Becker Plan Is A Better Value

To The Editor:

“Should the town buy Fairfield Hills?” isn’t an issue any more. The important questions is “How should the town buy Fairfield Hills – directly, or through the Becker plan?” Clearly, the Becker plan gives better value.

“Control” isn’t an issue: under Becker’s revised proposal the town will own all the underdeveloped land. Providing for schools, ball fields, open space and light commercial development isn’t an issue either, because the proposal already includes all of those. The town gets everything except those buildings it has already said it doesn’t want.

The big difference is, Becker’s proposal can do all these great things with other people’s money. Historic tax credits, which the town can’t get, will reduce renovation costs, allowing better quality construction at a lower price – approximately a $3.75 million savings on town buildings, and room to give incentives to attract tenants like the YMCA (how much would the town have to spend to build a 50,000 sq ft gym with two pools?). Tax revenues from the buildings Becker keeps will be used in part to pay off the costs of town building improvements, so our out-of-pocket costs will be lower. Becker estimates his plan will reduce the cost for town facilities by more than $10 million.

“Buy now, even if we later decide to sell” is not cost effective. Fairfield Hills costs $1 million a year for bare-bones maintenance, not to mention the cost of development and environmental clean-up. That’s a lot of dollars forever lost to athletic facilities, new schools or municipal offices, and all the other goodies Becker can provide now. And it’s his risk and his headache.

Sincerely,

Stacey Daves-Ohlin

Beacon Drive, Sandy Hook                                         November 17, 1999