LD 2003 Public Information Meeting Open Thread
Here’s the really skinny on what I heard at the public meeting this morning:
- In general citizens think the idea of working regionally to promote economic development, job creation, and planning is a good idea, although they are not sold on the idea of a development authority
- Citizens at the meeting do not support this legislation as written, particularly because of the broad powers it would give a development authority, it would add another layer of government, it does not offer voter participation at key decision points, and much of the language is vague
- Citizens strongly stated that the process has not allowed enough citizen participation. Opportunities for input were poorly publicized and what has been offered has been too little, too late
- Citizens at the meeting would like regional development efforts to address sustainable practices and to be assured that a casino would not be part of the plan and would like to see that reflected in the legislation
- Citizens who spoke would like to see this legislation killed and an opportunity to start over with more citizen input during the process.
What did you hear?
Read more about the background of LD2003
Tags: eliot, news, regional dev authority, south berwick
February 10th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
The above is a good summary of the proceedings.
I left the meeting with more questions than when I arrived.
One of my original questions was the relationship of increased tax base to decreased state school funding. Not answered still. Mr. Nelson mentioned TIF, but that means no money for the near term and hopefully the unnamed business partners due well in the future so there will be a return years in the future, or more trust and risk required by us the citizen financiers.
At the meeting I received a copy of the $15,000 original grant application. This makes interesting reading given the information presented by the South Berwick Town Manager that we are going to be seeking more grant money to fund a FEASIBILITY STUDY.
This planning effort was exactly to fund a feasibility study.
The question remains, Do we wish to authorize a new authority the ability to borrow approximately $100 million dollars or 1% of the total valuation of the seven towns for no specific reason? The valuation number came from the audience and not the panel who chose not to answer the question. Perhaps there was a fear of sticker shock.
I past posts I’ve encouraged all citizens to read the bill. Now in addition I encourage all citizens to read the grant application and compare it to the bill. Of the proposed six outlined services mentioned in the grant application I find five of the six incomplete:
1. Educating the general public about the concept of a regional industrial park, tax base sharing, cost sharing, and examples of other regional industrial parks.
3. Outline how an inter-local agreement would work in the case of a 4-8 town regional industrial park.
4. Develop criteria for the possible location of a park.
5. Provide a rough cost/benefit analysis of a model industrial park.
6. Provide the basis for a more in-depth regional market analysis.
I ask the readers: Do any of you feel that any of the above were accomplished?
It was established at the meeting that our town council voted to authorize a feasibility study. This is consistent with the grant application. To quote the great Fred Willard. “Wha hap-und!” I certainly would like to hear the rationale of how this effort got so far away from stated purposes of the grant.
Quasi-municipal districts or authorities work best when they are created to serve the public with specific services that are needed but not otherwise provided. For example, a sewer district is charged with the safe collection, treatment and disposal of sewage. We still don’t know what problem this proposed authority is going to solve, what it is going to do to solve the problem, what it is going to cost and how we can effectively control it.
Senator Peter Bowman again expressed his doubts about the bill. It remains to be seen if this is another switch-a-roo like what happened in the lead up to the BRED public hearing.
We’ve moved on through BT, CZ, IP and, now, RDA. At some point someone is going to have a lot a splain’n to do about the lack of success and the failure to build consensus and support for these ventures. By the way we had four of our town staff plus Craig Nelson, the consultant, at the Saturday meeting. I wonder how these services are being paid? Just curious and as I stated above…more questions.