The city of Westbrook appears to be considering another development proposal for Saccarappa Park after a Cape Elizabeth developer couldn’t get financing for his proposal.
The Saccarappa Park Redevelopment Committee was scheduled to meet Thursday morning. However, it was unclear what they would be discussing.
The city’s director of economic and community development, Erik Carson, wouldn’t say what projects the city was pursuing in the wake of the most recent problem to befall this project.
Which causes us to ask: What’s the big secret?
The city has been very public about its plans to develop this park from the very beginning, and for good reason. This is a public park in the middle of downtown that the city is planning to sell to a developer to put a four or five story building on. Members of the public deserve to know what the city plans to do with it.
The city has been through three public requests for proposals. And, now that the most recent project selected by the city has fallen through because the developer selected by the city couldn’t get financing for the project, Carson wants to take negotiations behind closed doors. He said Wednesday he expected the committee would discuss any proposals in executive session.
While many real estate negotiations are conducted in private, it would seem unusual and unwise to do so in this case. It’s unusual because the details of this project are already public. John Gallagher, the director of the Westbrook Housing Authority, and Tim Flannery of Flannery Properties spoke quite openly in interviews with the American Journal about the fact that the city had approached them in recent weeks. And, why wouldn’t they? They both submitted proposals for public scrutiny last spring.
It’s also unwise to keep details of this project from the public because it’s bound to raise suspicions, even if there’s no basis for them. This project has a contentious history – one that should have taught the city the value of public disclosure long ago. The city backed away from a plan to develop the park several years ago, after a public backlash over the city’s use of the park as a staging area for construction on the Riverwalk.
Members of the public didn’t know the city planned to replace the trees with a trailer, construction equipment and mud. Consequently, former Mayor Ken Lefebvre and a group of investors had to weather accusations of “backroom deals.” It’s no wonder Lefebvre and company have subsequently shied away from proposing anything else.
Wisely, Mayor Bruce Chuluda came into office several years ago promising improved communication with city councilors and the public. He explored the possibility of putting a commercial development on the park carefully and publicly. He held a series of public meetings and then again requested proposals publicly – the second such request, which didn’t yield any developments that were attractive enough for the city.
So, why, all of the sudden, when the most recent proposal for the park fell through, which was submitted in response to the third public request for proposals, did the city suddenly get very quiet about the project? When developer Norman Richman of Cape Builders and Remodeling failed to produce evidence that he would be able to obtain financing by the city’s deadline in August, the city said nothing. The city is now quietly contacting developers and declining to talk about what’s going on.
Proceeding this way is going to only heighten the suspicions of the public, which is left wondering, “What’s going on?” Those suspicions are often unfounded and could be avoided easily, if those who know what’s going on were a little more willing to share some information. This is, after all, a public project, and the public has a right to it.
-Brendan Moran, editor
Send questions/comments to the editors.
