Stamford mayoral candidate and Board of Finance member David Martin wants Building & Land Technology Corp. (BLT) to succeed in “the transformation in the South End that (it) is orchestrating.”
Martin, a Democrat, wants Bridgewater Associates L.P. to come to Stamford.
He even believes that BLT “has the ability to physically construct a facility here at this site” ”” that being 205 McGee Ave. in Stamford ”” “with modest boat storage and maintenance capability.”
But we question Martin”™s logic ”” or perhaps his motives ”” when he declares, as he did April 20, that he would vote against a licensing agreement struck by Mayor Michael Pavia with BLT. The deal would allow for the relocation of the former Yacht Haven Marina to 205 McGee Ave. to make way for the construction of Bridgewater”™s future headquarters.
Pavia administration officials said the proposed licensing agreement, which would give BLT the right to build a new boatyard using 2.4 acres of city land adjacent to the developer”™s 3.6-acre 205 McGee Ave. property, will be presented to the city”™s Planning Board, Board of Finance and Board of Representatives for approval.
There is no disputing that BLT and the administration of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy bungled the announcement that Bridgewater Associates ”” the world”™s largest hedge fund by assets ”” would build a $750 million headquarters in Stamford”™s South End.
In fact, Pavia claims the first he heard of the massive deal, which includes up to $115 million in state incentives, was when Malloy broke the news to reporters in August 2012.
Pavia, however, has not helped his case. In the eyes of some residents, the mayor has bent over backward to help BLT make the Bridgewater relocation a reality at the expense of boaters who relied on the former Yacht Haven Marina in the city”™s South End.
BLT drew the ire of the city”™s Planning Board when it dismantled the existing boatyard before a plan for its replacement had been submitted to and approved by the board.
But while the Planning Board issued a cease-and-desist order against BLT, Pavia negotiated what appears to be a more-than-accommodating licensing agreement with BLT.
Under the agreement, BLT would fund $5 million in infrastructure improvements; namely, the expansion of the city”™s animal shelter. And lest we forget, BLT has generously agreed to sponsor the city”™s 2014 and 2015 Fourth of July fireworks displays.
Residents have a right to be upset: not only would the former 14-acre boatyard be replaced by a 6-acre outfit, but BLT seems to be getting a plum deal out of the whole exchange. With an election on the horizon, it”™s no surprise that this has become a political lightning rod (Pavia, a Republican, will not seek re-election).
All that said, this development represents an economic windfall for Stamford, and it should not be shoved aside in the name of politics alone.
The city, to its credit, has commissioned an independent consulting agency to look into the boatyard relocation.
The agency was critical of a December 2012 proposal that called for a 3.5-acre boatyard at 205 McGee Ave., saying that it wouldn”™t have provided adequate boat storage space.
In response, Pavia and BLT went back to the drawing board, returning with plans for a larger boatyard and addressing the consultants”™ concerns. The current proposal, which is being reviewed by the consultants in addition to the city boards and commissions, calls for a boatyard that would provide winter storage for 480 boats of all sizes.
Residents and businesses that are dependent on there being a working boatyard in Stamford deserve a fair shake. Likewise, residents and business that are not impacted by the boatyard should have their interests represented as well.
The construction of Bridgewater”™s headquarters would deliver millions of dollars in tax and building permit revenues to the city and would support hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs.
Additionally, the presence of the world”™s largest hedge fund in Stamford”™s South End would likely support thousands of other permanent jobs as a result of goods and services that would be procured by the firm and local spending by Bridgewater employees.
If Martin and any of his fellow board members vote against the licensing agreement after a careful consideration of all the information at hand, then we would have no complaint.
But to reject the plan prior to a thorough review is reckless and endangers any future efforts by the city to attract tenants of Bridgewater”™s caliber.
Comments 1