Final bet.

In today's day and age, overwhelming support for anything can be gauged in simply one way, an actual vote.

Sorry, but the concept of basing decisions on how many e-mails and letters get delivered and how many people show up at a meeting, has in fact recently, on several occasions, been proven in our town to be not quite as reliable as indicated. Well I should say for the most part.

Have we all forgotten the events of 2013? There having been a time period when the e-mails, letters and attendance at meetings were overwhelmingly in opposition to something, or have we really forgotten that?

Now subsequently as that year worn on, there was a shift in the nature of the e-mails, letters and attendance. That resulted in an overwhelming outcome.  So sometimes the answer is yes, but not always.

Think back a bit further, to the prior year or two say. Overwhelming evidence of support or lack thereof more properly, if simply evidenced by e-mails, letters and attendance would have by definition put an early end to the process resulting in the new Wood School.   

Had decisions been made simply on the volume of correspondence and bodies showing up to public meetings, there would be no new school.  It is that simple. You know it and I know it.  

Yet somehow when it came to counting votes, sometimes more than once admittedly, what actually happened? there have been more than just a few surprises over the past several years haven't there?

This piece isn't really about the RFP process versus the auction process for town owned buildings acquired other than through tax title.  For reasons hinted previously, that decision is actually a bit moot and essentially has been since the beginning of the whole disposition process.

This is now turning on the RFP itself.  Something that should be been obvious from the get go.  

First, let's all get realistic about this process.  The most accurate statement about the two buildings is the fact that the processes should be about what the town can realize from the actual sale.  

I agree with that totally.

Quite simply, once a decision is made on any scenario, if the town recoups what has been spent in this entire process since the buildings became vacant, and will end up spending, we will be fortunate. It isn't and shouldn't be about something that is going to be insignificant in the scheme of things, or just as likely nonexistent.

And from this point on, let's get realistic about the fact that the real push and effort is about one building.  We can argue about the reasons and purported justifications regarding why Rogers is being dealt with first and all we would end up doing is arguing.  To attempt to require concurrent disposition of both buildings at this point will only do more harm than good.

So as to the Rogers building ...

Your intrinsic value for anything does not equal the value to a buyer. Your vision of what something can be used for does not make something desirable to a buyer. 

I will be extremely honest in stating that even if there were no conditions put on the property in the RFP, the Town's financial "gain" for a sale will be minimal. Basically have said. 

One point I do want to make is the continued use of what in this instance is a red herring argument.  "Single family" construction having a negative impact.  It certainly can. No way to deny it can.  

To use the argument however to justify throwing out an option for a maximum 4 to 6 house lots (a combined maximum of what 9, if both sites) is quite frankly simplistic and unintentionally misleading at best.

Negative impact? Maybe if you build 6 homes, each home has 3 children of school age, the exact same age, enrolling at the exact same time, going into the exact same grades and that scenario applies forever. 

When you have a negative population growth, get real about the fact that statistically 18 new kids will impact any one grade level by 3, whether it will have a negative impact is in fact determined by what additionally resources you have to spend.  

Yes it costs X amount of dollars on average to educate a child. However adding 18 kids to the total enrollment doesn't add automatically 18 times X (unless you are stuck with a regional school formula that increases your enrollment from the prior year automatically increasing your contribution for the next year even if you had originally agreed to something else, but I digress in this aside).

Only if you have to add staff and provide additional services that increase costs specifically for these children that cannot be fit into a budget do you have a negative effect. Six homes are not necessarily, and on average probably going to have a minimal impact for say a six year period at best. 

Keep in mind people not only move into town, they move out. Children leave the system. 

The concept of economy of scale involves the simple fact that no mater how small your population shrinks, you need a certain number of schools, classrooms, teachers and administration.  For some of you that presently involves too many.  Reality is however that while the potential is there new homes could increase some costs, that potential exist whether it is for new construction or a family moves into an existing home.

Six homes are not going to require you to add a police officer, firefighter, more BPW personnel or Town Hall staff. If we were in a period of rapid development, if there were a prospect for it, fine argue "negative impact".  It is a red herring however when presented as a matter of fact all the time. 

But now I simply digress in the blog. You are use to that aren't you?

Single Family Residential is probably not an option because even in this supposedly resurgent economy, there is in all probability not enough money to be made by a developer.

An important aspect of the "must have it" consultants' report on the RFP:

Promotion of RFP 

It is clearly in the town’s interest to receive as many proposals as possible. One way to accomplish this is to reach out to known architects, developers, owners, property managers, and end users of repurposed historic properties. The processing and effective promotion of a RFP requires considerable effort. If the town does not have the staff available or to hire/contract a designated coordinator to perform the necessary tasks they could contract with a Real Estate Broker on a contingent flat fee basis. A “template RFP” has been prepared to be used as a “too”l to develop criteria needed to complete a sale. It is not in a final form to be issued and must be reviewed and amended by Town Counsel, selectmen, and town department heads before any issuance.

What is he telling us here?  Let's see if you come to the same conclusion I have.

The very first sentence quoted above however should be the driving force. 

Bottom line for this whole thing, no matter how you look at it, the net purchase price under any scenario is in fact going to be minimal at best, and zero being a potential figure.  For the Rogers building that is. 

So with the RFP being a reality, with the fact that unless you put out the RFP with substantially all of the terms and conditions of the recommendations of the committee, and of course those recommended in the "must have consultants" report, we will simply see further delays in a process longer than if we just go with it. 

If we are fortunate enough to get a responsible bidder, well great. If not, we tweak the RFP, spend a few thousand more and do it again.  At some point, it will sell or nature will do its bit to resolve the problem.

Just get it rolling. We just coughed up how much money to demolish a condemned building the size of a small house? 

The cards have been dealt. Time to let the cards speak. The bet is all in on the RFP proposal. From a personal perspective, I am folding.  Lay those cards on the table and let's see if those going all in on the proposal have been dealt a winning hand.

Enough for today.

Be safe.