At a recent Public Forum, local ‘activist’ E.J. Bleiler made statements concerning the waterfront area to be developed under the ‘Terms Agreement’ signed by Mark Dickinson and City Manager, Mike Joyal. Bleiler’s commentary made oblique reference to ‘love canal’ and an imaginary price tag of up to $20,000,000 to clean up the area. Bleiler compared the Waterfront development area to the Tolend Road superfund waste site.
Mr. Bleiler’s statements were inaccurate and inappropriate to say the least. Bleiler’s comments are intended to create fear by their inflammatory nature.
What is Bleiler’s purpose? He and a small contingent of supporters have been opposed to the Waterfront Development project from the outset of deliberations. These ‘toxic waste’ charges represent a last ditch attempt to scare (some) councilors and the public and thereby prevent the waterfront’s development from going forward by opposing the funding of what Bleiler described as a ‘bridge to nowhere’. Actually this bridge is a key element of Dover’s long-range traffic mitigation and economic development Master Plan.
Here are facts. The area to be developed includes only 14 acres of the 35-acre tract that comprise the total waterfront parcel. Within the area of proposed development, there are some contaminated soils. GZA Environmental, a highly qualified and respected company in soil analyses analyzed 35 test borings and did find contaminants, but no toxic or hazardous waste! The GZA cost estimate for removal of these contaminants is $500,000, not the $20,000,000 that Bleiler stated at the Public Forum. In addition, the Terms Agreement that the City and Dickinson signed, provide for the project to be abandoned if the cost of contaminant removal exceeds $800,000.
However, if the Council fails to approve the bonding for the Washington Street Bridge there will be several unintended and undesirable consequences.
First, the long-range traffic study, which has cost over $50,000, is designed to mitigate congestion in the City of Dover. The Washington Street Bridge is an integral part of that plan, waterfront development or not. Presently egress from Henry Law Avenue to our ‘downtown’ is up George St or Hanson St, neither of which were ever built for that purpose. The long-term plan for downtown access from Henry Law Avenue utilizes an upgraded River St and the new Washington Street Bridge to access downtown onto two-way traffic Washington St. If the City Council does not support the Washington St. Bridge bond, it will doom that portion of the long-range traffic plan. As a result, egress onto Central Ave. for Museumgoers and Henry Law Ave residents will be an ongoing problem for the foreseeable future.
Second, in anticipation of the eventual development of our waterfront, previous Councils have already invested over $6,000,000 to relocate our City Garage and Recycle Center, as well as having invested $50,000 in a traffic study plan, and several weeks ago, an additional $60,000 to purchase rights of way for the abutments for this same bridge.
Dover’s cost for the Bridge bond is approximately $800,000 of the estimated $4,300,000 with the balance coming from State and Federal funding (which will be lost forever if the Council fails to pass this measure). Dover’s portion will be covered with unspent bonding from other projects as well as the Transportation fund that is funded by a portion of vehicle registrations. There will be very little impact on taxes as a result of this bond issue.
A third unintended and problematic consequence is the almost certain ‘Breach of Contract’ lawsuit that would be filed by the developer. While there is no official information as to the amount of financial commitment already made in good faith by Dickinson Development, it is certain to be a substantial amount, certainly greater than the requested bonding amount. It is safe to say that Dickinson has invested a substantial sum in meeting the requirements provided for in the Terms Sheet Agreement and the Request for Proposals between the City of Dover and Dickinson. Each of these two referenced documents included commitments that the City of Dover would build the Washington Street Bridge to connect Dover’s Downtown to the area that Dickinson would develop.
Based on those signed documents, Dickinson has concluded (accurately) that ‘…we have a deal…’ Therefore it is reasonable to presume that the largest issue is the certainty that the developer will seek more than simple costs. In speaking with a private attorney, it is clear that in such cases the court typically awards costs and the reasonable profits lost as well. Clearly this amount would dwarf the proposed bonding amount.
The City Council and the citizens of Dover are at a crossroads on November 12th. The Waterfront project, having been worked on for over twenty years could come to a screeching halt if the Bridge bond is not approved. In addition to not getting the benefit of an estimated million plus dollars of annual revenue stream (with little impact on service costs), Dover could wind up with an unsolved congestion problem, the stigma of a significant waste of previously spent funds committed to developing the waterfront and a court award of taxpayer money at a probable seven figure level. If the City of Dover reneges on this plan the State and Federal funding will be lost forever; there will be no second chance.
What to do? Speak at the Nov. 12th hearing and communicate with the entire City Council at Allcouncil@ci.dover.nh.us or via phone call or letters. Communicate your support for the Washington Street Bridge bond issue. Make your voice heard.
