While it's true that the city already owns the former Roberts property, which is one possible location for a new school, putting the building there might not be cheaper than buying a parcel from a private owner.
The reason?
State law requires that the city replace any land purchased for recreation or open space that winds up being used for something else.
That means the city might be forced to buy another similar piece of property if it wants to use the Roberts site on Chippens Hill.
Take a look at city attorney Jeff Steeg's May 2007 opinion on the issue:
Click on this link for a PDF of the opinion
*******
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
3 comments:
By the way, I don't mean to imply there aren't also other problems with the site.
This site makes no sense and if the people who are on the Brd of Finance and running for mayor think they are saving money, they are even worse idiots than I thought. Whast part of replacement land don't they understand? And two schools next door to each other, and as far removed from the West End as they could put it. That makes a lot of sense. Even the mall site makes more sense than the Roberts site.
Did Art Ward get a copy of this memo and he is still pushing for the Roberts property.
More of the same huh?
Post a Comment