosk/ map of downtown attractions, Ticket sales for boat tours
Sure, but this garnish. Where’s the beef?

Farmer's market
HERE IT IS.

I didn’t understand the resistance to the farmer's market at The Mall. Those arguing against it suggested it would draw business away from our locally owned businesses. But that wouldn’t be the case if our local farms sold their fruit and vegetables there. In fact they’d reach out to a people who might not otherwise make it to their farm stands. I don't see how this would be any different than the food vendors who stuff Market Square during long weekends. Don't they draw business from restaurants? If so why are they permitted.

This might work on the waterfront. A farmer's market as part of a larger marketplace where folks living here and elsewhere can find fresh local goods, fish off the boats, locally made goods/crafts, perhaps some art. Think Pike's Place in Seattle but with a lot less building.

Add in a playground and a few other features, including more open space, and we'll have an even greater treasure.

I think the worst thing we could do—and this is a tired argument—is overdo the parking. Is it practical? Yes. But big opportunities aren't always practical. They require leaps of faith, at least that's what folks around here through 30 or 40 years ago. That seems to be the overall message being conveyed by the Daily News' Port in Progress series.

If we pave it and park on it we’re going to miss a great opportunity to create something truly special, something no other city or town in the region or the state can really boast. If it’s done well enough the downtown will thrive, and we’ll find some other place to park our cars.

I can't wait for the 24th.