As I've previously noted, the Fernald Center sits on roughly 200 acres of land, much of it prime real estate in Waltham. There have been estimates as high as $2 million an acre for this property.
The state's plan is to close the Fernald Center by next June and sell off the land to the highest bidders. Waltham, which has derived no tax benefits from the campus for the past 122 years, may be able to buy some of the land at a discount. But the governor has personally told Waltham's mayor, Jeanette McCarthy, that whatever the city does with the land should have an “economic component” to it.
In other words, the state wants to make money off this land, although it isn't saying just how much. In the administration's view, the development of housing has an economic component, whereas maintaining the land for open space doesn't.
At a Waltham City Council meeting on Monday night, according to The Waltham Daily News Tribune, City Council President Thomas Curtin estimated that the state's proposed development of 250 to 300 residential units of housing along with a new “health care or institutional facility” on the campus would net the state $50 million.
Curtin and other council members blasted the state's housing development idea, saying it will cause traffic and other environmental problems. “Is the state really that hard up for money?” asked Councilor Gary Marchese.
Councilor Ed Tarallo said he would only support a reuse of the land that is wanted by the community “and not what the state wants to force down our throat.”
Well, the fact is the state does need the money. But it seems there are better ways to raise those revenues than to close a vital state facility for persons with mental retardation and develop the land over the objections of the local residents.
Swift? Cellucci? Weld? It’s not…and the reason he has been allowed to get away with closing a state facility, evicting people with mental retardation from their long term homes, and privitizing the services and taking decent paying jobs away from state workers is because this SOB is “our guy.” No one wants to call him out because he’s “our guy.” Had enough yet?
He is definitely not my guy. I’m thinking we should be calling him the “Emperor” or the “King” since he can do whatever he wants. I HAVE DEFINITELY HAD ENOUGH.
For the last five years we have had to endure the administration’s neverending speeches that the Fernald closure is in the best interest of the residents, community first, etc. Give me a break. The only good thing I can say about this battle is now that the true motive behind the Fernald closure has been revealed maybe these speeches will mercifully end.
<
p>As if there were ever any doubt, the motive IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a land grab-nothing more.
<
p>The administration is willing to evict the elderly severely mentally retarded and physically disabled people from their home to get this land. These evictions put their lives in jeopardy. A fact confirmed by the U.S. Attorney. Doesn’t matter. And now the good people of Waltham are about to have a plan for a huge residential development shoved down their throats. Doesn’t matter that the residents of Waltham, don’t want it.
<
p>I’m trying to figure out when this state became a dictatorship.
<
p>
The Patrick administration, falling over backwards in its continued allergic reaction to the notion of fair taxation, hopes to raise revenues by running roughshod over towns.
<
p>The land always has an economic component. Sadly, the Patrick administration fails to see this because it fails to take into consideration how its plans will burden the town.
<
p>If the property raised revenue for the town rather than for the state, I would like to think that the clear economic component of land conservation would be more obvious.
<
p>Agricultural and open space demands far less in terms of city services while the tax revenue from such properties- unlike all others- erases costs associated with its use.
<
p>Studies by the American Farmland Trust demonstrate that in Gill, Agawam and Deerfield revenue/ expense ratios average 1: 1.12 for residential land, 1: .42 for Commercial/ Industrial land, and 1: .33 for Farmland/ Open space.
<
p>The permanent protection of parcels is also shown more likely to redirect economic growth in its influence on the pattern and direction of development. Proper municipal planning of protected parcels can help lower costs of municipal services and increase efficiency while increasing the valuation of land to raise revenue. Cities and towns with expanding residential development therefore cannot afford not to purchase land, given how the present rate of residential development- a rate commercial and industrial development is known to bolster- invariably shall raise costs of education and transit.
<
p>
The City of Waltham is concerned that adding a large-scale residential development of this sort will not only result in increased costs of educating additional children and providing additional sewers and other infrastructure; but it will increase traffic in the area, with its attendant costs.
<
p>All of those costs are burdens on the city, not the state. At the same time, as I understand it, the revenues that the city would raise in selling the land for housing development, or a significant portion of them, would be passed on to the state as payment for the land. The administration appears to me to be pushing for a zero-sum arrangement with the city.