Originally Posted by Riviera
I disagree. The archeological artifacts, and/or the potential for such artifacts, is a huge issue. Here's why:
1. Generally, absent local regulations to the contrary, a developer is not precluded from disturbing or demolishing land/buildings of historical/archeolological significance. Even a property that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places may be demolished. However, this changes when a developer wants to disturb more than an acre of land.
2. Any time a developer proposes to disturb more than an acre of land, the developer is required to file a for an EPA stormwater permit. Generally, the EPA permit is issued by simply "filling out the form".
3. As part of "filling out the form", the developer is required to certify that they have contacted the State Office of Historic Preservation, and certify that the SOHP has determined that the stormwater activities will cause no harm to properties that contain, or may contain, historical or archeological significant features.
4. If SOHP determines that historic/architectural features may be harmed, the stormwater permit goes into a sort of limbo, where the developer must either preserve or mitigate the harmed historic/archeological disturbance.
5. The developer must then work to appease the SOHP, and show that they have done all they can for preservation. That said, there is no standard/regulation for said preservation. On a property like the drive in theatre, hundreds of thousands of dollars could be spent on planning such preservation/mitigation, with no assurance the SOHP will accept the plan. The goal of the SOHP is preservation and mitigation, and they have a professional, and likely emotional, preference to uphold this goal. As a reference, the City of Laconia spent $90,000 on archeological consultants, just to demonstrate that there was minimal chance of finding artifacts below a sidewalk reconstruction.
6. "If" the SOHP was requesting/requiring that all artifacts on the property be located and preserved, the land is worthless for new development, as millions could get expended to achieve that goal. Finding these artifacts is akin to finding a bunch of needles in acres of haystack. There would likely be a SOHP compromise between total preservation, and some sort of limited preservation/mitigation, but a developer has no way of determining the cost or time it would take to get to such a compromise.
Usually, environmental contamination, if any exists, is more quantifiable, both in terms of discovery, and cost of remediation. Further, laws exist that allow one to "cap" certain types of environmental contamination, provided that contamination is "stagnant", with limited potential for spreading to other properties. This can be relatively inexpensive, as the "cap" is often paving or a concrete floor flab. It is also possible that there are more significant environental risks, but I doubt that the burying of fire debris would be so expensive to mitigate that it would jeopardize Mr Mitchell's development plans that were stated in the press.
Unfortunately, this site may have some serious risks, and those risks will pass to any new developer/owner. Accordingly, the value of the property is compromised, such that a developer will need to mitigate those risks, either through an extended/expensive review of the risks, or a significant reduction in sales price that would mitigate the risks. The current owner could work to quantify these risks, but certainly does not have the experience to do so, and may or may not have the financial fortitude to do so.
The Weirs needs some serious help. Mr. Mitchell could well have changed the landscape for the better, but he is a prudent developer, and probably won't accept undue risk. For the Weirs to see a renaissance, the City is going to need to come to grips with the following:
1. They are going to need to get involved with this sort of development/developer, and and work through the environmental and archeological issues, such that they convince the State that the benefits of redevelopment outweigh the benefits of preservation. There will be strong arguments on both sides, but I suggest that no preservation will never happen if there isn't an eye towards redevelopment
2. They are going to need to come to grips with the fact that properties in the Weirs are not getting redeveloped, because motorcycle week vendor rentals are more valuable, and are less risky, than new development. As long as that is the case, vacant lots are going to trump new development. If there were a ban on temporary vendor rentals on private property, owners would be left with no choice but to redevelop. In the short term, these owners will be VERY unhappy, and such legislation could even cause owners to lose property, as values would drop, at least in the short term. I'd suggest, however, that stakeholders with a longer term vision could be rewarded with a prosperous resort community.
Meredith was a challenge to "fix", and that was in an era of simplified environmental/historical regulation. The Weirs is going to be a bigger challenge, take deep pockets, and is going to take a lot of lobbying to convince the politicians/authorities/landowners that long term change can come with some short term pain and compromise. I'm guessing it won't happen, but I've lived here my entire life, and would love to see it happen.
|