[RP TownTalk] Wachovia and the Field of Rubble

Wed Jul 16 11:39:21 UTC 2008

I would also like to add that the litany of requirements imposed upon Caputo by the Town/tenant has to be translated into building permits, right of ways (sewer), road improvements at the Rt 1 intersection, architectural drawings, tenant leases, tenant rights of refusals, build to suit tenant, build to suit Town, construction contracts, endless legal fees, new churches being built (to replace the one thats adjacent to the property, building maintenance on the existing church (to be demolished), appeasement of town residents, etc, etc, etc.  

Imagine owning a property which you want to develop but you can't because of the previous reasons.  At the same time it's eating a hole in your pocket not to mention all of the complaints from Town residents.  If you want something to happen stop complaining and give the guy a hand or we will have another "Jey's Auto" on our hands for the reasons that Dwight articulated.

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
>From: Cranky old Coot <lking at knob.com>
>Sent: Jul 16, 2008 6:36 AM
>To: TownTalk <towntalk at riverdale-park.org>
>Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Wachovia and the Field of Rubble
>
>As Alan said the history of the agreement for what would be done with 
>this peace of _private_ property at Rt 1/410 is long and filled with 
>emotion. Players have come and gone some have changed from one official 
>position to an other.
>>  ... why can't we -- as a community -- tell him what we want to see 
>> there? 
>And we wonder why development has been so slow to come to Riverdale 
>Park?  If this were your house (not your neighbor's house) would you 
>feel the same? First, 'we as a community', want to discuss whether your 
>house will be historically correct; anything from provincial to Federal 
>to Victorian (before the mansion to after) - what you can afford is not 
>part of this discussion. Even after you decide on a design that is 
>historically correct let's discuss it.
>
>Now that "we" have approved what "your" house will be, let us discuss 
>historically correct lead-base paint. Now the color. Now when that is 
>decided, lets go back and require "your" house be multi-family - "we" 
>don't care how reclusive you are. Oh and by the way "we" think your 
>front door should be on the other side.
>
>"We" also have views on your landscaping, where your driveway should be, 
>the number of parking spaces.
>
>Do you still want to build "your" house in Riverdale? Or will you find 
>it easer to build somewhere else? I'm really sorry if you already own 
>the property in town. Now that Riverdale has tipped its hand it will be 
>hard to find someone else to sell  the property to or build on it.
>==
>I'm sure I have overlooked something (Ok the lead paint may be a 
>stretch) but all these topics were part of the council's discussion. In 
>many cases a topic was addressed by both M-C-TC and then again by the 
>council. Time at council meetings was spent discussing where the 
>planters should be and what should be in them; Council members spent 
>time counting parking spaces and the pros and cons of where the front 
>door should be.
>
>The council (I think, maybe it was M-U-TC) required the bank building be 
>a multi use building. How many thriller books/movies do you know of 
>where the basic story line involved tunneling from an office/building 
>into the neighboring bank? Just lately I have seen a NCIS and Sherlock 
>Holmes episodes with this plot element. Logic not withstanding Riverdale 
>may have the only suburban bank with a building tent.
>> Why are we letting developers just offer up development that isn't 
>> right for the area? ESPECIALLY, since that piece of property is one of 
>> the most valuable and visible that this town has.
>I question the view that the development 'isn't right for the area.' 
>Established businesses don't survive, spending money expanding into an 
>area that 'isn't right'. Their criteria may be different than your, but 
>I will bet before they spend millions of dollars they have spend lots of 
>time, and money, making sure the location is right.
>>
>> If there is any redress on this development, it would be great to 
>> know. Maybe we need to rethink how a development like this can get 
>> through the council with a, "well...okay..."
>A review of the council meetings would indicate that is not what 
>happened. But then if more people attended council working and 
>legislative sessions maybe ...
>>
>> Just think about Hyattsville - they stuck to their guns and are 
>> experiencing PLANNED, gradual, steady and hopefully sustainable 
>> development. There might be lesson's learned from our sister 
>> communities as we go down the road of development.
>There may also be a lesson in that the development STOPS at the 
>Riverdale Park line. You can tell where Riverdale starts. Just look for 
>the defunk gas station.
>
>The good news is there is an established process, developed with lots of 
>public input, for controlling the growth of Riverdale Park.
>
>The bad news is there is an established process...    I am a newcomer to 
>Riverdale (~1995) and have seen more businesses leave/close than open. 
>There is Rt 1/410 - Right we now have McDs. How about town center? Ask 
>the Dunn's.  On the up side there is the Farmer's Market however.
>
>COC
>
>_______________________________________________
>TownTalk mailing list
>To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
>TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription processing only
>http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
>
>For more information about Riverdale Park, visit http://www.ci.riverdale-park.md.us