Harrisons Hardware Gets New Lease On Life

The famed downtown landmark Harrison's Hardware will get a new lease on life as a developer has expressed interest in fixing up the old store. Harrison's, has a rather challenged history, it has fallen victim to fire, the Home Depot Superstore, a failed re-development attempt, and city complaints by Historian Tim Chaucer over bird infestations and dangerous sidewalks.

This location is a key location to our downtown re-development and although no formal plans have been submitted the owners of the property have promised to pay heed to the charm and character that the building has come to possess over its many years as a Milford landmark. At the moment a restaurant with attached leasable business locations is one of the ideas on the drawing board.

Some have welcomed the idea of yet another downtown restaurant, others have been more critical because of fears of escalating problems associated with the night life of drinking activity. Some in the comments sections of the blogosphere have said Milford is only one Bar away from becoming the "Sono North" alluding to the drinking and partying pandemonium associated in the South Norwalk business district.

Local crime statistic show that there is a real cause for concern because over the last few years the types of crimes that go along with this type of development have increased significantly. These crimes include Drunk Driving, Public Assaults, and Theft the most common hallmarks of "free flowing" alcohol and loud music.

While this type of development can be beneficial, a special emphasis to crime must be taken into consideration when engaging a new business requiring a liquor permit. Milford's critics may have a point, especially after the many headlines and problems surrounding the already belabored Daniel Street pub and concert hall.

While personally I am very happy to see more improvement to our downtown area, I personally will stress that the developers of that property, the Economic Development Commission and Zoning and Planning use caution and common sense in any approval that could further jeopardize Milford's quality of life. Building any new drinking establishment may have a propensity to attract an unwelcome, late night chantery of drunkards. Milford is already overdeveloped in that area and the wrong type of establishment will further exacerbate our troubles.

Milford's Smart Growth Means Restricting Negative Income Properties

Milford Zoning and Planning has the duty of assigning the land use and improvements made to our community by builders and developers. Milford is a town rich with many resources including open space, small family farms and a growing population.

Every year when our city presents its budget it is forced to contend with the hardships of the promises it has made to its city employees, the cost associated with inflation and the economic situation of the local taxpayers who have to pay for it all.

Thankfully our city does receive some help from the outside world. Our city gets assistance with grants from the state of Connecticut (Devon Revitalization Project, the courthouse, education dollars, etc..) however this money always falls short and tempers flare between property owners and taxpayers.

Last year it was standing room only at city hall, the public in Milford heard that the budget was so severely strained that up to 180 teachers would be layed off and a taxpayer revolt was brewing between those who paid taxes and those who expected quality education from the city. Fortunately no teachers were fired, this is because other cuts were made instead.

The notion of Smart Growth benefiting a community, will only work if the city and Zoning and Planning engage in a policy that is more scientific in its approach of land use management.

This formula should consider how many Negative Income Properties (NIP's) our community can reasonably sustain relative to its Income Producing Properties (IPP's) The difference between the two are simply stated as one type of property like a commercial building or elderly housing will produce more income that the demands of those residents. The other type (NIP's) are those properties like Family Occupied Dwellings with multiple kids in the school system. Those properties consume more revenue than is procured in taxes.

Sustainability of the tax base and Milford's future means driving up the cost of large Family dwellings through the basic principles of artificial scarcity, or the policy of making their proliferation increasingly difficult. Eventually the basic principles of supply and demand will drive up the cost of (NIP's) This will result in lower mill rates, more property tax revenue, and higher resale values for those homeowners who will eventually sell their properties.

The flip side of zoning and planning should be to encourage and ease land use pertaining to commercial development, and the designation of additional senior occupied developments (like Baldwin Station), while encouraging low cost single occupant housing.

Smart Growth is more than just recycling, energy reduction, art, healthy living and all those attributes of its proponents. Smart growth is about building affordable communities that are energy efficient, cost effective and socially balanced. These policies can only be implemented by Zoning and Planning who must pay careful attention to the implications of the permits in which they issue to our town developers.

At all cost, and in my opinion, I believe it is critical to prohibit the development of farms in lieu of "McMansions" and encourage the development of business, senior, and single occupancy apartments if Milford is to resolve its revenue issues in the coming years.

Milford Smart Growth abuses now in the form of a Boardwalk.

Having lived in New Jersey for several years I have come to enjoy the boardwalk. By the estimates put forth in the CT Post article it will be the largest boardwalk in the state.

My first inclination about this boardwalk was glee! Than of course I remembered I do not live near the water. While I love to hike I also have 2 small dogs that would really enjoy a long walk between beaches.

Boardwalks are awesome especially when you are young; they are great places for the youth to congregate at night. I have not seen the official plan but usually after a few misdeeds and random crimes the local homeowners will probably start to scream for lights as if that will improve things. It will drive up the city’s cost of maintaining and policing the boardwalk for certain. It may even warrant hiring more police!

