August 26, 2008

Scalia has rejected offer of about $1.5 million for its land

The owner of a sandpit off Barlow Street that the city hopes to use for a new school site has rejected the price that two appraisers determined the land is worth, two city councilors said.
“They just refused the numbers we presented,” said city Councilor Mike Rimcoski.
The rejection of the approximately $1.5 million price tentatively offered to Scalia Construction creates a situation where city leaders need to decide whether to pick a different site or opt to take the property by eminent domain instead.
A decision may be made within weeks when a joint session of the City Council and the two school building committees is held to review the status of the negotiations.
The city plans to build two new 900-student schools, one in Forestville and one in West Bristol. The former Crowley auto dealership on Pine Street has been targeted for the Forestville site.
The status of negotiations with Crowley is less clear, but several officials said that the property there may have to be taken by eminent domain as well.
An appraisal done in January, by Aldieri Associates, pegs the Scalia land’s value at $1.5 million, according to a report given to the Press by an anonymous source.
City Councilor Ken Cockayne said the second required appraisal for the 36-acre site picked a value “very close” to the one by Aldieri Associates.
Cockayne said that despite the refusal by Scalia to accept the appraised price, the deal is “moving forward.”
“Not really,” countered Rimcoski, who has long expressed skepticism about the site.
Rimcoski said the city has to pick up the pace if it wants to finish the architectural plans and begin construction by the “drop dead date” of June 13, 2010 – a date set by the state for the project to get started if Bristol wants to receive 73.9 percent of the funding for the two schools.
Tom O’Brien, the Board of Education member spearheading the effort to build new schools, recently called eminent domain “the fairest and most appropriate way” for the city to take ownership of the land needed for them.
Cockayne said that with the Scalia property, taking the land would not displace families or anyone.
“We’re just fighting over numbers,” Cockayne said.
Rimcoski said he agrees there is “a huge difference” between taking vacant land for a school and kicking families out of their homes for an industrial park or other municipal project.
Another key difference, Rimcoski said, is that if the city takes the land for the schools, it can begin working on the projects immediately.
The court cases that will follow about the price that the owners should receive, he said, won’t delay the work.
The two school panels are currently reviewing proposal from 19 architects interested in doing the detailed work needed for construction on both sites.
City Purchasing Agent Roger Rousseau said that officials “have a good amount of information to go through” just to weed down the number to determine who the finalists are.
The school system’s long-term plan calls for closing Memorial Boulevard Middle School and three older elementary schools – O’Connell, Greene-Hills and Bingham.Students in the other two middle schools, at Northeast and Chippens Hill, would not switch to a kindergarten to eighth grade system when the new schools open, educators have said.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

18 comments:

contemplating my Cockayne addiction said...

NO SCHOOL IN THE SAND PIT!!!

Anonymous said...

This is what happens when you have a bunch of townies (people who never venture very far from Bristol, ex: Ward, Rimjobski, Cocaine, Nicastro, Zop-su etc) running the city. The develop palns that are quite frankly, stupid.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the Scalia pit is the right area for a new school, due to the fact there is no infrastructure in that area at all..no sidewalks or anything. And almost ALL students would need to be bused in. With diesel at $5 a gallon I don't see this as a good plan?? HOWEVER, if there is no way to choose an alternate location, then I agree the City shouldn't pay more than $1.5 million for the land. Mr. Scalia is a greedy man if he wants more than that....it's more than a fair price for some unused sand pits!

Anonymous said...

O'Brien has the votes on the city council to take both sites by eminent domain, which the Scalia family well knows. They just want to rape the residents of Bristol one last time over that sand pit.

Anonymous said...

FYI - to refresh your memory, rimcoski, ward and nicastro did not support the Scalia site - they voted "no" and so did minor, initially, until someone got to him and he changed his vote - again - to a "yes" vote.

Anonymous said...

1:17 - O'Brien had better start recounting his votes.

Anonymous said...

Let's use eminent domain and drive yet one more thriving business out of Bristol . If they aren't smart enough to realise that Bristol is dying then they need to be forced out .

Anonymous said...

To the moron who posted at 12:32pm - most of those poeple opposed the Scalia for different reasons including Ward, Rimcoski, Minor and Zop-Su. Stop trying to be smart - its not working

Anonymous said...

Who is Tom O'Brien that gives him the power of anything?

Anonymous said...

August 26, 2008 7:16 PM aka moron ( I can use the word too, it fits you better):

What exactly are "poeple"(sic)?

Who cares if Nicastro and Rimjobski opposed it 6 months ago? What are they doing now? What are they doing to quell the effort to waste $1.5 million on new schools for about half the city's population? Zop-su didn't oppose this effort. Block and McCauley didn't either.

You call me a name but you know I'm right. These naive townies (who have barely ventured past the borders of Bristol) are not qualified to lead the city. They are clueless lemmings (like you August 26, 2008 7:16 PM) being intimidated and lead by the nose by the school administrators.

PS: I am smart. And I barely have to try, to look smarter than you.

Anonymous said...

Rimcowski voted no to Scalia because he has some personal grudge against Scalia, Ward voted no because he wants it at Roberts because he promised Mize to put it there, Nicastro voted no because he wont spend a dime, Minor voted no because he wants it on Park Street but changed his vote when he saw that wasnt going anwywhere. Block McCauley Cockayne Minor = 4.

Anonymous said...

Who cares...It's their land anyways, we should have no right to take anyone's land from them. The new school system idea is ridiculous anyways. Making K-8 schools is only going to make more trouble. Yes, let's stick 6 year olds with 13 year olds and we can see what kinds of habits they pick up. Oh but wait, it's cheaper....That's all that matters. Why did I have to grow up in Bristol... It has turned into such a dump.

Anonymous said...

1:39a.m - you assume an awful lot when speculating that you have grown up - it is quite obvious that your view is blurred when based on the fact we can factually state that the "proof is in the pablum".

I found a cure for my Cockayne addiction said...

Leave Bingham and McConnell be!

Anonymous said...

Maybe Ward voted against Scalia because IF the city goes with Roberts, then the city will probably buy replacement land from one of his cronies.

Anonymous said...

Ken Cockayne has a hidden agenda.What's wrong with the Roberts land??.Our State delegation can get the Rell administration to work out a deal that satisifies both parties,.With state picking up 70% cost for construction,why not combine the school and the proposed inhancement under one umbrella.Just think we would save the tax payers some money.

Anonymous said...

Hey 1:39 am: there are about ten roads that leave Bristol. Take any one of them. Time's a-wasting!

Anonymous said...

The Roberts property is the wrong place for another school. If we want to build new schools using existing land then we should reconsider using the mall site.

Given the minimum investment of $35 million dollars that the tax payers need to contribute to the schools project it is questionable whether or not Bristol will actually be able to afford the 2 new schools. The impact on the mill rate needs to be clearly explained to the people and examined to ensure that we aren't bankrupting many of our residents who are living on the economic edge. It would be a sad irony if in trying to improve educational opportunities for those families of modest means we end up pushing them out of their home.