[RP TownTalk] Wachovia and the Field of Rubble

[Roland Walker]

> has been such a long drawn out process that we will be lucky to have
> Wachovia there in that anything beats a giant swath of rubble.

I hear you! Eight or nine years ago I supported Caputo's development
on the basis that it was a "bird in the hand".  After all of this time
-- always hearing that he was juuuust about to turn the corner -- I
can't say I think of his development as a "bird in the hand".

Supposedly Caputo has never built a two-story building before; I
believe the town could have in the past and should if possible in the
future guide him to sell or partner with someone who knows how to
build a proper multistory building that takes advantage of the zoning.

If he never signed the MOU, I further question his seriousness.

R

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 7:54 AM,  <lisagrob at verizon.net> wrote:
> So where do things stand now? sorry if I missed that. It sounds like this
> has been such a long drawn out process that we will be lucky to have
> Wachovia there in that anything beats a giant swath of rubble.
> Lisa
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at  6:36 AM, Cranky old Coot wrote:
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>