The cost of lighting is amazing, and if these lights come from UI the city will be leasing them for life in addition to an outrageous electric bill. This boardwalk is an ill fated attempt that ultimately results in abuse in the name of "Smart Growth." If this boardwalk was done by the “defacto” autocratic smart growth rules, my guess is that no one who lives on the waterfront was given the courtesy of a phone call or a respectful opportunity to object to it in a zoning court.

This boardwalk will be running right next to people’s property and will have an unknown effect on the type of element it will attract. Hopefully this boardwalk, now that we are apparently stuck with it, will not attract the same elements that the West Haven Boardwalk has attracted.

My last visit to that boardwalk, included a vicious dog fight, Drunks littering, Ill placed Bocce courts, and a circus of people skating, jogging and parading in every direction.

Thank God I do not live on the waterfront, because at my age the pristine view from my back window would not include a public "Smart Growth" pandemonium... unless of course I was 16 again and on vacation at Long Branch N.J. than it might be a blast.

Once again Amann shame on you for redesigning peoples back yards for your "Smart Growth Agenda." What gives you the right to redesign peoples back yards? With all of your spending challenges I find it amazing that you were even able to bilk the state of CT for this ridiculous project. Perhaps you would rather spend this money helping our needy state schools and reconsider.

Rocco J. Frank Jr.

Smart Growth at the Expense of Your Property Rights.

"Smart Growth" for our cities is something I have recently been looking into with a great deal of "Open Mindedness." While "Smart Growth" appears to offer a Utopian approach to land use, there are many unresolved questions. These questions arise out of the pushiness of its promoters to our elected leaders in the public arena and of course whenever something of a new program emerges that is being peddled around the country I naturally get curious. My first instinct is to figure out who started this latest movement. In the case of "Smart Growth" the earliest instance of who thought it up appears to be a 1970's architect Peter Caltorpe. To begin lets focus on Peter. For starters Peter is no slouch in the arena of imposing his ideology on Government and municipalities, as a matter of fact his traveling road show already convinced several cities to implement his "Smart Growth" plan. Peter is someone I know from a documentary entitled "The end of Suburbia." He claims that "Peak Oil" a concept where we will eventually run out of "Cheap Oil" is going to force all of us to abandon our homes in the countryside for more congested cities where life will be cheaper. Peter and I both can agree that oil has no future, but I am pretty sure I am not going to abandon my home in my lifetime and I certainly hope the Hydrogen economy emerges before an oil crash does.

On my website, rfrank118.com and under my agenda I have expressed my opposition to "Smart Growth." It was a hard position for me to take, and I must admit that the temptation of having a picture perfect Utopia, with dedicated open space, artsy historic buildings, biking and hiking trails and happy Americans is amazingly tempting. The part I like the most is the "Green" vision of these utopian cities where we will all use less energy because urban planning will be as such that we will not need to go far for services. Than it occurred to me, we have such a place and it is only a train ride away, you know it too its called "Manhattan."

Aside from the strangeness of creating little Utopian artsy communities of which may or may not be wonderful, I am more against "Smart Growth" on the grounds that it is intent on violating our "Individual Property Rights" it expands the powers of "Eminent Domain," has the effect of upsetting "Real Estate Values" and fills our Town planning offices with "closed minded" idealists that will draft more un-constitutional zoning laws. That aside, lets talk about what else may change with "Smart Growth." For starters, some land such as large parcels of open space will be pressured down in value due to new land use and zoning restrictions. Other homes in the vicinity of where the "Smart Growth" Utopia is built up, the property values "Sky Rocket" making those homes "Un-Affordable." Note these are not my personal objections but rather the results of what has happened in communities where this "Smart Growth" has been tried. Not everyone believes "Smart Growth" has been good for their towns. The objections and concerns that I have mentioned are by people who have experienced smart growth first hand. See the "opponents" reference link below.

While during my campaign for State Representative in Milford Ct. I will welcome any and all suggestions that may help our community and state improve its infrastructure, I am adamantly against anything that will impose sanctions against American individual property rights, and property use. This goes against freedom, It goes against the fabric of a "Free America." While I do admire their ideas, their energy, their resolve and mostly their willingness to convince our elected leaders, I must protest their plan as it further imposes the already "heavy hand" of government upon Americans. Maybe I am wrong, but I sincerely believe that we American's are getting "sick and tired" of being duped out of our freedoms. The Government must protect our individual property rights.

If "Smart Growth" is really that important to a municipality, than that municipality should not abuse its powers to alter real estate values in favor of an experimental ideology. Municipalities intent on smart growth should compete for Real Estate the same as any American. Land owners are entitled to fair value for their property, and municipalities can build whatever they wish, with whatever developer they want. Municipalities also have tools at their disposal such as a "Zoning Board of appeals," and the ability to get a "Variance" from local neighbors for their "Smart Growth" projects. I sincerely believe "Smart Growth" is a great idea, but I cannot agree with it as long as it continues to insist on taking away our individual property rights.

For more information see the below links:

Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_growth

Opponents: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/opposition_toward_smart_growth_g.htm