The city is once again considering whether to buy Meadow Street property behind City Hall that could be used for parking or future expansion.
Though it appears unlikely the city will agree to purchase the property from the Lepore property, the Real Estate Committee recently urged councilors to consider it.
“I still oppose it, but this is a democracy,” said city Councilor Frank Nicastro, who heads the real estate panel.
The Lepore family asked the city to reconsider its opposition to the purchase and Nicastro’s committee agreed to let the council debate the issue.
City councilors agreed in 2004 to pay $309,900 for the 73-75 Meadow St. property, which could provide room for about 23 parking spaces behind City Hall.
But the Board of Finance gunned down the plan when it learned the city would have spend another $150,000 or more to demolish the buildings and construct the lot.
Twice since then, the council has taken up the proposal again, each time rejecting the proposed purchase, the last time on a unanimous 2007 vote.
However, before turning it aside, the council had another vote in which it asked then-Mayor William Stortz to try to negotiate a better deal with the Lepores. Backers said the city may need the property someday.
They argued the city is short of parking,, storage and office space for its workforce.
Nicastro said that the possible closure of the courthouse, located above the police department next door to City Hall, would free up a lot of space the city could use more easily.
Nicastro, who also serves as a state representative, said he hopes to keep the courthouse open as part of the next state budget, but acknowledged the effort could fall short.
The council will likely take up the issue at its September 8 meeting.
*******
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
17 comments:
The city is paying for a parking study: why not wait until that is in before the LePore property is purchased?
Where are we getting all this money?
Wow, did the city just win the powerball lottery and not tell anyone? How is it we can afford to buy three properties that do nothing for the welfare of the city. Yes, buying the areas around the park would make it look nice. But so would dropping a bomb on most of the west end.
The mayor and council need to wake up and start cutting costs not spending more.
Then the city could afford it: now it would be out of the question.
$20,000/per paking space, PLUS maintenamce.
Crazy.
How does anyone justify even thinking about this. The unions gave back their raises because the city cried poverty! Her we go again. Stop buying stuff we do not need. Doesn't anybody get it!
attention city officials, read this out loud and see how it sounds. $20,000 per space plus upkeep. keep repeating it. if it still makes sense to you after you have said it a few times then we are truly doomed as a city.
Where is Stortz now that we need him?
They say they need more "space" for parking?
As if the 16 acres directly across the street from City Hall, and now owned by all of us, did not exist and were not currently a VACANT stone and gravel covered wasteland ?
Is this not available parking?
How ridiculous and foolish.
From what planet or from what dimension, do these beings derive their notions?
Surely, they cannot be 3 dimensional beings.
Can they?
We never needed Stortz
Even if the court house was not closed why could the city still not use some of the parking in the garage. It just makes sense the police station is located there why create a outdoor parking area, were vandalism could occur, were the cars are left to the elements, which add wear and tear on the cars and finally walking to the area what if someone falls and slips is not the city responsible for that, plus the fact the we would have some one out on disability and not in a patrol car, the way to go is to use the inside garage to protect all involved
SPEND SPEND SPEND
What will they do when the rainy day fund runs out?
An easy way to solve the problem is to lay off 20% of the workforce at city hall. That way you save your current tax dollars and avoid having to spend future tax dollars on parking.
If not, why not charge employees for parking and have them pay for it? They could always walk. The city engineer does.
Uh, Gary, perhaps you're unaware of the fact that a number of City Hall employees already use the parking garage. Next time you're near the police station, you should stop by the detective division and pick up a clue...cuz, brother, you are clueless.
11:28
But we sure could use him now!
The Parking garage is virtually NEVER fully utilized.
City Hall employees do not like it.
I do believe that at least one official was pushing for acquisition so that the building could be used by the building department, and free up space in city hall.
Made more sense than for parking.
If not, why not charge employees for parking and have them pay for it? They could always walk. The city engineer does.
August 22, 2009 3:52 PM
``````````````````````````
It just might be that walking is just a bit too close to WORK ... City hall employees seem to avoid such activity at all cost . Maybe we should pay for valet service for the "overworked" city staff .
NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay so a number of city employee's do use it, but how many? Also August 23 11:22 am
says that the city employee's do not like to use it, why? Is it poor lighting, maybe not well kept, if these are issues , maybe we should upgrade the lighting and make it a secure area for city employee's only and entrance by electronic key and keep the garage clean, maybe more of or city police and employee's would use it more.
Post a Comment